[Note: Although I had intended to complete the post on the God-of-the-gaps fallacy for today, it looks like it won’t be ready until Thursday. In the meantime, here’s a recycled post on a related theme: plausibility structures and intelligent design.]
Upon returning home from a year-long research trip to the Galapagos Islands, the esteemed English zoologist Dr. D. Richard finds his wife undergoing a process that looks remarkably similar to childbirth. Calling upon his maid for an explanation, the woman tells him that “Yer wife, sir, is hav’en a baby.” Dr. Richard pauses to contemplate the possibility before deciding that the notion is preposterous. Examining the evidence inductively -- he is impotent, infertile, and has been away for over nine months -- the professor determines that while his wife may have the appearance of being pregnant it is impossible that she could be with child.
While his psychotherapist would likely say that he is in denial, the problem with Dr. Richard is that he suffers not only from a narrow urethera but from an overly narrow plausibility structure. Because he is unable to even consider the possibility that an idea might be true (i.e., his wife being unfaithful), he is unable to recognize the undeniable truth of the situation.
Everything that we believe is filtered through our plausibility structure – a belief-forming apparatus that acts as a gatekeeper, letting in evidence that is matched against what we already consider to be possible. For example, I believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ; the truth of which has, for me, the most justified epistemic warrant. It would be easier for me to believe that my wife was an alien from the planet Tatooine than for me to consider the possibility that the resurrection never occurred. Because of that belief, if someone were to claim to have found the bones of Christ I would not merely be skeptical but would consider the claim to be an empirical, if not a logical, impossibility.
Plausibility structures can prevent us from forming beliefs that are inconsistent with experience and evidence. But they can also have a negative impact, preventing us from forming true beliefs about reality. This appears to be the case within a broad segment of modern science. By accepting a plausibility structure that is limited to purely naturalistic explanations, many in the scientific community have imposed self-limiting and irrational criteria for explaining reality. As philosopher of science, and advocate of Intelligent Design theory, Stephen Meyer explains:
[T]he question whether a theory is scientific is really a red herring. What we want to know is not whether a theory is scientific but whether a theory is true or false, well confirmed or not, worthy of our belief or not. One can not decide the truth of a theory or the warrant for believing a theory to be true by applying a set of abstract criteria that purport to tell in advance how all good scientific theories are constructed or what they will in general look like.
That is, however, precisely the tactic employed by many critics of ID. Rather than relying on inference to the best explanation, they define the rules of the game in order to exclude certain explanations from even being considered. The fact that this might also exclude a true explanation of physical phenomena seems to be a trivial concern. Some people (including commenters on this blog) even claim that scientific theories are not concerned with truth!
Like the drunk who looks for his lost car keys under the streetlamp because “the light is better there”, the primary problem with this approach is that it unnecessarily limits the search for the best explanation. Since it is logically possible and sufficiently probable to infer that an intelligent agency had some role in the formation and development of the universe, to exclude scientific theories and investigations based on that hypothesis would be counterproductive.
I am admittedly non-committal about accepting the current incarnation of ID theory. Whether it is sufficient as an explanatory research program or whether it will morph into a more fruitful line of inquiry remains to be seen. What should appear obvious, at least to anyone who hasn’t built a plausibility structure that excludes design explanations, is that a design inference is the best possible explanation for a systematic and coherent explanation of the physical universe. From the creation of the universe to the development of consciousness in humans, the role of a designer seems to be readily apparent. All it takes is a willingness to look at the evidence objectively.
Naturalism, on the other hand, is a plausibility structure for the near-sighted. Only by squinting, focusing on details, and ignoring the periphery can it be considered an adequate explanation. Pay close attention to microevolution but ignore the origins of life. Examine random fluctuations in astrophysics but don’t ask what was behind the Big Bang. And whenever the anthropic principle or the language-like structure of the genetic code is pointed out, wave hands wildly to distract attention. Is it any wonder that purely naturalistic explanations are losing their credibility with the general public?
Because purely naturalistic theories are incapable of adequately explaining reality, other hypotheses must be considered as possibilities. Stephen Meyer (as well as Macht and Jeremy Pierce) notes that ID isn’t any less (or more) of a “science” than neo-Darwinism.* That is why ID theory is gaining a hearing within the US. Those whose plausibility structures include the logical possibility that design may have a role in the creation of physical reality -- roughly 90% of America -- will be open to hearing the arguments and examining the evidence for that position. The other 10% will be like our poor befuddled Dr. Richard, blustering about how the universe only has the “appearance” of being designed.
*Anyone who disagrees with this claim really needs to do their homework. ID may be “bad science” but it is certainly science. Before making a sloppy argument claiming otherwise I highly recommend reading Meyer’s paper or just about anything on the demarcation problem.
See also: Jeremy Pierce has an excellent post on the topic. Like me, he harbors some skepticism about ID as applied to biology. But he notes that ID is clearly not “religious”:
People like Brian Leiter and most of the people at Panda's Thumb show their philosophical ignorance in saying it's an imposition of religion, and that shows how radically ignorant they are, but even a more moderate ignorance is, to my mind, culpable, and many of my philosophical colleagues exhibit it. Their denial that ID is science seems to me not simply to be an agreement with my claim that ID is philosophy. It seems to me that it's often an unwillingness to recognize that philosophical arguments of the same caliber as the ID argument often play a role in good scientific reasoning. Anyone even remotely familiar with the contemporary literature on philosophy of science should think this obvious. Just about all scientific theories involve metaphysical assumptions, and they rely on philosophical arguments for those assumptions.
Also it would be unethical of me not to mention Prosthesis since this is where the seeds of this post originated. Because I steal most of my best material from Macht, I prefer to keep his blog my secret source of inspiration. So please do me a favor and do not read his blog for yourself. I don't need anyone else looking at my crib sheet.
Joe,
ID may be “bad science” but it is certainly science. Before making a sloppy argument claiming otherwise I highly recommend reading Meyer’s paper or just about anything on the demarcation problem.
Hi Joe, look who disagrees with you: this fellow named Krauze who runs a weblog devoted to promoting intelligent design theory.
Here's his blog: Telic Thoughts.
And here's where he most emphatically insists that I.D. theory is not science and should not be considered science: "Get ready for the next Meeting of Minds".
If you scroll down the comment thread to comment number 9 (which is currently the last comment), you can read the following statement by Krauze (last two paragraphs):
“Well, obviously, you are not conducting experiments, and probably not showcasing any scientific-type research. But if ID theory is not about science, then what is it about exactly?”
Read what I wrote again: “I don’t see Meeting of Minds as “doing science” …”. Maybe ID will one day evolve into something which can be called science, but it’s not something I expect a carnival to contribute much to.
I'll have to agree with Krauze on this one. I.D. theory aspires to evolve into a scientific theory, but right now it doesn't even come close.
[I forgot to put the links into my comment. Here it is again with the two links put in.]
Joe,
ID may be “bad science” but it is certainly science. Before making a sloppy argument claiming otherwise I highly recommend reading Meyer’s paper or just about anything on the demarcation problem.
Hi Joe, look who disagrees with you: this fellow named Krauze who runs a weblog devoted to promoting intelligent design theory.
Here's his blog: Telic Thoughts.
And here's where he most emphatically insists that I.D. theory is not science and should not be considered science: "Get ready for the next Meeting of Minds".
If you scroll down the comment thread to comment number 9 (which is currently the last comment), you can read the following statement by Krauze (last two paragraphs):
“Well, obviously, you are not conducting experiments, and probably not showcasing any scientific-type research. But if ID theory is not about science, then what is it about exactly?”
Read what I wrote again: “I don’t see Meeting of Minds as “doing science” …”. Maybe ID will one day evolve into something which can be called science, but it’s not something I expect a carnival to contribute much to.
I'll have to agree with Krauze on this one. I.D. theory aspires to evolve into a scientific theory, but right now it doesn't even come close.
Matthew I'll have to agree with Krauze on this one. I.D. theory aspires to evolve into a scientific theory, but right now it doesn't even come close.
Therein lies the problem. Once people start trying to claim that ID isn't a scientific theory, they are implying that they have sufficient criteria to make such a demarcation.
But as Alexander George, a professor of philosophy at Amherst College and opponent of ID, notes:
While I disagree with George about the ability of the theory to account for the data, he is absolutely right that you can't simply claim ID is not science without excluding many other theories that you'd prefer to accept as "scientific."
Of course, if we refer to the demarcation problem as a means of getting ID into the category "science," then we're stuck admitting that just about anything is science (astrology, for example, or Young Earth Creationism). If we're going to be a little more serious than that, though, and admit that their are heuristics for determining what we should and shouldn't count as science, and note that the simple fact that there are philosophical arguments for design that are independent of religion does not make ID science, and recognize that as of yet, ID has made few testable predictions (in biology, say), and the ones it has made (e.g., those that fall out of Behe's concept of irreducible complexity) have been unsupported by the data, it's really a matter of choice as to whether we say ID isn't science or ID is, at this point, bad science.
Joe,
... he is absolutely right that you can't simply claim ID is not science without excluding many other theories that you'd prefer to accept as "scientific."
Joe, why is it that almost every single time you preface a remark with "absolutely" or some equivalent expression, you end up saying something which is relatively easy to discredit (if not downright laughable)?
Any theory at all about anything can be scientific.
For example, my son six-year old might think there are some special rocks that can spontaneously levitate and fly away. This might not sound like a scientific theory, but the important thing about the theory is not so much what it says, but what the proponent of the theory is willing to do to examine it and check it out.
If my boy is willing to conduct a study, and look for levitating/flying rocks; if he is willing to find out whether any flying rocks that he finds are really moving spontaneously or not; if he is willing to freely debate the evidence and accept data that goes against his hypothesis; then his levitating/flying rock theory will be as scientific as a theory can be.
So, inasmuch as I.D. theorists are willing to think scientifically and act scientifically about their own theory, then to that extent I.D. theory can be considered a scientific hypothesis as well.
However, when we talk about scientific theories, we are usually not talking about scientific theories in the broadest sense of the term. We are normally merely referring to theories that have been articulated, tested, and have at least a scintilla of scientific data to argue in their favor.
Scientific data is not that hard to find after all: just come up with a well-designed experiment or a testable prediction, and you're all set. My six-year old does it all the time.
So have at it Joe. Do you have any scintillas laying around that you would like to share with us? We would all like to take a look at it.
Matthew Goggins, did you even read Alexander George's quote?
If so, do you disagree with it?
If so, please refute his arguments instead of asserting that your six-year old knows what science is and Professor George does not.
Or maybe your six-year old should talk to George and let him know why he's wrong. Then you could post the transcript and illuminate all of our minds.
College guy,
I didn't say my six-year old knows what science is. I said that he does science all the time without even realizing it.
He is a very smart whipper-snapper though, and it would only take me a couple of minutes to explain to him how he is an honest-to-goodness amateur scientist.
So, to answer your question, I did read Professor George's article and I agreed with it. In fact, it is an excellent article. I mentioned my boy's hypothetical hypothesis in support of Professor George's points.
My argument is not with Professor George. Joe is taking the good professor's points and misapplying them.
Professor George cogently argues that any theory at all is a scientific theory, and from a philosophy of science point of view, he is correct (or as Joe said, "absolutely correct").
The problem is that Joe takes this somewhat technical and broad definition of "scientific theory" and applies to a situation where "scientific theory" means something else altogether: a theory that can actually hold up under scientific scrutiny. And that is where I.D. theory fails to pass the laugh test, at least so far.
And I love your suggestion about my kid talking to Professor George. I usually learn a great deal by hearing my son discuss things with grown-ups. I think a typical six-year old is brighter (but not as wise) as a typical adult. They ask brilliant questions, and make very provocative observations.
Because purely naturalistic theories are incapable of adequately explaining reality, other hypotheses must be considered as possibilities.
A classic “god of the gaps” argument. Thousands of years ago, when our ancestors saw a tree burst into flames upon being struck by a lightning bolt, there was no naturalistic theory capable of adequately explaining it. Rather, it was surely the act of a storm god or an angry god of some sort.
Don,
A classic “god of the gaps” argument.
You might want to do a bit more research on what a God of the gap argument is before you make such an assertion. (Or you can check back Thursday for my post on the subject in which I'll explain what it is and is not.)
Joe,
As someone who is not shy about using the phrase "scientific theory" in a way that is not entirely justified, perhaps you should be a little more patient with someone who uses "God-of-the-gap argument" in a way that doesn't precisely anticipate the exact nuances which you will be insisting distinguish a valid G-o-t-g argument from an invalid one.
Matthew,
As someone who is not shy about using the phrase "scientific theory" in a way that is not entirely justified, perhaps you should be a little more patient with someone who uses "God-of-the-gap argument" in a way that doesn't precisely anticipate the exact nuances which you will be insisting distinguish a valid G-o-t-g argument from an invalid one.
Admittedly, I prefer to be as exact as possible about the meaning of concepts (though I do think I am patient). I also think I’m patient with people who cling to the high school science definition of “scientific theory.” ; )
Perhaps you would be more comfortable referring to ID as “theoretical science”?
And as for the GOTG argument, it is rather tiresome to keep hearing people use it in a way that they clearly don’t understand. After all, the term was invented by an evangelical to criticize other Christians(!) for embracing a semi-deist explanation. Yet the example that is always bandied about it almost always based on animism (i.e., an angry god sent lightening) rather than on theism.
Joe,
By Professor George's definition, ID is scientific, but only as long as the investigators of ID are acting in good faith.
But as we all seem to agree, any theory at all can be considered scientific by his definition.
In common usage (in standard usage), a "scientific theory" is a theory that has actually been tested and is valid to a certain extent.
So instead of harping on semantics and alleged logical fallacies, how about supporting the status of ID as a scientific theory by citing one piece of evidence for it -- a scintilla will do nicely, if you have one.
And what do you have against high school defintions anyway? I went to an excellent high school, and the definitions I learned there have served me very well. Are you implying somebody is probably an ignoramus if they rely on "high school definitions"? Pretty snooty attitude you have there, buddy.
Of course, everything I really needed to know I learned in kindergarten! :)
all this "science or not science" discussion applies equally to evolution as it does to ID. So which ever side you are on just be fair to both sides and this conversation will move along.
You might want to do a bit more research on what a God of the gap argument is before you make such an assertion.
From Wikipedia:
Seems to fit your post pretty well, Joe. But perhaps, as Matthew suggests, you will pull a nuance out of your hat to distinguish your argument.
Don,
I love Wikipedia but it is not exactly what I had in mind when I was referring to "research." ; )
But Matthew is correct. I do plan to "pull a nuance out of your hat to distinguish your argument." There are (at least) four types of GOTG arguments, some of which are valid and some which are not.
When desparate (can you say "Dover"?) IDers march out the demarcation problem, an interesting issue in the philosophy of science — and a big Red Herring in the ID discussion.
My own response is to say, "Okay, assume ID is a scientific theory, then it is a really, incredible, useless, stupendously bad scientific theory on par with astrology." Even Behe admitted the astrology parallel in Dover.
ID is for people who can't bring themselves to say "I don't know." That's what God-of-the-gaps means: everything we currently don't know is attributed to God. I don't mind that as a religious position, just don't teach it to the next generation as good science.
It'd be a lot easier for ID if it hadn't been glommed onto by Young Earth Creationists (as in Six-24-hour-day Zap 6000 years ago) as a fallback position after they kept getting defeated in the courts.
And so, a long Intelligent Design tradition as philosophical rationale for science, heir to the Natural Theology of the 18th and 19th Centuries, becomes nothing more than just another code word for YEC -- "Intelligent Design, nudge nudge wink wink know what I mean know what I mean..."
While I disagree with George about the ability of the theory to account for the data, he is absolutely right that you can't simply claim ID is not science without excluding many other theories that you'd prefer to accept as "scientific."
It's more accurate and correct to call ID failed science.
Of course, if we refer to the demarcation problem as a means of getting ID into the category "science," then we're stuck admitting that just about anything is science (astrology, for example, or Young Earth Creationism).
Both make predictions that can be tested objectively. Every now and then someone does a scientific study of the claims of astrology. If they worked we'd be happy to admit it back into the world of science.
It's interesting (dare I say hypocritical) that you are unwilling to even consider the possibility that Jesus was not raised from the dead, yet you chide others for not entertaining the possibility of ID.
Don, I love Wikipedia but it is not exactly what I had in mind when I was referring to "research."
Hey, you did say a "bit of reasearch", Joe. ;)
Ex-preacher,
It's interesting (dare I say hypocritical) that... you chide others for not entertaining the possibility of ID.
Ouch - I think you left a welt with that one!
Mr. Carter's reduced to quoting a a professor of philosophy at Amherst College who says, in effect, "ID is a science just like astrology and parapsychology."
You know, on my recent trip to Europe I noticed that even the Travel Channel is dumbed-down in the US.
Ex-preacher did not leave a welt, but he did demonstrate he understood Joe's point: plausibility structures can get in our way.
I don't think most opposition to ID stems from plausibility structures at all. Instead,
"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. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 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. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 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."
John 3:16-21 NIV
and
"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 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. 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. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools"
Romans 1:18-22 NIV
They recognize, at some level, that once you let the nose of the camel (ID) into the tent, the body will follow (the Designer) and they can no longer pretend they are the ultimate moral authority in their own lives. This is a terrifying thought, but a truth we must all come to terms with eventually.
Matthew Goggins:
My mistake. I attributed what you think you know (about what scientific theory should be) to what your son knows.
My point, which your later posts seemed to validate, is that you don’t seem to address the conclusion one might come to as a result of George's arguments about what (doesn’t) make a scientific theory. The point of this paragraph from George…
Science employs the scientific method. No, there's no such method: Doing science is not like baking a cake. Science can be proved on the basis of observable data. No, general theories about the natural world can't be proved at all. Our theories make claims that go beyond the finite amount of data that we've collected. There's no way such extrapolations from the evidence can be proved to be correct. Science can be disproved, or falsified, on the basis of observable data. No, for it's always possible to protect a theory from an apparently confuting observation. Theories are never tested in isolation but only in conjunction with many other extra-theoretical assumptions (about the equipment being used, about ambient conditions, about experimenter error, etc.). It's always possible to lay the blame for the confutation at the door of one of these assumptions, thereby leaving one's theory in the clear. And so forth.
… seems to be that what you think makes a “good” scientific theory, i.e. a theory that can hold up under “scientific scrutiny” as you define it—“articulated, tested, and have at least a scintilla of scientific data” is illegitimate.
In other words “this somewhat technical and broad definition of ‘scientific theory’” SHOULD be what "scientific theory" means, as opposed to your definition of “a theory that can actually hold up under scientific scrutiny” because scientific scrutiny, as you understand it, is inadequate according to George.
Joe—I believe—saw this and consequently put the quote there for your benefit. His application was fine; seems to me that the reason you thought Joe misapplied George’s arguments is because you completely missed Joe’s point, perhaps because you couldn’t believe that anyone would actually question the popular (“high school”) understanding of what makes a scientific theory legitimate. Hence, plausibility structures…
Though of course it’s plausible that I’m wrong about what Joe meant. :)
Mumon:
Why not read the Amherst professor's writings a bit more charitably? I'm sure there's a lot more depth to his writings than what you've reduced his conclusions to.
Got2btru writes: "They recognize, at some level, that once you let the nose of the camel (ID) into the tent, the body will follow (the Designer)"
Or, to put the shoe on your foot, those who are committed to Christianity and refuse to even consider any alternative realize that without ID or creationism they will have to give up their beliefs.
"and they can no longer pretend they are the ultimate moral authority in their own lives."
Please. This old canard is so tired and patently untrue that it casts doubt on your larger point.
"This is a terrifying thought, but a truth we must all come to terms with eventually."
And what terrifies you, Got2BTru? Perhaps the idea that what's got2btru really ain't? Then what? Then you are staring into the abyss. It's much safer to hold on to your comfortable beliefs than to face the terrifying truth.
It seems to me that most arguments in favor of ID break down into two categories: 1. Science hasn't resolved everything, therefore we must abandon it, 2. Semantics. Trying to define science is like trying to define religion. Trying to define species is like trying to define religion. People will disagree. Science is based on faith (PURE BLIND FAITH) that the world is governed by physical laws, that those laws are comprehensible, that they are the same everywhere, and that they do not change. Behe's "non-natural causation", assumes just the opposite, also on faith. It may be true (no one will ever "know"), but it ain't science.
college guy:
I'm just summarizing Carter's excerpt. To wit; that in terms of its relationship to "good" science (what we regular old folks just call "science") "intelligent" "design," parapsychology and astrology are in the same class; (which we regular old folks just call "quackery.")
Ex wrote:
"It's interesting (dare I say hypocritical) that you are unwilling to even consider the possibility that Jesus was not raised from the dead, yet you chide others for not entertaining the possibility of ID."
Hmmm, looks like two religious beliefs to me.
Joe: In the meantime, here’s a recycled post on a related theme: plausibility structures and intelligent design.
Thanks for labeling it as recycled.
College guy to Mumon: Why not read the Amherst professor's writings a bit more charitably? I'm sure there's a lot more depth to his writings than what you've reduced his conclusions to.
I did that last year when this post first appeared. Guess what? Depth is not Meyer's strong suit.
Here's a link to the orginal post. Search for "AndyS" to read what I found when giving Meyer a serious read. A couple excerpts:
Andy S:
To be fair, the reference was to Alexander George, who, despite is credentials, appears woefully ignorant of the history of science, as well as science itself:
Prior to Gallileo, it was assumed that objects accelerated when they fell because Aristotle had said those objects enjoyed falling.
Measurement and observation error indeed happen, but they in and of themselves do not open up just any theory to falsification.
It is simply impossible for us to impute enjoyment to inanimate objects in any way in which can be falsified; "intelligent" "design" is of the same ilk.
In the meantime, the permativity of free space is known to something like 12 decimal places; it is simply impossible to conceive how Maxwell's equations, within the observation space of electromagnetic phenomena in this world, where the 4 forces are separated, would be any different.
Of course, Alexander George is hardly a scientist, nor is his specialty the philosophy of science, nor its history, so quoting him is kind of like quoting me on why the NFL should change its overall method of training its players.
Um. No. ID theory is "gaining a hearing" in the US primarily because its being advertised and promoted as part of political agenda by a particular group of Christians. There is no mass movement among scientists to start examining ID ideology and assumptions. ID is political movement, not a science-driven or even philosophical exploration of evidence.
ID is being pushed, and even forced onto the American landscape by a particular group of conservative Christians, who wish to have their religious ideas about the universe taught as accepted fact in all American schools. In every instance where ID has been injected into school curriculum's or the public debate, 99.999999% of those doing so are A.) Conservative Christians, B.)Creationists, C.) "Young Earth" Creationists, D.)Politicians hoping for Evangelical votes, E.) All or some of the above.
Whether or not ID is actually "truth" is irrelevant to those pushing it, because they already believe it to be true even if they know little to nothing about the actual subject.
Those doing this are frankly ID's own worst enemy as far as securing any form of objective legitimacy is concerned. They have turned ID into more of a phenomena like an urban legend than an actual theoretical proposition of fact.
AndyS:
First, as Mumon has pointed out, I was talking about George.
Second, this is from your post from the first time this entry was put up...
-------------------------
From Meyer:
If philosophers of science such as Laudan are correct, a stalemate exists in our analysis of design and descent.
This is not at all what Laudan is suggesting and, I would guess, just the sort of thing that caused him to laugh when Leiter pointed out to him some of the ways IDers were using his words. Laudan does not all support the claim that "a stalemate exists in our analysis of design and descent." Meyer, if he was being intellectually honest and above board, would point this out as more responsible authors normally do when using one part of an authority's work when that authority does not agree with their wider thesis. It's pure bait and switch.
---------------------------
While I agree that it's a good idea to inform readers when the authorities one is citing disagree with one's conclusions, the mere fact that they disagree with one's conclusions shouldn't invalidate one's use of their arguments if one thinks that those arguments (up to a certain point) are correct. After all, their conclusions might be wrong.
For example, "If philosophers of science such as Laudan are correct, a stalemate exists in our analysis of design and descent" could be interpreted in two ways. You could interpret it the way you did, that Lauden believes a stalemate exists in our analysis of design and descent. Or you could interpret it as Meyers using Lauden's arguments to show a point, and then making his own conclusions regarding them. I think that's a more charitable way of reading it in that it doesn't assume that Meyer is blatantly trying to misrepresent Lauden.
Mumon:
Are you saying you can demarcate what is science and what isn't based upon falsifiability? :)
Patrick:
I have no doubt that the proponents of ID are largely as you describe. But I think there are others who are looking for the truth and honestly believe ID should be given a chance to see what light it can shed on this world.
Uh sorry the formatting didn't happen. My bad.
This is what Meyer said:
If philosophers of science such as Laudan are correct, a stalemate exists in our analysis of design and descent.
This is what AndyS commented:
This is not at all what Laudan is suggesting and, I would guess, just the sort of thing that caused him to laugh when Leiter pointed out to him some of the ways IDers were using his words. Laudan does not all support the claim that "a stalemate exists in our analysis of design and descent." Meyer, if he was being intellectually honest and above board, would point this out as more responsible authors normally do when using one part of an authority's work when that authority does not agree with their wider thesis. It's pure bait and switch.
oneway writes: "Hmmm, looks like two religious beliefs to me."
Agreed. In my experience, however, many of us who reject ID are not doing so out of hand. We reject it because naturalism appears to fit the data better. I am not closed to the possibility that there might be an intelligent designer. In fact, I would happily welcome the conviction that our world is governed by a benevolent, all-wise, omnipotent father.
Joe, in contrast, has openly stated that he is not open to any explanation that would interfere with his evangelical beliefs. I deplore this sort of closed-mindedness to alternate explanations, but I appreciate Joe's honesty.
I wish all evangelicals would be as honest in admitting that they will never accept anything that invalidates their existing religious views, regardless of the evidence.
Is it possible Joe was subconsciously speaking of himself when he wrote:
"Because he is unable to even consider the possibility that an idea might be true (i.e., his wife being unfaithful), he is unable to recognize the undeniable truth of the situation."
ex-preacher:
"I wish all evangelicals would be as honest in admitting that they will never accept anything that invalidates their existing religious views, regardless of the evidence."
What evidence do you propose invalidates evangelical religious views? I think it's not that Joe (and other evangelicals) are closed to explanations that would interfere with his evangelical beliefs, it's just that there doesn't seem to be any explanations that are better or evidence that is more convincing to them in light of the evidence they have, especially since most of the arguments that supposedly refute their beliefs simply don't (to them) and are nonetheless recycled and repeated over and over again in various forms ad nauseum.
I have no interest in stating the arguments against Christianity here. You probably know them. And I'm pretty sure that I've heard all the arguments for Christianity. Although I'm willing to hear any new ones that may have appeared recently.
My point is that we should at least be open to hearing and honestly evaluating the arguments and evidence presented by those with whom we disagree. If those arguments or evidence point to a better explanation than the one we now hold, we should be willing to change our minds. Perhaps this is overly naive, but it's what my parents taught me. The willingness to follow truth wherever it leads is what brought me to the positions I now hold.
Here's what Joe wrote: "It would be easier for me to believe that my wife was an alien from the planet Tatooine than for me to consider the possibility that the resurrection never occurred. Because of that belief, if someone were to claim to have found the bones of Christ I would not merely be skeptical but would consider the claim to be an empirical, if not a logical, impossibility."
Maybe I'm misreading, but it sounds like he's closed to other explanations.
(Un)Fortunately for the philosophically-minded, most Christians don't become Christians by being argued into it. Even apolegetics isn't concerned with proving Christianity outright so much as it's concerned with disproving claims against Christianity.
I wonder at what point one would say one is so certain of an explanation that one becomes "closed" to other explanations. Is it justifiable to become so "closed" if, perhaps, the evidence is subjectively THAT persuasive? Fun stuff :) But at any rate, I think I'll stop trying to figure out how closed Joe is and wait perhaps for his own opinion, should he desire to give it ;)
Mumon: "which we regular old folks just call 'quackery.'"
You don't seem that old to me :)
Or regular for that matter :P
What evidence do you propose invalidates evangelical religious views?
Well, it's the way you use the Bible — of course! (I know the question wasn't directed at me, but, not being as wise as ex-preacher, I can't resist taking the bait.)
Sure there are many kinds of evangelicals, but I assume we are discussing the sort that is typified by Mr. Carter, that is, rightwing evangelicals of the Protestant sort rather than Catholic evangelicals or those on the leftwing or the many who have no wing at all (like those poor souls protesting recently at military funerals who seem to be simply insane). So I'm not challenging evangelicals of every stripe, just, well, you guys. And I'm not doing it with a mean spirit — I honestly believe that your lives and the lives of those around you would be better if you saw the error of your ways. (Please, I present this with more than a bit of humor and good will in the sense of pointing to the vast differences between your way of looking at what it means to be a good Christian and the way so many others like myself see the same thing.)
Please correct me if I'm wrong but I've read here time and again that you take everything in the Bible to be literally true, the literal word of God. I flag that as an obvious violation of commonsense in the everyday meaning of the term. How is it that you've come to this conclusion? Is there some secret induction ceremony I missed?
I was raised in a very religious Christian home were the Bible was read and discussed all the time. Never did any of us begin to take the whole thing literally — people living 900+ years, Noah saving all life on Earth by taking two of each on the ark, God parting the Red Sea, 7 days to create the world, feeding the masses with a few loaves and fishes, raising the dead, a God so primitive that He (it's always the masculine pronoun) resorts to hellfire and eternal damnation for anyone who doesn't sign up with the program. Do you also take Greek, Roman, Norse, or Hindu mythology literally?
Why are you so selective in citing the Bible? As I mentioned before you seem to avoid much of what Jesus said and concentrate on Paul.
For example, where is the push to become eunuchs?
And why one part of Leviticus and not the others?
Quote's from this sermon.
I think the message Jesus brought is far more important that a historical text, and cherry picking parts of that text to work around the central message is not a propper religious attitude.
college guy :
Yes, and if you're about to make the mistake of saying "evoluton is not falsifiable," don't.
Because from the science of forensic evidence to the theory of Markov processes applied to the genome, we know otherwise.
College Guy,
In other words “this somewhat technical and broad definition of ‘scientific theory’” SHOULD be what "scientific theory" means, as opposed to your definition of “a theory that can actually hold up under scientific scrutiny” because scientific scrutiny, as you understand it, is inadequate according to George.
Maybe you are right, and George's definition should be the primary defintion of a scientific theory. I certainly don't have any problem with his defintion.
But George's definition is not the primary defintion, and you and Joe Carter can say it is, but it still isn't.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that George's definition is the "real" definition, that is to say, the primary definition of "scientific theory". Then Joe's post is still a huge muddle. He's saying I.D. theory has earned a special status as a "scientific theory", when in fact just the opposite is true: now literally every theory about anything is a "scientific theory" by definition!! Not just I.D. theory, but any theory at all!
For example, I have a book on my shelf called The Bell Curve, by Herrnstein and Murray. It argues, and actually provides real scientific evidence, that blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites.
While I know that their evidence and their arguments are seriously flawed, I cannot dispute that their thesis is a scientific theory (that is to say, it is false and unsupported, but it is still scientific). But by Joe's standards, genetic racial disparities in intelligence is a scientific theory (and one with actual scientific evidence, unlike I.D. theory!), so why shouldn't we teach it in school? Seriously, Mr. College Guy, why not?
I meant to put in a link to The Bell Curve, but I forgot.
Here it is: The Bell Curve.
Well, it's the way you use the Bible, of course! Ahem. This isn't evidence. This is begging the question.
I don't think your understanding of evangelical hermeneutics reflects the mainstream. This is perhaps not your fault -- I'm sure you can find examples of anything, and there is no evangelical magisterium to which you can apply for a definitive answer. I think Gordon Fee's book, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth is pretty close to the mainstream. It's what I teach from. I believe it answers most (if not all) of your objections about literalism, cherry-picking, etc.
ex-preacher:
>>"and they can no longer pretend they are the
>>ultimate moral authority in their own lives."
>
>Please. This old canard is so tired and patently
>untrue that it casts doubt on your larger point.
Old and tired != wrong
Actually, your attempt to turn it aside merely by calling it false demonstrates...no, I won't go there. Prov 26:4.
>>"This is a terrifying thought, but a truth we
>>must all come to terms with eventually."
>
>And what terrifies you, Got2BTru? Perhaps the
>idea that what's got2btru really ain't? Then
>what? Then you are staring into the abyss. It's
>much safer to hold on to your comfortable beliefs
>than to face the terrifying truth.
Nothing terrifies me, anymore. When I come up against something that I can't understand (which is often), I have learned through experience that God is trustworthy to bring me through, even thru layoffs, armed robberies, near-fatal illness, etc.
If you really think Christian beliefs are "comfortable", you do not understand the first things about it.
As an aside, "GotToBTru" refers to my need to be consistent in speech, action and thought, ie, it's got to be true in my own life before I can reasonably expect anyone to listen to me.
Matthew Goggins:
Actually, the Bell Curve IS taught in universities, but as you said, the flaws are there and discredit the conclusions of Herrnstein and Murray. Nevertheless, we did get to read what they wrote (and other sympathatic authors) in class because the professor, though an ardent critic of H&M, understood that the way to educate is not by excluding supposedly ridiculous and offensive material from the classroom, but by giving it a fair showing in the classroom and allowing students to come to their own conclusions regarding it. If he didn't, he'd only add to the suspicion that H&M are really on to something... perhaps like what's going on now with ID. So I ask you: Why not let it be discussed fairly in class?
(Ftw, I read portions of The Bell Curve for "Race, Class and Intelligence in America," a course I took two years ago under Professor Howard Taylor. You can google him if you don't believe me ;) )
AndyS:
Seriously, the Christian church has been articulating the answers to your questions for 2,000 years. That's a long time and a lot of thinking and writing, most of it fascinating for those who love to learn (alas, time is short). Surely you don't think they missed such well-known questions as the ones you raised. I would definitely recommend googling the answers if you want them quick, but for more satisfying answers you could try reading Catholic or Reformed theologians (reformed tradition is probably the most intellectually developed branch of P).
As for your specific objections, you seem to object to reading the Bible literally--btw, there are lots of good biblical and literary criticisms that develop reasonable nuances in what exactly "literal reading" means in the context of a narrative--on the basis of impossible events. I think the important thing to remember is that Christianity presupposes the existence of God, who can do those things and a lot more. The presupposition of God is apparently pretty important to Christian understandings of the world, as it forms the basis of what's possible, what's good, fair etc., in contradistinction to non-Christian understandings of the world, based on human--and ostensibly limited--understandings of what's possible and what's good, fair, etc. You can see why it's important to really be familiar with Christian presuppositions, lest personal ignorance impedes understanding that should be easy... at least for simple questions.
As for picking and choosing in the Bible, most has to the with the Christian idea that Christ "fulfilled" the old levitical law in such a way that it is "abolished" for the purposes of Christian obedience. What isn't abolished is the moral law that is eternal because it reflects God's character in a way that ceremonial laws do not, reflecting culture and times, etc. The ceremonial law was meant to point to these eternal moral norms, e.g. "Sacrifice animals for sin" points to "if you sin against God, you will die" which consequently was fulfilled in and abolished by Christ, who took "all" human sin upon himself and... died. So Christians don't sacrifice animals, and thank Jesus instead. Things like sodomy are contrary to eternal moral law based on God's character (something to do with husband and wife, Christ and church, eternal purposes of God) and so still stand as moral law.
As for eunuchs, I don't really see a problem with Jesus and Paul's words. Namely, it's better for Christians to be single (so they can spend more time serving God or whatever--and if anyone doesn't agree that taking care of one's wife takes a lot of time, they're crappy husbands), but it's freaking hard so few can do it. I don't see a problem with that.
... And so on.
Mumon:
You got me there, because I have no idea what that means :)
General point to every non-Christian reading this:
Do any of you actually have intelligent Christian friends, ones you think are as intelligent as you are? I mean, you Really think they are as intelligent as you are and aren't just saying that? Because it would be helpful in answering some basic questions about Christians. Like, are all Christians evil, irrational and/or better dead ;) (and obviously the same goes for Christians having non-Christian friends).
GotToBeTru:
"As an aside, 'GotToBTru' refers to my need to be consistent in speech, action and thought, ie, it's got to be true in my own life before I can reasonably expect anyone to listen to me."
Don't evangelical Christians believe they'll never be "true in [their] own [lives]" as you've defined it, and correspondingly believe the expectation of anyone listening to them rests less on how "consistent" they are and more on their acknowledgment of their own inconsistency and humility when speaking truth?
College Guy,
No one here is saying I.D. theory should be forbidden material, to the point that it cannot allowed to be taught in some kind of a survey class in college.
The debate is over whether or not high schools, especially public high schools, should be forced to give equal time to I.D. theory in their science curriculums whenever the topic of evolution or evolution through natural selection comes up. And if equal time is denied, then the proponents of I.D. demand, at the very least, a respectful nod in the direction of I.D. theory, along the lines of, "It's a viable theory, just like Darwinism is!"
So the analogy with your college class doesn't address the controversy. A better analogy would be: force every high school social studies class to mention The Bell Curve whenever the topic of racial equality or inequality came up.
I think you can see that that would be an outrageous abomination. At least I hope so.
"Why not let it be discussed fairly in class?"
I'm all for this idea in college. High school? Certainly not. As a high school teacher, I'm all too aware of the average high school students largely undeveloped ability to think critically and their unwillingness/inability to evaluate information sources for bias. I've had Chick tracts cited on research papers, for crying out loud. Maybe in philosophy, if any public schools can still afford to offer electives, but certainly not in a science class.
You really needn't worry about high school students being indoctrinated into naturalistic worldviews by evil science teachers; kids are remarkably impervious to most of we try to teach them. ;-)
There's a girl on my Scholars Bowl team who has decent science grades but wears a "Darwin Lied" t-shirt she got at church and insists that he is "burning in hell" even as we speak. Kids say the darnedest things, as Art Linkletter used to note.
Matthew Goggins:
Assuming many more theories than we previous thought can qualify as scientific, WHICH scientific theories should be "forced" to be taught in high schools (or "included in a curriculum" as an alternative, less inflammatory way of putting it) involves considerations of government roles, democratic principles etc.
The short answer is that the people should decide democratically. If they decide it's best to listen to the scientific establishment, then go with what the scientific establishment says is best. If they decide the scientific establishment suffers from a restrictive plausibility structure that excludes certain theories on illegitimate grounds--theories which may benefit human understanding and the pursuit of truth--then they should go for what they believe is best.
In other words, this larger debate more about the principles of democratic governance than it is about philosophy of science, although it takes philosophy to show us how we've placed too much faith in the establishment.
rob ryan:
"As a high school teacher, I'm all too aware of the average high school students largely undeveloped ability to think critically and their unwillingness/inability to evaluate information sources for bias. I've had Chick tracts cited on research papers, for crying out loud. Maybe in philosophy, if any public schools can still afford to offer electives, but certainly not in a science class."
I understand what you mean, but I think it's precisely because the average high school student is an uncritical thinker that we have to begin making them evaluate alternative theories; it isn't going to help them become better thinkers if you're spoon-feeding them the right answers all the time. Scary, I know. But well worth it... and who knows? They might actually become more interested in their education.
As for the little girl, I'm making a big assumption, but I hope she doesn't have too many issues... I don't mean simply because she believes those things, but because wearing and saying stuff like that as if she's celebrating Darwin burning in hell--if she actually believes it--is not a good sign. Someone should talk to her. Know any responsible Christians, rob ryan?
Also, a philosopher of science would probably say it's precisely in a science class where alternative theories should be put forth because it's the field of science that suffers the most from the illusion of knowing truth with certainty (at least at the high school level).
Of course, a policy-maker would slap the philosopher of science in the face, twice, and then tell him there's no time for that in a school day, so let the curriculum be decided outside the classroom firs--with all the requisite argumentation, of course.
college guy writes: "General point to every non-Christian reading this:
Do any of you actually have intelligent Christian friends, ones you think are as intelligent as you are?"
Certainly. I have Christian friends with Ph.D.s in religion or philosophy from Oxford, Princeton, Duke, Baylor, Univ. of Iowa and many other respected institutions. My Dad (a conservative evangelical) has a D.Min. from Austin Presbyterian Seminary.
I know many other Christians who are very intelligent (much smarter than me) whose areas of specialty are outside theology.
It has always been troubling to me, both while I was a Christian and now as an atheist, that so many really smart, honest people cannot agree on religion. The question of God's existence is so basic that it should have been resolved for all intelligent, honest people many years ago. (Of course, those who believe in God can then be subdivided into various religions, who are then divided into denominations, each of which is in complete disagreement with the others and each full of honest, intelligent folks.) I can see only two likely explanations:
1. God is so hidden that many smart, good-hearted people just can't find him (or be found by him), or
2. God doesn't exist, but many people want so deeply to believe in him that they have convinced themselves he exists. Of course, they do this with help and encouragement from their families, support structure, society, tradition, previous generations.
Becoming an atheist is not just a matter of intelligence, but of a willingness to accept something totally at odds with what you believe deeply (something Joe admits he can't do), and the courage to deal with the disapproval of your family, friends, and society.
BTW, you say you are a college guy with close friends who are Christians, but I'm guessing that you yourself are one. Are you? Are you not ready to "out" yourself?
ex-preacher:
I'm honestly glad to hear you have many intelligent Christian friends. I'm hoping you've talked with them about theological issues like the ones you've raised, since they're ostensibly important to them, and assuming that I guess I'm not sure why they haven't told you what's wrong with an assertion like:
"The question of God's existence is so basic that it should have been resolved for all intelligent, honest people many years ago."
or the two explanations you've put forth:
"1. God is so hidden that many smart, good-hearted people just can't find him (or be found by him), or
2. God doesn't exist, but many people want so deeply to believe in him that they have convinced themselves he exists. Of course, they do this with help and encouragement from their families, support structure, society, tradition, previous generations."
The conservative Christian response would be something like: you seem to be implying that being "smart" or "good-hearted" or "honest" in your eyes is actually what it means to be "smart" or "good-hearted" or "honest" in reality--that is, in God's eyes. Again, it stems primarily from a misunderstanding of what Christians believe God to be, namely a being that is Holy. One way I've heard to think about God as "Holy" is to think of something so Transcendently Perfect that if a being with the slightest imperfection were to come into his presence, it would be completely and radically annihilated simply by virtue of being around God.
When you think about a God like that--when you Really think about a God like that, who holds the Universe and all of History itself on his little finger--and you presuppose That kind of God, then you can start talking about how good-hearted, smart, and honest people are... and all of sudden it might sound a little silly.
And that understanding is where any discussion about the Christian God needs to start. Then you can start to understand the idea of God's sovereignty, his purpose, his reasons, his will, his emotions, and consequently the answers to your questions... as well as understand the reasons why it's wrong to write off real Christians as deluded about reality, afraid of disapproval, or any other caricature box that you'd like to place them in, which inevitably results in pride and disrespect when you interact with them knowingly, no matter how hard you try to be good-hearted, intelligent and honest.
As for your guess that I am a Christian, isn't it really sad that if someone has a deep and charitable understanding of Christianity, that virtually anyone's gut reaction (including my own ) is that the person is Christian. If it's true that we need at least a somewhat deep and charitable understanding of other religions in order to have productive conversations, it's not a good sign if so few non-Christians can discuss Christianity with even a basic understanding (that the other would agree to) of core ideas of Christianity like God or sin.
Why does it matter if I'm a non-Christian or Christian? I'm either a friendly agnostic religion major at college studying contemporary religion in the U.S. (evangelical Christianity) or an intelligent and friendly Christian studying U.S. policy. What matters is what I stand for as a charitable non-Christian who learns about Christianity instead of making assumptions based on bad experiences with Christians, or a friendly Christian who sees a lot of animosity that wouldn't be there if people were more charitable, less ignorant and friendlier.
All the readers, non-Christian and Christian, can pick the one that will make them a friendlier and more charitable listener ;)
college guy,
I assume you are Christian not because you seem to understand Christianity, but because you have said things disparaging to non-believers (see for instance the last sentence of post #36). You've stepped in repeatedly to defend Christians and Christian viewpoints, but have not once defended atheists or atheist viewpoints. You show no equivalent charitable understanding of atheists. It's also a bit of a giveaway when capitalize words like Holy and Transcendently Perfect. I would go further and guess that you a Reformed presuppositionalist.
Why should I regard you as "intelligent and friendly" when you've just told me that real Christians think it is silly to consider any human honest and intelligent?
college guy writes: "because wearing and saying stuff like that as if she's celebrating Darwin burning in hell--if she actually believes it--is not a good sign"
Are you saying it's a bad sign if she believes Darwin is burning in hell? If so, I apologize for being wrong about you.
Or are you saying that she shouldn't gloat over the fact that Darwin is burning in hell?
And please don't give me something like "It's up to God to decide who's in hell, not us." This is known as a cop-out unless you're willing to come out and say there is no hell or the Bible is wrong about the lost going to hell (or more specifically that the Jesus of the synoptics was wrong about hell. The Jesus in John and the apostle Paul seem to have completely missed the memo on hell).
If you are going to accept the teachings of the Jesus in the synoptics, you should have the guts to step up and say: "Yes, my belief system teaches that Gandhi and Darwin and Einstein and Thomas Jefferson and the Three Stooges and Dana Reeve are all in hell. Also, the 6 million Jews burned in Hitler's ovens are now burning in God's eternal ovens. And the people drowned in the tsunami? Mostly in hell."
college guy:
You got me there, because I have no idea what that means.
Well Wikipedia might help. Then again, I wouldn't know specifically because I've never needed to consult it on such things, and, as I've noted on my blog, Wikipedia isn't exhaustive by any means.
Do any of you actually have intelligent Christian friends, ones you think are as intelligent as you are? I mean, you Really think they are as intelligent as you are and aren't just saying that?
Actually, I do, but the issue is not their intelligence but their willingness to consistently apply it to everything, and to step outside of their own preconceived notions. Very hard to do. Takes practice and discipline.
As a former Christian, I understand that well.
Why hide your Christian identity?
I don't see the point.
But let me respond to this bit:
When you think about a God like that--when you Really think about a God like that, who holds the Universe and all of History itself on his little finger--and you presuppose That kind of God, then you can start talking about how good-hearted, smart, and honest people are... and all of sudden it might sound a little silly.
Actually, given the thought of such a deity, or lack thereof, that people strive in this world, that people truly love in this world, that act in spite of fear inspired by such religious beliefs, that people bother at all to be inconsistent despite enunciating such religious beliefs is a testimony to the courage of people.
To be "perfect" or "imperfect" requires judgements about the nature of that which is being considered perfect or imperfect.
Doesn't matter.
If you are looking for your head with your head, you're in trouble.
ex-preacher
(To college guy):Why should I regard you as "intelligent and friendly" when you've just told me that real Christians think it is silly to consider any human honest and intelligent?
I think that this is one of the issues I have with such systems; it is akin to learning tennis from a paraplegic who is dumb and blind. Or studying from a book written by such an individual that says you can never, ever really learn tennis.
I would rather learn tennis from someone who has actually got the game in the marrow of his bones, and who will encourage me to develop the game within mine.
That is to say, if one says at the outset "I can never be really sincere, or intelligent," why make the effort at all? Or why engage in the hard work and discipline and face the approbation and disagreement that inevitably results when one is indeed sincere and intelligent?
College Guy,
... people should decide democratically. If they decide it's best to listen to the scientific establishment, then go with what the scientific establishment says is best. If they decide the scientific establishment suffers from a restrictive plausibility structure that excludes certain theories on illegitimate grounds--theories which may benefit human understanding and the pursuit of truth--then they should go for what they believe is best.
In other words, this larger debate more about the principles of democratic governance than it is about philosophy of science, although it takes philosophy to show us how we've placed too much faith in the establishment.
Two points:
1) There are a lot of communities that subscribe to the thesis of The Bell Curve. Should they be allowed to put that into the curriculum too?
2) Why stop at I.D. theory? -- Isn't the Biblical account of creation that is found in Genesis a scientific theory as well?
If a school board wants to teach Genesis in science class -- if they want to teach Genesis and leave out Darwin altogether -- you would have no problem with that. It's just democracy in action, right?
Ex-preacher,
It has always been troubling to me, both while I was a Christian and now as an atheist, that so many really smart, honest people cannot agree on religion. The question of God's existence is so basic that it should have been resolved for all intelligent, honest people many years ago. (Of course, those who believe in God can then be subdivided into various religions, who are then divided into denominations, each of which is in complete disagreement with the others and each full of honest, intelligent folks.) I can see only two likely explanations:
1. God is so hidden that many smart, good-hearted people just can't find him (or be found by him), or
2. God doesn't exist, but many people want so deeply to believe in him that they have convinced themselves he exists. Of course, they do this with help and encouragement from their families, support structure, society, tradition, previous generations.
Becoming an atheist is not just a matter of intelligence, but of a willingness to accept something totally at odds with what you believe deeply (something Joe admits he can't do), and the courage to deal with the disapproval of your family, friends, and society.
If you believe something, and then confront your belief, and then lose your belief, it is something like losing a member of your family or an old friend.
The initial emotional reflex is denial -- it just can't be so! Then anger gets mixed in, and despair, and what have you.
But you know what: the real problem is not that you had a certain belief in the first place and now it's gone. The real problem is that you had a certain belief in the first place that you shouldn't have had in the first place.
If you are looking for support, you've got it right here sir. My e-mail is mjpgoggins@att.net, drop me a line anytime.
As for the rest of the world, think about it like sports.
You feel like a Yankee fan in Fenway park: it can very be uncomfortable, perhaps there are even some scary moments. But for the most part, you should be proud to be the standard bearer for an excellent team.
And it's not that the Red Sox fans are truly beknighted -- they just happened to be born under unfortunate circumstances. Could have happened to anyone, they're still good eggs.
Would the world be a better place if everyone were a Yankees fan? Maybe, maybe not. But when it comes to sports affiliations, you just have to worry primarily about yourself. The rest of the world has to take care of itself, and maybe one day they'll see the light.
ex-preacher:
So I'm re-reading my post (#36) that you say is "disparaging to non-believers" and I don't really understand why you think it's disparaging to non-believers in general that some non-believers like to repeat simplistic arguments ad nauseum to Christians while assuming a much better understanding of Christian theology than their arguments reflect. I didn't say that ALL non-believers do that, nor did I deny that some Christians do the same to non-believers, so I'm not sure why you're taking offense at something that's so clearly true for evangelicals, namely "most of the arguments that supposedly refute their beliefs simply don't (to them) and are nonetheless recycled and repeated over and over again in various forms ad nauseum."
Could you explain why you took offense to that? Did anyone else think that was offensive? I mean if most non-believers reading this thread took offense, I'd apologize because that wasn't the point of the comment...
You also say:
"You've stepped in repeatedly to defend Christians and Christian viewpoints, but have not once defended atheists or atheist viewpoints."
First of all, I've defended "Christian" viewpoints because they needed defending against arguments that I thought were somewhat weak. (Please don't take offense to that, hehe). But I've also criticized Christian viewpoints as well (#47), which, considering the dearth of Christian comments that aren't my own in comparision to the many, many non-believer comments, I think is pretty proportional considering I wasn't counting until you mentioned this...
Second of all, there haven't been that many issues to defend for either "side." There's the "What is a scientific theory" issue--which I don't think was understood by all parties in the beginning, the "Christian apologetics" stuff, and that's about it. I defended the "Christian" viewpoint (btw it's interesting how you characterize "Christian" positions and "athiest" positions) on scientific theory because it seemed people were misinterpreting George (again, I'm not trying to disparage anyone), and I defended the "Christian" viewpoint on Christianity because, again, of the weak argumentation.
I DO understand most of what athiests argue, except for Mumon's comment on evolution and falsifiability tests which I said I knew nothing about, and when the arguments stand in my mind, I let them stand. I don't think it's normal for everyone to make a comment telling everyone they agree with that they agree with them; normally when people agree, they don't comment.
Btw, I capitalized "Really" as well as "Holy" and "Transcendently Perfect" because I wanted to emphasize the words, and I felt that ALL CAPS would be a little annoying, not because my subconscious Christian mind made me do it, though I see why you would think so :) See, I do defend athiest viewpoints. ;)
I actually don't know what a Reformed presuppositionalist means exactly, but you probably came up with because I used the words "Reformed" and "presupposition" before, right?
(Btw if you thought that last comment was serious and therefore disparaging, I also realize why you would think my posts are disparaing. If so, let me know and I'll try not to joke around in such a serious environment.)
Well, perhaps if I did state simply that "real Christians think it is silly to consider any human honest and intelligent" totally without the context, you might be justified in not regarding me as "intelligent and friendly," but instead you demonstrate that when I ask you to think about what holy means before you think about human virtues, you don't understand that I'm making a comparison between perfect God and imperfect human beings, which is in fact silly to do if you in good faith take the presupposition of God's holiness.
Okay, next point. I'm not saying either of those things. I'm saying that Christians shouldn't be gloating if they believes Darwin is in hell.
There's seems to be no inconsistency between any of the New Testament writers/figures concerning hell, and apparently it was not something only Jesus talked about, so... yea. It seems likely that the apostles were in agreement about it.
The evangelical belief system teaches that it's impossible, without some kind of divine knowledge, for people to know who specifically goes to hell. 1) Those who believe they're Christians often aren't. 2) You can't really know what someone's thinking before they die. But yes, if those you mentioned didn't think they were sinners in need of grace, conservative evangelicals believe their judgment is hell and that is just because of what they've done. It apparently isn't for no reason that Jesus said "Many are called, but few are chosen."
Mumon:
I need to do my seminar reading :) But thanks for the info about Wikipedia and its shortcomings.
"Actually, I do, but the issue is not their intelligence but their willingness to consistently apply it to everything, and to step outside of their own preconceived notions. Very hard to do. Takes practice and discipline.
As a former Christian, I understand that well."
My guess is that Christians would respond, "As former non-believers, we understand that as well." :)
"Actually, given the thought of such a deity, or lack thereof, that people strive in this world, that people truly love in this world, that act in spite of fear inspired by such religious beliefs, that people bother at all to be inconsistent despite enunciating such religious beliefs is a testimony to the courage of people."
My goodness, you guys really can't step into the shoes of Christians at all.. Or perhaps you don't want to? "fear inspired by such religious beliefs" Do you seriously believe that's something a Christian would say, "Yes, that's what it's all about for me." If not, then why say it?
Other than that, that was very touching, Mumon. I kind of liked it... made me feel all noble, until I remembered most of the world isn't like that.
"To be 'perfect' or 'imperfect' requires judgements about the nature of that which is being considered perfect or imperfect."
That's obviously true, but Christians often understand that better than non-Christians, hence their emphasis on revelation as opposed to human opinion.
"If you are looking for your head with your head, you're in trouble."
Makes sense to me :) But how do you know when you're not?
"That is to say, if one says at the outset "I can never be really sincere, or intelligent," why make the effort at all? Or why engage in the hard work and discipline and face the approbation and disagreement that inevitably results when one is indeed sincere and intelligent?"
Christians believe in sin, but they also believe in redemption in Christ. Again, simple simple simple Christian theology. I'm very frustrated.
"Why hide your Christian identity?
I don't see the point."
My quote from above:
"All the readers, non-Christian and Christian, can pick the one that will make them a friendlier and more charitable listener ;)"
That's it... after this post no more. I really need to do schoolwork and you guys aren't really reading my posts, you're just skimming it to figure out what you think I'm trying to say, assuming that's what I'm saying, arguing on that basis, and ignoring the rest. And you probably don't even realize it. I apologize if that's disparaging.
Last one.
Matthew Goggins:
1) If there are enough citizens in a state/town who believe The Bell Curve is legitimate, and they can't be convinced by others that it's flawed, then yes. Democracies can self-implode. But that's the choice of those townspeople. The point is that the U.S. isn't supposed to be a society ruled by elites who decide everything and impose it on the masses because they assume they know better.
2) Right, so people want to do stupid things, and enough people contribute through the democratic process, bad things can happen. If enough people want to, we could make an amendment to the Constitution repealing the Bill of Rights. That's how our system works, and it's worked so far and it's the best there is.
Okay, I'm tired.
Seriously though, non-Christians aren't doing themselves any favors by not understanding Christian perspectives and assuming they do.
Shalom...
("psssst. Is he Jewish???")
hahaaha i couldn't resist. Okay, that's it.
Goodnight Mumon, ex-preacher, Matthew Goggins, Joe Carter and the rest :)
omg I lied. But Matthew Goggins put up a post that was cute.
I bet you're a nice fellow in real life, Mr. Goggins. :) If I ever need help, I'll keep your email address in mind. But honestly, I bet there are plenty of people around you who need your help more than I do.
Okay, for real this time. Goodnight!
I believe the whole point of the story that started this thread is that we are going to believe what we want to believe. Each side has its evidence, subjectively good evidence, according to each side, and the chances of any of us changing another's mind is pretty slim, by my estimation.
An independent judge is obviously required, and there is not one to be found. Oh you could say that the Bible or Science is the authority, but neither clarifies, only muddies, especially when human interpretation is the medium.
As I've said before, the last nail in the coffin of ID and Creationism is coming, so you evangelical proponents of a noble but lost cause should be preparing your concession speeches. The most likely source of your demise will probably be DNA.
My argument has always been for you to stay in philosophy and I and others can relate to that, keep yourself unsullied by the grit of science, keep your higher thoughts and moral imperatives in the churches, do what Jesus told you to do, feed the hungry, tend the sick, clothe the naked, and leave science to the scientists, and the teaching of science to the schools. And if you have any questions about the creation of the world, take for you teaching those few verses from the beginning of Genesis, Chapter 1, verses 1-24, in which we find this extraordinary sequence:
4. Light and dark created (The Big Bang?)
8. The firmament of Heaven separated from the waters(gaseous clouds, anyone?)
9. Dry land appears
10. Grass, herbs, trees appear
14-18. stars, the sun and moon created
20. life comes from the sea
24. life developed on land
You'll find that the very first page of the Bible is not terribly different from the way scientists say it really happened in their version. What's all the argument about? It's right there in black and white.
But you're going to believe what you want to believe.
College Guy,
If I ever need help, I'll keep your email address in mind.
Yes, you are tired: I was offering support to my naturalist/atheist comrade, Ex-preacher, but you can e-mail too if you wish :)
2) Right, so people want to do stupid things [replace Darwin with Genesis in science class], and enough people contribute through the democratic process, bad things can happen.
Actually, there isn't anything stupid about it, College Guy. If you believe in Genesis, if you really believe in Genesis, then it's not just a Bible story, it's what actually happened. It really is, as far as the true believer is concerned, a scientific account of the creation of the world.
So it is in no way a bad thing to replace Darwin with Genesis. To the contrary, it is the only way to describe the origin of the universe that makes sense.
Science deals with reality, Genesis deals with reality, so Genesis is a scientific theory, end of story.
Maybe you disagree with Genesis as science. I certainly do. But there are school boards in some small towns who have Genesis in the curriculum where one would expect to find Darwin.
The school boards in question didn't design their curriculum recently either. They are holdovers going back about 100 years from the time when rural school districts used to frequently frown on the ape-man theories of Darwin.
So what exactly is your problem with these school boards again? Are you now saying Genesis is not science after you went to such great lengths to prove to me that Intelligent Design theory is?
Oh yeah, Joe Carter should feel free to chime in too.
I definitely need some further explanation on these points, Joe, if you could help me out here. Is Genesis science? If yes, should it be taught in public high school science classes? If no, then why isn't it science?
Ex-P. says: The willingness to follow truth wherever it leads is what brought me to the positions I now hold.
An unscientific statement!
Ex-P, you have an exaggerated view of your 'truth'. You *believe* in the most sceptical views about the NT authors, not because it is 'the truth' at all - those who oppose them strenuously have very good evidence -historically better too - but because you *want* to reject the NT's messages and truth claims. Admit it.
Antony Flew, lifelong academic and atheist, said *exactly* the same words as you when he shocked his buddies by finally spurning atheism in old age - he realised that *the weight of rational opinion was for deism*.
That's all intelligent Christians say about ID, and the resurrection too.
By the way, gentlemen, I haven't seen anyone actually engage with any ID *arguments*, you are too busy generalising and pontificating about it.. It ain't so simple.
Read Michael Denton's 'Nature's Destiny' if you actually want to discuss *science* in this area.
Try to prove he's not a scientist, if you can. 'Science is what scientists *try* to do' - a social definition I like..
MEMO to critics:
Joe *did* get himself in a big knot, but he promises to cut it soon, so be patient..
College Guy,
I think i'm going to come to this blog just to read your comments. Well said and enjoyabl, and yes, Matthew Goggins is a good guy. Or at least he plays one on this blog.