Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

ID “disses” faith

William Dembski
November 20, 2005
Intelligent Design
1
Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
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
Crandaddy, I'm saying there's antagonism between science and all revealed religions. Always has been and always will be. Nothing has changed. 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.DaveScot
November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
11:33 PM
11
11
33
PM
PDT
Dave I don't think what you wrote is what I was refering to. I was writing in the context of science not being in contradistinction to or necessarily unable to be usefull for positing or enhancing a theistic ontology because of the advancement of our understanding of the natural world. 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.mentok
November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
11:14 PM
11
11
14
PM
PDT
Good read on deism compared to revealed religions. http://www.deism.com/deism_vs.htm I think Ben Franklin and Albert Einstein would have loved IDT.DaveScot
November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
11:08 PM
11
11
08
PM
PDT
Dave, "The antagonism has always been between science and the Christian faith." I'm not sure I understand. Are you suggesting that science is fundamentally at odds with Christianity?crandaddy
November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
11:05 PM
11
11
05
PM
PDT
mentok "The old antagonism between faith and science is obsolete." No, I think it's alive and well. The antagonism has always been between science and the Christian faith. There's a huge difference between acknowledging that the universe is designed (like Ben Franklin and Albert Einstein) and believing the creator sent his son to die on a cross to redeem the sins of mankind. It seems to me the antagonism is alive and well and based on exactly the same bones of contention.DaveScot
November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
10:44 PM
10
10
44
PM
PDT
Where can I read M(r)s. Ives' detailed critique of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory? She really seems to have it all figured out: Evolution = science/Intelligent Design = faith - really convincing stuff :P.crandaddy
November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
10:19 PM
10
10
19
PM
PDT
Anteater, "Anybody know who said 'Come let us reason together'?" Isaiah 1:18 (KJV) - "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."crandaddy
November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
09:52 PM
9
09
52
PM
PDT
" When we try to prove and promote the metaphysical through the physical — when we muddle faith and science — we are, in effect, saying that faith is not enough, that faith, like science, requires proof. Faith that requires proof is no faith at all." The problem with all of this is that _proving_ something is not really the end point of either ID or Creationism (well, it's _part_ of the ends of creationism). The end point of ID is to allow questions relating to teleology into the realm of science, and to acknowledge intelligent agency as an independent causitive force (and thus open it up to scientific examination). The end point of creationism is to allow historical science and biology to proceed in ways which follow God's word. I wonder if the person attributes the same issues to archaeology as she does to creationism? Should archaeologists stop digging in order to have more faith? If not, then under what rubric should creationists stop their investigations? Likewise, for what reason is a historical source a priori discounted as the starting point for a scientific investigation? If Christ is truly the center of everything we are to do, should not Christians who are biologists disregard common ancestry? Or is there some reason that putting Christ first should not apply to those in the sciences? When people make such arguments (I believe in both the Bible and evolution) it is because their belief in scripture is only as a fairy tale, and not as the history of God's relationship with man. I have a friend with similar beliefs. He is a Biblical scholar, and is very familiar with ancient near east literature. When he reads Genesis, he sees all sorts of gods being argued against and thought processes which are being overturned. However, he only sees how Genesis knocks down the gods of _yesterday_, and totally cannot see the instances where Genesis is knocking down the idols of today (actually, he sees it, but disregards it as myth). He doesn't see how "after their kind" is an attack by Genesis on common ancestry, or how the lineages recorded are attacks on long ages, specifically the long ages of man. He sees only Genesis knocking down thoughts and ideas he never thought of believing in anyway, but when they attack his _own_ beliefs, he says that Genesis 1-11 is mythical. Now, even if you were to believe that Genesis 1-11 is completely mythical, I don't see how it could be useful for debunking gods of the past and not gods of today. It's either useful for debunkings or it is not, whether or not it is history or myth. Of course, many (myself included) would question how it could ever be useful for debunking anything if it were myth.johnnyb
November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT
Neal you wrote: "Mentok I believe she would be referring to the line of theological reasoning articulated by the Apostle Paul, who writes in II Cor. 4 that we “believe in things unseen,” and which is ardently endorsed by Thomas Aquinas, who essentially saw in Anselm’s ontological argument (a logical proof for the existence of God, based solely upon reason) a conflation of faith with epistemological categories of true/false, logical/illogical" Well if you want to believe that fine. I don't and I don't need someone telling me where and how my own faith is supported and where and how it isn't. I don't believe in God based on the "unseen". I "see" God working through everything. I see God through the empirical examination of nature based on the mathematical probablity of things being as they are sans a designing mechinism inherent in nature. I "see" God in the workings of our minds, memory, and ability to utilize them. The physicist "sees" God through the empirical study of the precision and seemingly designed laws of physics. The old antagonism between faith and science is obsolete. Science in it's primitive state was indeed unable to give empirical evidence of God because the scientific knowledge of nature was practically nill. Now that we have a greater understanding of the mechanisms working in the natural world we discover that the natural world is complex to a degree where the laws of probability preclude chance and random events from being seriously considered as an explanation for what is empirically observed. 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
November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT
Take from me -- a long-time resident of the Alamo City -- by linking Susan Ives's column, our host has increased her readership by several orders of magnitude. In fact, those who've posted comments here may be the only human beings who have ever attempted to follow her reasoning for an entire column. The three top reasons people in this city buy the San Antonio Express-News are: 1) For the TV listings, 2) For the classified ads, and 3) For lining the bottom of the bird cage.dchammer
November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
08:40 PM
8
08
40
PM
PDT
Faith without reason or logic is just idiotic.
jboze3131, this is called "fideism" - some consider Kierkegaard a Christian thinker along these lines. Credo quia absurdum, "I believe because it is absurd."Neal
November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT
Hey, there's Lucy again! Nobody has been able to answer my question about the number of chromosomes Lucy has. Does she have the number of: 1) humans 2) chimpanzees 3) none of the aboveDaveScot
November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT
Well I’m glad that Susan has a cute little soapbox from where she can spread the word. Faith is Faith is Faith, Susan. If your faith is not based on logical proof or material evidence, fine. But when were you told by God that faith cannot come from those sources? The Gospel of Susan part 1, we await the second sermon from the mount.
Mentok I believe she would be referring to the line of theological reasoning articulated by the Apostle Paul, who writes in II Cor. 4 that we "believe in things unseen," and which is ardently endorsed by Thomas Aquinas, who essentially saw in Anselm's ontological argument (a logical proof for the existence of God, based solely upon reason) a conflation of faith with epistemological categories of true/false, logical/illogical.Neal
November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT
I'm wondering how she gathers that IC is junk science? I didn't take the time to even see what her credentials are...but no one has put up a reasonable explanation to how IC systems could have arisen. Well, Kenneth Miller thinks that because a mouse trap part can be used for a tie clip and a paper weight- he's done it, but his explanation is absurd. As for her comment here:
"Faith is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."
I'm going to have to disagree. Faith without reason or logic is just idiotic. Is she saying that she believes what she believes about God based on a lack of logical reasoning? Proof? Evidence? And what of "material evidence"- does she base her blind faith on immaterial evidence?! I don't base my faith on a lack of reason, logic, proof, etc...I base my faith on prophecy, historical proof, scientific proof of design, a moral universal law that demands a lawgiver, etc. She can have faith without logic, but most Christians (she says she's a protestant) would disagree with her view.jboze3131
November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT
She writes: "Faith is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Faith falls into the realm of metaphysics — literally, "beyond physics," the branch of philosophy that seeks to explain the nature of reality and the origin and structure of the world." Well I'm glad that Susan has a cute little soapbox from where she can spread the word. Faith is Faith is Faith, Susan. If your faith is not based on logical proof or material evidence, fine. But when were you told by God that faith cannot come from those sources? The Gospel of Susan part 1, we await the second sermon from the mount. Then she wrote: "When we try to prove and promote the metaphysical through the physical — when we muddle faith and science — we are, in effect, saying that faith is not enough, that faith, like science, requires proof. Faith that requires proof is no faith at all." Or maybe we are not "muddling" anything. Maybe you are. The "metaphysical" is experienced at every moment by all of us. We are not physical beings alone. We have mind, consciousness, and thought. Is psychology promoting the metaphysical through the physical methodlogy of science? Is psychology muddling faith and science? Faith is something which can be enhanced or created by objective scientific empiricism regardless of what the naysayers may say. Either was ID is about truth. The people who oppose ID can come up with novel reasons to denigrate ID if they choose to do so. I find that people who promote the closing down of minds, the closing down of discussion, the closing down of free thinking in favor of some half baked spirituality to be fascistic in nature. They want to tell me what to explore and what not to explore. They want to impose their religious beliefs on me and they want to silence people who have different beliefs then their own. The demagogues may bark, but the caravan, as it were, goes on.mentok
November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT
"Faith that requires proof is no faith at all." Anybody know who said "Come let us reason together"?anteater
November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT
Amazing. On Sunday, this little genius says: "I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and Earth!" But on school days, she says: "God cannot have made heaven and earth, no way! For in leaving His signature on His creations, He would only have succeeded in cheapening my precious faith in my own eyes!" It's not about God, or science, or nature; it's all about this little lady's psychological state. Where do these people come from, and why are there so many of them?neurode
November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply