There was once a time when the English produced some of the finest minds in history. The island once gave the world such giants as Newton, Shakespeare, and Milton, as well as lesser titans such as Churchill, Tolkien, and C.S. Lewis. Sadly, the British Empire no longer produces such geniuses. The once great country is forced to scrape the dregs of its populace just to produce someone worthy of the title “intellectual.” What an embarrassment it must be for them to be reduced to selecting as their “top public intellectual” the zoologist Richard Dawkins.
This list of Britain’s top 100 public intellectuals was put together by Prospect so the choice of Dawkins may say more about the intellect of the magazine’s readers than it does about the British mind. Still, it is an unfortunate choice. For a man who considers himself to be a “bright” he is not all that, well,…bright.
Obviously, Dawkins is a man of considerable intellect. I don’t dispute that. But a high IQ does not necessarily make a person “smart” much less a reputable intellectual. (If it did then Ted Kaczynski would hold a place in the pantheon of American thinkers.) The problem with Dawkins is not with the quantitative state of his intellect but with the qualitative state. If Robert Reich can be considered an “intellectual gimp” then Dawkins is an “intellectual quadriplegic.”
Dawkins is one of a number of silly people who have taken to calling themselves “brights.” The adjective has been co-opted in order to give atheists a noun that is “succinct, uplifting, positive.” The term atheist is considered too dour while “bright”, like the euphemism “gay” for homosexual, is considered more positive.
So what does it mean to be a “bright?” According to Dawkins, “A bright is a person whose world view is free of supernatural and mystical elements. The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic world view." By his own definition, though, Dawkins is not very “bright” at all. While he may be an ardent advocate of naturalism, he doesn’t even bother to base his “ethics and actions” on such a worldview.
Dawkin’s first and most controversial book was The Selfish Gene, a work that sealed his reputation as a popularizer of science. In the book he posits the idea that genes (as opposed to individual organisms or even species) are the primary engines of the evolutionary process. Saying that genes are “selfish” does not imply that they have actual motives, of course, it just implies that they act as if they do. Biological orgnanisms are simply the vehicles that carry the genes along. ("A chicken is just an egg's way of making more eggs.”) While the idea might imply a form of genetic determinism, Dawkins is quick to point out that although we may be influenced by our genes, we are not controlled by them. How he knows this is a fact is quite the mystery.
The primary problem with Dawkin’s view is that it is purely descriptive. If his idea is really true, then there is no prescriptive basis from which to base “ethics and actions.” Like all naturalistic ethics, it faces the impossible task of deriving ought from is. The logical conclusion based on naturalism is that there is no such thing as ethics; there is only what people do. Concepts such as “good” and “right” simply don’t exist outside of the individual’s mind.
Dawkins, like almost every naturalist, is unable to follow his beliefs to their logical conclusion. When Christians fail to live, as they believe, they are considered hypocrites. When atheists do the same, they are considered “humanists.” In fact, Dawkins is a prominent member of the Council for Secular Humanism even though almost none of the beliefs of the philosophy can be derived from his naturalistic worldview.
For a man dedicated to the belief that the only true knowledge is derived from experience, Dawkins is surprisingly honest about science’s inability to determine moral norms:
When the religious education class turns to ethics, I don't think science actually has a lot to say, and I would replace it with rational moral philosophy. Do the children think there are absolute standards of right and wrong? And if so, where do they come from? Can you make up good working principles of right and wrong, like "do as you would be done by" and "the greatest good for the greatest number" (whatever that is supposed to mean)? It's a rewarding question, whatever your personal morality, to ask as an evolutionist where morals come from; by what route has the human brain gained its tendency to have ethics and morals, a feeling of right and wrong?
That’s an excellent question. Unfortunately, Dawkins fails to provide an answer in that essay, though he does hint at it in another:
The question, "What is right and what is wrong?" is a genuinely difficult question that science certainly cannot answer. Given a moral premise or a priori moral belief, the important and rigorous discipline of secular moral philosophy can pursue scientific or logical modes of reasoning to point up hidden implications of such beliefs, and hidden inconsistencies between them. But the absolute moral premises themselves must come from elsewhere, presumably from unargued conviction.
Notice that Dawkins is claiming that moral beliefs are based on a priori premises. The raises the question of where we get such beliefs in a world comprised solely of matter. Since he believes that our minds are epiphenomenonal (“Consciousness arises when the brain’s simulation of the world becomes so complete that it must include a model of itself” - The Selfish Gene) he has no basis for believing that morals are beliefs that are rooted in objective facts or evidence. This poses a problem for him since he considers that all concepts that are not based on evidence fall within the realm of “faith.” And, as he likes to point out:
Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence. The worst thing is that the rest of us are supposed to respect it: to treat it with kid gloves.
Allow me to take off the kid gloves for a moment and make a simple observation: Dawkins is an intellectual hypocrite. He claims that “ faith is one of the world's great evils” and yet bases not only his moral beliefs but also his beliefs about science on this very concept. “Faith, being belief that isn't based on evidence,” says Dawkins, “is the principal vice of any religion.”
In other words, morality and science are based on “one of the world’s greatest evils.”
The fact that Dawkin’s ideas are inherently flawed shouldn’t surprise anyone who has ever read his writings. As the philosopher Peter Williams has pointed out, Dawkin’s arguments are flooded with logical fallacies. Williams was able to document self-contradictions, question begging, false dilemmas, equivocation fallacies, non sequiturs, special pleading, wishful thinking, red herrings, straw men, ad hominems,and poisoning the well fallacies in his most popular works. Just about any of Dawkin’s works could be used as a textbook example of how to present a sloppy argument.
To his latest collection of essays, Dawkins’ has given the self-referential title, “The Devil’s Chaplain.” This is a bit of an overstatement. While he might have a propensity to demonize religious views his own self-refuting beliefs and his fallacious arguments are so easily dismissed that he doesn’t rate the moniker of “the devil’s alter boy.” I’m sure even Satan would be embarrassed to be associated with such an intellectually inept thinker. After all, even the Prince of Lies can see the obvious – that while Dawkins may be intelligent, he ain’t all that bright.
Congratulations, Joe. You're getting better and better at writing the sort of two-bit-hack hit pieces that the NY Post loves to publish. They should be calling you any day now.
I also love the fact that you patently ignore the fact that your "naturalism is a self-refuting worldview" argument has been completely eviscerated by Kevin T. Keith and others, and still put it forth in your arguments as though it were gospel truth.
Personally, I find the "bright" designation to be a bit silly and egocentric. But even if you disagree with Dawkins' philosophical foundations, that's no reason to undermine either his scientific contributions or to disparage the entirety of England. (Jingoistic undertones are getting to be uncomfortably common here, I'm afraid.)
This misrepresents what naturalism says, and I think you realize that. When a naturalist says there is no such thing as "ethics," he says it in the same way that he says that there is no such thing as Arizona. It exists as a human-created abstraction, that is useful and convenient, but doesn't exist in any real, physical form "out there." But we've gone round and round on this type of thing dozens of times, and I don't expect to get anywhere on it now.Oh, really? Please enlighten me: how do humanists fail to live as they believe? This ought to be good.Oh, come off it, already. In order to make that giant logical leap, you must assume that anything not conclusively proven is not based on any evidence whatsoever, and as such is a "leap of faith." Sorry, but what you're selling, I ain't buying.See, there's the type of thing that the Post is looking for. Keep honing it, and pretty soon you'll have a new career spweing irrational hate on its pages.Dawkins doesn't speak for scientists on matters of faith anymore than the guy who delivers your pizza Joe.
Tgirsh,
Congratulations, Joe. You're getting better and better at writing the sort of two-bit-hack hit pieces that the NY Post loves to publish. They should be calling you any day now.
I kinda figured this one would get you fired up. ; )
I also love the fact that you patently ignore the fact that your "naturalism is a self-refuting worldview" argument has been completely eviscerated by Kevin T. Keith and others, and still put it forth in your arguments as though it were gospel truth.
First of all, I have to commend you for making it all the way through one of Kevin’s comments. Normally, I have to break the reading down over several days.
Naturally, I disagree that he even came close to refuting much less eviscerated my claims about naturalism. But that argument can be saved for another day. My claim is that Dawkin’s worldview, as he presents it, is self-refuting.
Personally, I find the "bright" designation to be a bit silly and egocentric. But even if you disagree with Dawkins' philosophical foundations, that's no reason to undermine either his scientific contributions or to disparage the entirety of England. (Jingoistic undertones are getting to be uncomfortably common here, I'm afraid.)
If he really has made some significant scientific contributions (a debatable point) then I would be glad to praise him for it. He must have them buried underneath his pile of logical fallacies. And as for England, if that is truly the best public intellectual that they can find then they deserve to be disparaged.
It exists as a human-created abstraction, that is useful and convenient, but doesn't exist in any real, physical form "out there."
True. The problem is that Dawkin’s thinks that such abstractions should be dismissed.
When atheists [fail to live as they believe], they are considered “humanists.”
Oh, really? Please enlighten me: how do humanists fail to live as they believe? This ought to be good.
Take, for example, there claim that:
None of these concepts can be derived from the physical world. And since the physical is all that exists, they have no explanation for where these ideas come from.
Oh, come off it, already. In order to make that giant logical leap, you must assume that anything not conclusively proven is not based on any evidence whatsoever, and as such is a "leap of faith." Sorry, but what you're selling, I ain't buying.
To make that “logical leap” all I had to do was hop over to wikipedia:
For you to have made a “giant logical leap” would have required that you take the “leap of faith” into the a priori acceptance of logic.
See, there's the type of thing that the Post is looking for. Keep honing it, and pretty soon you'll have a new career spweing irrational hate on its pages.
Irrational hate? First of all, it’s not “irrational” but based on reason and observation applied to the writings of Richard Dawkins. Second, I don’t “hate” Dawkin’s at all. Just because I don’t think he is nearly as “bright” as he thinks he is does not mean that I despise him. I grow weary of his silly anti-religion crusade but I have no personal animosity toward the man.
D.S.,
Dawkins doesn't speak for scientists on matters of faith anymore than the guy who delivers your pizza Joe.
I completely agree. In fact, I doubt he speaks for many scientists on matters of science either.
Keep in mind, though, that I didn't claim he did.
I think Dawkins is nothing more than a skilled writer who is able to convince the public that he is a better scientist (and thinker) than he really is.
Excellent post Joe. Naturalism has no way to get past the word "ought."
A couple comments:
----“Faith, being belief that isn't based on evidence,” says Dawkins, “is the principal vice of any religion.”----
Just out of curiosity, Joe, do you use the strange "Christian" definition of "faith" that others have proposed on your blog (i.e., faith means "looking at the evidence and deciding based on the evidence")?
And Joe, you also say,
"For you to have made a “giant logical leap” would have required that you take the “leap of faith” into the a priori acceptance of logic. "
Um, Joe, do you believe that in your continuous stream of posts "proving" this that or the other thing that you don't "a priori" accept "logic"?
Honestly, I'm not sure that the term "a priori" has any meaning whatsoever in the absence of "logic."
Didn't Dawkins and others pick the term "Bright" because it's the opposite of "Dim"?
As in "Dim Bulb" (American expression for "stupid")?
P.S. And 'tgirsch' can chant with all the Trekkies:
"The Bible? That Primitive Supersition (TM)? WE'VE EVOLVED BEYOND ALL THAT!"
Is there ever going to be a point when tgrish, Larry, DS, and the rest of these fools get sick of us miserable, hopeless, Christians that they finally leave us all alone to enjoy your commentary Joe? I can only hope. They contibute nothing.
Larry, again I offer Hebrews 11:1
Sakik19 writes
"Is there ever going to be a point when tgrish, Larry, DS, and the rest of these fools get sick of us miserable, hopeless, Christians that they finally leave us all alone to enjoy your commentary Joe? I can only hope. They contibute nothing."
Unlike your posts, Sakik19? Spare me.
As the philosopher Peter Williams has pointed out, Dawkin’s arguments are flooded with logical fallacies. Williams was able to document self-contradictions, question begging, false dilemmas, equivocation fallacies, non sequiturs, special pleading, wishful thinking, red herrings, straw men, ad hominems,and poisoning the well fallacies in his most popular works.
Assuming it's true that Dawkins is a sloppy or dishonest arguer, why should we be surprised? On the basis of Dawkins' worldview, arguing dishonestly cannot be considered wrong.
Steve in Corona offers to address the perculating conundrum posed by other posters relating to a facially contradictory "Christian definition" of faith. The solution, Steve claims, may be found in Hebrews 11:1, which reads
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
Well, Steve, that's pure poetry. The "substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Rather beautiful, isn't it? Can I tell you what it means, Steve?? It means that "faith" is a belief in something in the absence of any evidenceThere is nothing in that verse which conflicts with the definition of faith that "human beings" have been working with for a long long long time.
Thanks for the cite!
Joe:
So the guy is detail-oriented. You demand people drill down to the finest details, and then disparage their posts as long-winded when they comply. Nice.Really? Prove it. I suppose gravity and electricity can't be derived from the physical world, either.Could've fooled me. You have to at least strongly dislike somebody to spend the time trying to marginalize an honor they've received.Rusty:
Where as non-naturalists simply hide behind "God did it," like they seem to do with everything not easily explained in two sentences or less.Ken:
I'm actually pretty sure "dim" is a British expression, not an American one.
Sakic19:
I'm sorry you're so insecure in your beliefs that you hate having to be burdened with opposing views. I suppose I could expect as much from an Avalanche fan. ;)I assume you mean we contribute nothing valuable, since we have in fact contributed many KB of text. :) While we're on the subject of contribution, just exactly what wisdom did your little post "contribute" to the debate?Larry,
Just out of curiosity, Joe, do you use the strange "Christian" definition of "faith" that others have proposed on your blog (i.e., faith means "looking at the evidence and deciding based on the evidence")?
I haven’t been following those comments but I agree that would be a peculiar definition.
Um, Joe, do you believe that in your continuous stream of posts "proving" this that or the other thing that you don't "a priori" accept "logic"?
Of course I do. But unlike the naturalist, I consider pre-theoretical knowledge to be legitimate and justified based on the fact that we were “designed.”
Honestly, I'm not sure that the term "a priori" has any meaning whatsoever in the absence of "logic."
You’re right. I don’t think it does.
Ed Jordan
Assuming it's true that Dawkins is a sloppy or dishonest arguer, why should we be surprised? On the basis of Dawkins' worldview, arguing dishonestly cannot be considered wrong.
It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that). ~ Richard Dawkins
Once you have lied to yourself, it is very easy to lie to everyone else.
Romans 1.18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
John 3.16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."
Joe says
"But unlike the naturalist, I consider pre-theoretical knowledge to be legitimate and justified based on the fact that we were “designed.”"
And by "consider," I assume that you mean "believe as a matter of faith," right?
Dawkins didn't choose the term 'bright'. Dennett did. His purpose, as far as I can tell, was to insult theists by insinuating that they're not very bright. He says it was to choose a positive name, as if the name 'atheist' or 'naturalist' was too embarassing. If he has such a self-esteem complex, he ought to reconsider whether his view is embarassing. If it's not, name it what it is. Don't coin a term deliberately designed to make yourself look smarter than others who take other views.
Richard Dawkins, didn't he used to host "Family Feud";).
I would have to place Dawkins up there with Carl Sagan as "Great Communicators" of science. The only problem is they both rabbit trailed into insignificant issues that will matter little in the end. Sagan? I read "Cosmos" faithfully as a boy and then wondered what he started smoking with "Contact." The precept of extra-terrestrial life is so illogical that it is nothing more than a Grand Leap of Faith that some "Savior" is out there among the stars who will eventually rescue us from ourselves. Anyone remember this quote? "To expect the universe to have only one inhabited planet, is akin to expecting a field to only grow one stalk of wheat" or something to that effect. Please someone remind me who said that, but that's bright??!?! Or intellectual?!? Or the sign of a really Deeeep Thinker? Good Lord! Great soundbite, but devoid of any logic, a priori or otherwise. Most popular science is basically great sounding soundbites. Ron Reagan and his "biological repair kits" as proof. Just what qualifies Ron as an expert on this subject matter other than his famous father may have, MAY HAVE mind you, benefited from it? If the Democrat Party is serious about scientific advancement, I certainly hope they can do better than a dead president's technically unqualified son. Great message + Great Communicator doesn't necessary = truth.
That and the wheat field statement justifying SETI (or whatever it was trying to bless) is as far from science as the Flat Earth theory is today. Flat Earth was at least based on observations - primitive as those may have been.
I would have to agree with Joe. If Dawkins is the world's greatest intellectual versus a Steven Hawkings, then a sorry state science has descended to.
Jockofan:
Hawking, while brilliant, still isn't as adept at explaining things in layperson's terms as a Sagan or a Dawkins. And while Contact was a wee bit out there (he smoked weed, and admitted as much), The Demon-Haunted World (Sagan's second-to-last book) was an excellent read.
tgirsch,
I disagree. I thought "A Brief History of Time" - been awhile so I may have the book name messed up - was an excellent read to a cosmological novice like me. One critism is Hawking thinks very highly of himself and minced no words in that respect. Caused me to wince more than once.
I'll look for Sagan's Demon-Haunted World. I must admit I gave up on him after scratching my head for the last time over "Contact."
Sagan partook of the demon weed? I didn't know that. Cool. Unless it was purely for medical reasons.
Jockofan:
Definitely pick up The Demon-Haunted World. He gets a bit long-winded about the alien abduction stuff, but the rest of it is very good. Of particular note is a chapter entitled "The Dragon In My Garage." You'll see people post variations of that reasoning in on-line debates like this one all the time.
As for A Brief History Of Time, I read that too, but a lot of it turned my brain into mush. Of course, a lot of that has to do with the scope of the subject matter! A few years later, Hawking re-released an updated version that had a lot more illustrative diagrams, and tried to be more accessible. It's still on my to-do list; maybe I'll have better luck with that one.
tgrish told me:
"I'm sorry you're so insecure in your beliefs that you hate having to be burdened with opposing views. I suppose I could expect as much from an Avalanche fan. ;)"
Maybe the Avalanche are a good analogy. I love my team. I like talking about my team. Do you think any Red Wings fan or Canucks fan is ever going to convince my to stop liking the Avs? Well take that feeling and apply it to my faith which I hold infinitely mre dear than my loyalty to the finest NHL organization. Why waste your breath on a site by an evangelical about Christianity. No one cares how carefully constucted your arguments are or how beautiful and eloquent they are. They mean nothing and convince no one of anything. Just as getting in my face and telling me the Avs suck everyday won;'t make me dislike the Avs, but it will sure make me dislike you. Why are you here?
tgirsch:
Okay. Thanks for the reading recommend. Always on the look out for good reads.
Back to the theme, one example of Hawking's reaching me was on the 2nd Law of Thermo. I could never get my arms around "increasing randomness" or "disorder" until reading his book (my thermo class in college was a painful experience I'd rather not discuss!). That was the basis for my final path to understanding the 2nd Law. When I consider the naturalistic explanation for life, it falls flat on its face when the 2nd Law of Thermo is applied to it.
Things do not get more complex on their own, they tend toward randomness. My daughter's piece 'o crap car is living proof of the 2nd Law, much to my the dismay of my scratched up arms and knuckles!! While her junker is no living organism, the odds of life becoming more complex, in a random fashion, go asymptotic as overall randomness in the universe increases. There are more enemies to complexity than friends as time marches on. As an engineer, I can accommodate for random elements in my designs and overcome them. But mine is a conscious effort to do so.
I can't get around that and neither Dawkins nor Sagan were able to shed any light on that problem with naturalism. Once we get to the Big Bang, science goes totally mute and will never be able to explain WHY it happened as observation of the pre-condition is completely impossible.
LL:
Nope, as far as I know, the weed-smokage was purely recreational.
Sakic19:
Personally, I don't actually hate the late Nordiques, but couldn't resist the cheap shot. My Hockey Team of Ultimate Contempt(tm) is actually the Flyers.
As for why I come here, it's because I think it's important to discuss issues with people inclined to disagree with you. Anyone can test their feelings and beliefs among people inclined to agree, but that isn't really "testing" them at all, is it? Whatever you may think of it, I think that by poking holes in each other's arguments, Joe and I are actually helping one another out; unwarranted and misguided criticism helps vindicate the argument, and legitimate criticism points out the weak links in the argument and allows us to revisit and improve them, or abandon them. I'm sure Joe would agree.
If Joe found my presence here unwelcome, he would have asked me to leave a long time ago, and I would have complied. Although we disagree (sometimes quite heatedly) on a wide range of topics, we have a mostly amicable relationship. And we even agree on some stuff every now and again (a prospect we both find somewhat frightening!).
Jockofan:
Unfortunately, I think your understanding of the 2nd Law is flawed if you think that inherently rules out naturalistic explanations. I'll leave it to the true physics geeks to hash out, but the primary flaws are usually described as a misrepresentation of what "disorder" actually means; the fact that the second law applies only to closed systems; and the fact that the second law does not rule out pockets of increasing order -- it only refers to the total order/disorder of a closed system.
This, unfortunately, is true. Of course, neither can anyone else. That is, nobody can offer an explanation that can be independently verified -- it's all speculation, and/or blind faith.tgrish,
I can respect what you say, what I cannot stand is why you often feel the need to be such a jerk. Your last response to me was reasonable and polite. Usually you come across as snarky and petulant, maybe you could work on that.
tgirsch,
As for A Brief History Of Time, I read that too, but a lot of it turned my brain into mush.
It was a little too much for me, too. When I came to the part where I was supposed to imagine the universe as a big sphere of "imaginary time" (if I have that right) -- well, I wasn't quite sure what to do with that.
tgirsch:
No. I don't think the 2nd Law rules out naturalistic explanations, it just makes the odds of them as workable methods more unrealistic, therefore requiring more faith than reason to accept. The universe as a whole is a closed system unless you start stretching String Theory into "branes," again more faith based science "fiction" then sound reasoning to me.
Pockets of increasing order while possible, can't counteract the overall increase in disorder. To my understanding as an engineer geek, disorder is energy unavailable to me, or entropy. A gallon of gas was once another quantity of raw oil. It's overall order did indeed increase at the expense of energy consumed in the refinery. But it is latent entropy embodied. Once burned, it's gone forever. The overall disorder increased after all that effort.
I must allow for entropy's increase in everything I do. In my field of biogas, it's an absolute benefit, but still tells me this universe will fizzle out to nothing in the end but scattered particles. A less than inspiring thought, but indicates the Big Bang is an implausible event if the ether the universe swims in is loaded with random particles from previous fizzles. A goofy philosophical rambling, I know, but science can't do any better no matter how weed it smokes.
The Big Bang just plain screams "Design" to me with my engineer's eye. It had to be a controled event no matter the mechanism given all the implausibilities of a random event producing the complexity we see around us and allows me to pith away on this subject via this keyboard. Yes, from there my faith developed. Romans speaks to evidence of God left by Himself in the universe around us. I tend to believe that from what I've observed, than wacky science fictions trying to pass as fact.
"Excellent post Joe. Naturalism has no way to get past the word "ought.""
Nor does it need one.
Your attack on Dawkins is predictable enough, Joe. I remember your treatment of Bertrand Russell a while back. You seem to feel threatened by intelligent, freethinking Brits.
You might try reading Dawkins's The Improbability of God. Very illuminating, for some of us. Perhaps you prefer the intellect of a C.S. Lewis.
""faith" is a belief in something in the absence of any evidence"
True Christian faith is itself the evidence of a spiritual event. Something happened. Faith is the result. What happened? A spiritual resurrection. We cease to be spiritually dead as those alluded to :
'But Jesus said to him, "Follow Me, and let the dead bury their own dead."' Matthew 8 : 22
Sakik 19-
I have to disagree with you on the value of tgirsch, Larry Lord and others contributions. Although I almost always disagree with them, I learn from them. They are smart people. I love reading the interchange between Joe and them. How interesting would this site be if there was no loyal opposition?
Joe,
If you catch this, I'd like your clarification on your comment:
"Just out of curiosity, Joe, do you use the strange "Christian" definition of "faith" that others have proposed on your blog (i.e., faith means "looking at the evidence and deciding based on the evidence")?
I haven’t been following those comments but I agree that would be a peculiar definition."
Are you saying that faith doesn't have a rational foundation? That's what the naturalists are always saying, and I totally disagree with them on that.
Ah, DAC, if I might clarify first: assuming a faith-based belief is not irrational insofar as the faith-based belief is assumed for a rational reason, e.g., it offers an individual a spiritual view of the world which the individual finds personally rewarding (for whatever "reason"). That's perfectly rational, in my opinion, and consistent with the fact that a substantial portion of scientists -- who make a living out of recording and analzying their OBSERVATIONS about the NATURAL world -- are religious and believe in God (or multiple Gods, as the case may be).
It's where people argue that the term "faith" refers to conclusions based on evidence that doesn't exist that I draw the line.
Bottom line: I probably would fall into the category of what you call a "naturalist" but I wouldn't necessarily argue that faith lacks a "rational foundation" (at least, not until I knew what you meant by a "rational foundation" ....)
Jocko I can totally relate with your assesment of thermo in college. It was a dull dreary topic where I took the course, and it was also a flunk out class. Not fun at all.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics can be stated in several ways. One of the most basic forms is that "Heat cannot be transferred from a cold object to a hotter object as the sole and sum thermal result in a closed and bounded system without an input of work."
This means that we can indeed 'violate' the part about transferring heat from cold to hot by providing an input of work as happens in your air conditioner or refridgerator. The concept that 'simple' things don't become 'complicated' things spontaneously is a bit trickier, for it hinges on what one means by 'complex' and 'simple.
For example a helium nuclei would be in my estimation more complicated, more structured, than two hydrogen nuclei floating around in a box. But the helium nuclei has less total energy/mass than the two hydrogen nuclei. This works all the way up the periodic table until one gets to iron at which point it reverses. This is why splitting heavy atoms yields energy, as in fission, and why fusing light elemtns also yields energy as in fusion.
The SLoT doesn't keep complex behavior from arising in a simple system of it's own accord. Turbulance for example is very very complex, yet it emerges quite routinely in various undirected systems.
Larry,
What you describe as a rational basis for faith is not what I mean. What I mean is that faith is a reasonable thing to have. For instance, I have faith that the chair I am sitting in will not fail me. It is based on evidence (history of not failing me and observation of its structural integrity, etc.). But I can't absolutely prove that it won't fail me.
More specifically, faith in God is based on the observable evidence of a created order, our conscience, the existance of beauty, love, reason and joy, the need in the human soul for a connection to something bigger, etc. Granted these evidences do not prove the existance of God, but I would think the arguement for the non-existance of God is a tougher one. "You have to have more faith then the Pope to be an atheist".
Once a person believes in God, the supernatural by definition becomes rational. Virgin birth--nothing is too difficult to God. He has the right and power to superintend natural forces, because, He is SUPERNATURAL.
Anyway, you get the idea.
Larry wrote:
the evidence of things not seen." Rather beautiful, isn't it? Can I tell you what it means, Steve?? It means that "faith" is a belief in something in the absence of any evidence
A verse saying faith is the evidence is interpreted as faith is an absence of evidence by Larry. How do you argue with that?
I am not saying you have to believe the verse Larry! I am just trying to get you to awake to how the Scripture uses these terms, so your challenges that the Christians here are inventing stuff might be taken up a notch or two.
Evidence is a LEGAL term used here Larry. The manifestation of the truth of the charge one is convicted of in a court of law. That was a proper Greek usage of the word in regular society. And the King James does a proper job in translating the Greek word as "evidence".
If you as a juror BELIEVE a person to be guilty of a crime you did not witness, you do so based on EVIDENCE. The EVIDENCE OF THINGS NOT SEEN is what you base your belief (faith) upon in determining the guilt of the defendant. Now, you told me about your legal background once, so I can't imagine I am breaking new ground here.
Jesus is on trial for the "crime" of raising from the dead. You are a juror and you determine if there is sufficient evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, to declare him "guilty as charged". Otherwise, you walk away saying he never did rise from the dead. You choice is based on the evidence.
That is what the Bible teaches. We do not know with certainty who the human author of Hebrews was, but I assure you it was not me, or anyone else on this message board who has been talking about evidence.
Steve and DAC -- some substantive points there which I'd love to address. Unfortunately I'm heading to Wisconsin for a family reunion this weekend so y'all will have a brief respite from Larry Lord! But as the Gropinator once said ....
Larry:
Dammit, I've had enough of this. Jockofan, as far as I can tell, has never been disrespectful to anyone here, and deserves far better treatment than this. I may be inclined to agree with you on a variety of subjects, but that won't stop me from calling you out when you're being an ass. And you sir, are being an ass. Pretty please with sugar on top, try to eliminate the personal attacks from your posts. You'll find that it's far more effective that way. That is all.On that note...
Sakic19:
I admit the Avs thing was uncalled for, and I've already apologized for it. It was a knee-jerk reaction to my perception that you were being a jerk to me ("why do you come here when you don't agree with us?" as if dissenting views are unwelcome), and I'm genuinely sorry for that. But I'll submit that 4 out of 5 of my posts are free of jerk-ness. Snarkiness, probably a little, but that's who I am, and I try to make sure that there's always substance to it and that the attacks are not personal (in your case, I blew it). I'll agree to work on that if you'll agree to stop being so presumptive as to question why people post here when it isn't even your blog.Jockofan:
Perhaps this is why Hawking repeatedly says that none of what he's found eliminates the possibility of God, only that it narrows down what methods He might have used.Larry:
You've got family in Wisconsin? Whereabouts? My family is in Milwaukee...
Perhaps this is why Hawking repeatedly says that none of what he's found eliminates the possibility of God, only that it narrows down what methods He might have used.