Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

ID “disses” faith

William Dembski
November 20, 2005
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

. . . Intelligent design disrespects faith, discounts faith, destroys faith. . .

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/columnists/sives/stories/MYSA112005.3H.ives.1a957b69.html

Comments
I'll concede that deists go too far in saying the creator is "God" but maybe they're just using it as a generic word for a creator of the universe. However, I still don't see any articles of faith. It doesn't require faith to view the universe as an intricate clockwork, even 250 years ago and it's even more evident today. That's strictly observation. It doesn't require faith to say that clockworks require clockmakers. Again, it's simple observation. And no, I'm still agnostic as I'm not certain that deists are correct. But if I had to bet on it I'd bet that way.DaveScot
November 21, 2005
November
11
Nov
21
21
2005
09:35 PM
9
09
35
PM
PDT
Dave, Back to where we were yesterday... "Be a sport and tell me exactly what those faith-based assertions are." Two things stand out to me: 1) The section is an apology for Deism; hence, the author asserts that God exists. Whether He exists outside of one's own mind or not, is God not an abstract concept that cannot be subjected to direct scientific empiricism? I don't see how He is. Neither does the author attempt to offer a logical proof for the existence of God. What he does is offer arguments to support a position of faith. 2) The author also asserts that all "revealed religions" are artificial or man-made (i.e. not genuinely revealed by God). Consider the following two quotes. "all the absurdities of revealed religion are responsible for many sincere thinking people to reject and close their minds to natural religion/Deism. The priests, ministers, and rabbis need to suppress, or at least complicate, the pure and simple belief and realization of Deism for their own job security." and "Because Deism is based on nature, the laws of nature, and the creation, it is a natural religion as opposed to revealed or man-made artificial religion." The author makes his case, but his positions are still rooted in faith. BTW, I'm just curious, have you converted from Agnosticism to Deism? Davidcrandaddy
November 21, 2005
November
11
Nov
21
21
2005
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT
These things are better called presumptions based on past performance.DaveScot
November 21, 2005
November
11
Nov
21
21
2005
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT
Science assumes faith because it assumes the laws of nature will be the same tomorrow and were the same yesterday. A faithless system cannot account for that or give a good reason for that. A theist can.geoffrobinson
November 21, 2005
November
11
Nov
21
21
2005
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT
Neal you wrote: ”Mentok, what then is the difference between “faith”/”belief” and “knowledge” then? You’re conflating the two, and you have several hundred years’ of the history of philosophy worth answering to if you want to make them the same thing.Second, who ever said I believe in fideism? I simply said what that sort of belief was called. Methinks you’re ready to bash me no matter what I say" Knowledge is objective, faith or belief is subjective. I wasn't conflating the two. I didn't say you believed in fideism. I didn't bash you in my own estimation, go back and re-read what I wrote, if someone disagrees with you and you call that being bashed, so be it.mentok
November 21, 2005
November
11
Nov
21
21
2005
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT
You go dodgingcars! Git your activism on. ;)Bombadill
November 21, 2005
November
11
Nov
21
21
2005
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT
I sent her an email questioning her believe that faith needs to be blind. I asked if the Big Bang was a destroyer of faith... If history and archaelogy are destroyers of faith... If Paley was a destroyer of faith. I reminded her that IDs examples (and approach) may be new, but the arguement is thousands of years old and it apparently did not destroy faith. I asked her if the Bible truly asked us to be blind in our faith... or if maybe it valued to some degree: wisdom and intellect. Didn't Paul in Romans 1 says that God's invisible qualities are made known to everyone through his creation? Isn't ID, in some exploring this idea? Can we detect design in nature and therefore reason there was a designer?dodgingcars
November 21, 2005
November
11
Nov
21
21
2005
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
Sorry, to clarify: When did I ever say that my beliefs were those of Paul in that verse? I was trying to explain that that line of theology is long-standing. And second, I should have asked you: Is faith KNOWING something?Neal
November 21, 2005
November
11
Nov
21
21
2005
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT
Mentok wrote: "What is faith? Faith is belief in something. Belief can be based on philosophy, empirical observation, direct experience, lack of experience and knowledge, or sentimentalism. Those who tell me that empirical observation cannot give rise or enhance belief in something where previously there was no empirical data to support that belief are wrong. The opposite is true." Mentok, what then is the difference between "faith"/"belief" and "knowledge" then? You're conflating the two, and you have several hundred years' of the history of philosophy worth answering to if you want to make them the same thing. Second, who ever said I believe in fideism? I simply said what that sort of belief was called. Methinks you're ready to bash me no matter what I say.Neal
November 21, 2005
November
11
Nov
21
21
2005
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
"And I'm sure glad that it doesn't, because irreducible complexity is junk science. A faith based on junk science turns into a junk faith. I believe. That's good enough." Just more proof that Creationists *hate* ID! I love it!mtgcsharpguy
November 21, 2005
November
11
Nov
21
21
2005
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
Depends on what Biblical truth. It's certainly at odds with the story of Noah and the Ark. Two of every animal won't fit into an ark of 40 cubits and no one could gather them all - how do you propose Noah collected penguins and kangaroos? It's at odds with people living to be many hundreds of years old. It's at odds with the order in which living things appeared in Genesis. It's at odds with people turning into pillars of salt. I don't see any way to reconcile these bible stories and scientific reality without compromising either science or biblical literalness. Being a man of science and reason it's an easy choice for me to make. If it's any consolation at least we agree on Lucy. More importantly and more to the point of this blog we seem to agree on the objective evidence of design in nature.DaveScot
November 21, 2005
November
11
Nov
21
21
2005
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
I've yet to be shown how scientific discovery is at odds with Biblical truth. It certainly seems that with every significant discovery in the scientific realm and with every new turn of the archaeologist's spade, we have more confirmation of the Bible's reliability. And I've yet to be convinced that "Lucy" was anything more than an extinct animal species which we do not share a lineage with. I invite someone to try and convince me, however. I'm more objective than you may think. ;)Bombadill
November 21, 2005
November
11
Nov
21
21
2005
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT
Hey Boze Whatever! Talk to the hand.DaveScot
November 21, 2005
November
11
Nov
21
21
2005
01:03 AM
1
01
03
AM
PDT
I'm totally relaxed... ...maybe you haven't seen all his comments, or maybe you just don't agree. To say that the bible writers are a bunch of lice infested beduins, and imply that they're fools somehow is rude. To say someone is basically a fool for believing in an immaterial soul (as I believe Dembski himself does- which is the only reason I questioned Dave to begin with! Which got me the "piss off" response.) It's just uncalled for. His comment here, there's no need to talk down to me for 1. and 2. his comment about "the truth hurts" was meant to cause trouble- makes it fairly obvious he's making the rude statements in order TO start trouble. If you don't agree with everything Dave says, he comments that you're somehow silly or naive or dumb to believe in certain things (a spirit realm, for example, the afterlife as another example.) Others don't behave like that. Dave shouldn't either.jboze3131
November 21, 2005
November
11
Nov
21
21
2005
01:00 AM
1
01
00
AM
PDT
Dave, It's late. I'll continue with this tomorrow.crandaddy
November 21, 2005
November
11
Nov
21
21
2005
12:48 AM
12
12
48
AM
PDT
Josh, Hey, man, I don't mean to be rude, but you really need to chill. I'm a Christian, too, and I haven't found anything that Dave has posted to be blatantly offensive. Just take a deep breath and relax.crandaddy
November 21, 2005
November
11
Nov
21
21
2005
12:46 AM
12
12
46
AM
PDT
Crandaddy "in the link you provided is fundamentally established on faith-based assertions" Be a sport and tell me exactly what those faith-based assertions are.DaveScot
November 21, 2005
November
11
Nov
21
21
2005
12:41 AM
12
12
41
AM
PDT
"newer understanding of the natural world provided by modern science makes empirical knowledge of the natural world compatible with a theistic ontology" I disagree. I gave you examples (Franklin & Einstein) who found that empirical knowledge of the natural world led straight to deism through nothing but reason. The empirical knowledge of nature has grown in scope, but not in kind, and was already sufficient in scope centuries ago to support non-specific theistic ontology. I also further stipulate that the greater empirical knowledge has done nothing to change the relationship between science and religions based on faith in revelation (specific theistic ontology). I'm aware of no new empirical knowledge of the universe that weakens or enhances scientific consideration for revealed theism. I think you misunderstood what I meant by science rejecting faith. Science has nothing to say about faith in religion. Science is silent on religion. Science rejects faith in things that are scientific in nature. Science admits only empirical evidence into its domain (or at least it's supposed to). Faith is not empirical evidence. "revealed religions posit that God created the world" It's more than that. Revealed religions posit that God revealed himself and his relationship to the world through prophets and scriptures. "the doctrine of a creator God based on probability concepts" This is more or less deism which is quite different from revealed religions. Deism uses reason and observation of nature to deduce a creator. Ronald Reagan illustrated it nicely when he said "When you eat a meal in a fine restaurant do you doubt the existence of a chef?"DaveScot
November 21, 2005
November
11
Nov
21
21
2005
12:39 AM
12
12
39
AM
PDT
Dave, you've now clearly proven not only your arrogance, but your rudeness, and your ignorance as well. This comment isn't mean to be rude to Christians? Your reply here is an attempt to cause trouble: "Is there some part of “lice ridden beduins” you believe is inaccurate? Speak right up. Maybe the truth just hurts." If you don't think that's rude- you might want to take some classes on civility. No one is trying to get anyone banned. Your comments towards religion are just uncalled for. You have, in the past few days, said numerous rude things about Christians and how absurd it is to believe what they do...you made fun of myself and Bombadill for believing in an immaterial soul. As if we're fools for believing such a thing. Your rude comments towards religion are uncalled for...I'm sure most here would agree. You know quite well that your lice infest quote was rude...it was intended to be rude. But you can pretend that's not the case if you want. You know very well that any Christian would take extreme offense to that...especially considering it's not even accurate- you try to pain the writers of the text is ancient fools. Hardly. I'm not threatened Dave...it's rather funny that you'd imply YOUR comments are threatening my religious beliefs. I mean, I'm sitting here gaping open mouth in shock at my insecurity, especially after you mentioned your knowledge of Christianity comes from a series of fictional novels! You're far from open minded. When Bombadill posited an immaterial soul- your first comment reply was what? "Spare me!" Does that sound open minded to you? I doubt anyone here would find that very open minded. That and your implication that theists and anyone who believes in a supernatural realm are fools for thinking that way- that's the epitome of close minded. I've noticed you've had conflicts with at least 2 or 3 other people...I have a feeling your social skills are lacking, and you're just plain rude (as I've seen in your comments to others.) My first reply from you was when I asked why Christ was your role model even tho you think the bible is bogus. Your reply was "piss off", I believe. Someone so short tempered and rude need not talk down to me and call me young man or boy. No one is trying to put religion into science Puck...these are TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES. Your comments at PT show you lack the common sense to figure out that concept. I was, and others were also, discussing RELIGION. Not science. Try to keep up.jboze3131
November 21, 2005
November
11
Nov
21
21
2005
12:25 AM
12
12
25
AM
PDT
Dave The case for Deism, as opposed to revealed "religions" (I have a problem with faith being equated with religion.), in the link you provided is fundamentally established on faith-based assertions. All faith-based assertions and anything predicated upon them are essentially out-of-bounds as far as science is concerned. This is as much true for the resurection of Jesus as it is for the assertion that God exists. Faith-based assertions are irrefutable by science because they are essintially concepts that lie beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. The only time science can ever really disconfirm a faith-based assertion is when an aspect of nature previously believed to have been the province of divine agency is demonstrated to actually be that of natural regularity. The reason I say "disconfirm" instead of "disprove" is because science can never actually disprove anything. The best it can do is render an explanation implausible by virtue of Ockham's Razor. Dwelling on faith issues like this not only strays from the intended topic for this blog, namely ID, but also has a nasty way of generating strife. Why do I have the feeling that I'm preaching to the choir with this stuff? Did you not say this in the previous thread?: “Less bible thumping and more NFL thumping seems to be in order.” to which I responded, "I agree with Dave. There are places you can go for heated theological debate, but this blog is not one of them. Besides, I think we all realize there are people who love to falsely equivocate ID with theology. Let’s not give them fuel to add to their fire." We share common ground here, Dave, and (I hope) mutual respect. Let's not compromise either.crandaddy
November 21, 2005
November
11
Nov
21
21
2005
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT
Back on topic. ID doesn't "disrespect" faith but it does nothing to reinforce it either. ID is a clinical analysis of complexity in nature. It's not faith. Its science and math and reason. And that's exactly what I like about it.DaveScot
November 21, 2005
November
11
Nov
21
21
2005
12:18 AM
12
12
18
AM
PDT
Dave you wrote: me-"“Scientific knowledge might be at odds with specific theological doctrines of whatever type but no longer is science antgonistic to some type of theistic ontology.” dave-I’m still not getting you. Can you give me examples of an antagonist situation in the past that’s no longer antagonistic today to illustrate your point?" I'm not saying there is no possibility of antagonism between science and faith in people's minds, I'm saying that there is no longer any reason for it because the newer understanding of the natural world provided by modern science makes empirical knowledge of the natural world compatible with a theistic ontology. Of course many people will disagree with that assessment, but it is true nevertheless. Dave you also wrote: "I’m saying there’s antagonism between science and all revealed religions." There may be specific religious doctrines which are not addressed by or refuted by empirical evidence but that doesn't mean that all religious doctrines and all theistic conceptions are at odds with science. Science can only go so far, it can help us see some of the mechanisms of the natural world but science isn't of any value when it comes to most theological doctrines. Science can't tell us what God is like but can show that some type of intelligence is inherent within the natural world. Science can't tell us that God isn't Jesus but is Zeus, or that reincarnation is true or not, or that hell is true or not, or that heaven is real or false. Science can't confirm or deny original sin nor karma. Science doesn't address most theological doctrines, therefore it is not antagonist towards them. While there are some theological doctrines which are incompatible with scientific discoveries e.g cosmology, those doctrines are not the be all and end all of most religious doctrines. Then you wrote: "Science rejects faith (and it mostly does if you discount faith in St. Charles Darwin) and instead requires empirical evidence and reason to establish truth (without getting pedantic about the definition of “truth”). It will never acknowledge the truth of any revealed religion unless the deity(s) manifest in a measurable, repeatable way. This upsets many of those with faith that their revealed religion is true." Well that is patently false. Science may reject specific religious doctrines of one type or another but not simply faith in God. Most revealed religions posit that God created the world and humanity and everything else. The revelations of the new physics, biochemistry, etc, clearly when viewed in an unbiased fashion support the doctrine of a creator God based on probability concepts. M.I T physicist Gerald Schroeder wrote a book showing just that called 'The Hidden Face Of God: How Science Reveals The Ultimate Truth'.mentok
November 21, 2005
November
11
Nov
21
21
2005
12:17 AM
12
12
17
AM
PDT
Hey...at least DaveScot is still trying to leave religion out of science... Jboze seems like he would celebrate if the USA declared his belief the official religious belief of the nation....but only if they choose his "correct" beliefpuckSR
November 21, 2005
November
11
Nov
21
21
2005
12:13 AM
12
12
13
AM
PDT
Is there some part of "lice ridden beduins" you believe is inaccurate? Speak right up. Maybe the truth just hurts. From my POV you seem like someone whose faith is teetering on the edge of disbelief and you lash out at anyone who doesn't hold your hand and whisper sweet revelations in your ear to reinforce your faith. Don't shoot the messenger. Then in a most unChristian manner you bear false witness to what I've said in a transparent attempt to get Dembski to ban me. Shame on you, young man. Maybe you should go find yourself a nice bible support group and stop interacting with open minded adults who might say things that threaten your personal beliefs.DaveScot
November 21, 2005
November
11
Nov
21
21
2005
12:11 AM
12
12
11
AM
PDT
The Deist Roots of the United States of America http://www.deism.com/DeistAmerica.htm
Latter Deists were to completely reject any idea of revelation and base their ideas of God simply on the application of their reason on the creation. The order of nature to them was evidence of design. The design they detected in nature lead them to believe there is a Designer of nature, which is God.
Sound familiar? Anyone... anyone... Ferris Bueller... anyone?DaveScot
November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
11:59 PM
11
11
59
PM
PDT
lice infested beduins is how you described the writers of the bible. sorry. i take it back, your many mocking comments of late are a sign of your adoration. silly me.jboze3131
November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
11:42 PM
11
11
42
PM
PDT
dave- please. youre nobodys boss on this blog, no matter how much you think you are. youre the one who flips out if someone questions why you think this or that. so lets not talk about 'boys' you have mocked christianity at least 5 or 6 times in the past few days. i merely question why you post to dembskis blog if you think hes a quack with his worldview. no one is putting words in your mouth- the numerous comments --"spare me" (with your ideas of the supernatural! for one-- speak volumes.jboze3131
November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
11:40 PM
11
11
40
PM
PDT
Boze, I'd really appreciate it if you'd stop putting words in my mouth. I don't despise Christianity. I don't have any faith in it and I say why I don't. Grow up little boy.DaveScot
November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
11:38 PM
11
11
38
PM
PDT
"Scientific knowledge might be at odds with specific theological doctrines of whatever type but no longer is science antgonistic to some type of theistic ontology." I'm still not getting you. Can you give me examples of an antagonist situation in the past that's no longer antagonistic today to illustrate your point?DaveScot
November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
11:36 PM
11
11
36
PM
PDT
from the ridiculous link dave posted:
"Since we know we did not create the creation or ourselves, yet we and the creation do exist, it is logical to believe that God, or an Eternal Cause or Creator created us. This belief has absolutely nothing to do with revealed religion. In fact, all the absurdities of revealed religion are responsible for many sincere thinking people to reject and close their minds to natural religion/Deism. The priests, ministers, and rabbis need to suppress, or at least complicate, the pure and simple belief and realization of Deism for their own job security. And the power elites have no use for Deism because they can't use Deism to "inspire" mankind to wage war against itself for the elitists' own selfish purposes. In fact, Deism, by focusing on the first creed of all religions, belief in God, could frustrate the war/money machine permanently."
i still have to wonder why he posts at dembskis site considering he despises christianity so much.jboze3131
November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
11:35 PM
11
11
35
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply