Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 14, 2007; A01
I've been having an interesting discussion with "mykid2". I posted the discussion in the comments section below, where our discussion may continue further.
Consider this relevant scenario:
The time is several decades ago. You're visiting a Frank Lloyd Wright house (e.g. Falling Water) with some friends. You're looking around in astonishment at the sheer beauty and creativity of the design... the soaring beams, the intimate nooks, the stone, wood, concrete, and water nestled together in perfect harmony.
All of a sudden, you hear the front door open and another visitor walks in. It turns out to be Frank Lloyd Wright himself.
What would you do in that situation?
Which is more intrinsically important? - the artist or the artifact?
Here's an interesting quote from a debate between a christian and an atheist a few years ago, with my comments below:
Moderator: "You have said that there has been no adequate evidence put forth for God's existence. What for you personally would constitute adequate evidence for God's existence?"
Dr. Stein: "Well it's very simple; I can give you two examples. If that podium suddenly rose into the air five feet, stayed there for a minute, and then dropped right down again. I would say that was evidence of the super natural, because it would violate everything we know about the laws of physics and chemistry (assuming that there wasn't an engine under there or a wire attached to it--we can make those obvious exclusions). That would be evidence for a supernatural, violation of the laws, we could call it a miracle right in front of your eyes. That would be evidence I would accept. Any kind of a supernatural being putting in an appearance and doing miracles that could not be stage magic would also be evidence I would accept. Those are the two simplest ways. I would also accept any evidence that is logically noncontradictory and I have not heard any yet tonight, that hasn't been offered already."
Dr. Bahnsen: "Dr. Stein, I think, is really not reflecting on the true nature of atheism and human nature when he says, "All it would take is a miracle in my very presence to believe in God." History is replete with, first of all, things which would be, apparently, miracles to people. Now from an atheistic or naturalistic standpoint, I will grant in terms of the hypothesis, that that's because they were ignorant of all the causal factors and so it appeared to be miraculous; but that didn't make everybody into a theist. In fact, Scripture tells us there are instances of people who witnessed miracles who all the more hardened their heart and eventually crucified the Lord of Glory. They saw his miracles; that didn't change their minds. People are not made theists by miracles. People must change their world view; their hearts must be changed. They need to be converted. That's what it takes. And that's what it would take for Dr. Stein to finally believe in it. If this podium rose up five feet off the ground and stayed there, Dr. Stein would have, eventually--in the future--some naturalistic explanation. You see they believe things on faith, by which I mean they believe things they have not proven as yet by their senses.
I agree with Bahnsen here. Specifically, even if Stein saw the podium rise into the air, it would (likely) go against his own belief structure to accept even this as proof of 'the supernatural', because it would be an argument "appealing to a god of the gaps." If he wished his basic atheistic presuppositions to remain unchanged, he could simply say that the naturalistic explanation for the event had not yet been discovered but that the history of scientific discovery provided hope that such an explanation (for mysteriously levitating podiums) would eventually be discovered.
What do you think?
"...huge edifices of ideas such as positivism never really die. Thinking people gradually abandon them and even ridicule them among themselves, but keep the persuasively useful parts to scare away the uninformed."
John Angus Campbell, "The Comic Frame and the Rhetoric of Science: Epistemology and Ethics in Darwin's Origin," Rhetoric Society Quarterly 24, pp.2750 (1994).
Ha. Yes indeed.
I'm sure some have you have already seen this documentary about global warming (hint: the hype may well be based on faulty science).
But if you haven't, it's worth taking two hours to listen to and think about (especially if you can do something else during that time - dishes, laundry, whatever... multitasking to 'redeem the time...'
Here's a powerful quote from near the end:
"I think one of the most pernicious aspects of the modern envionmental movement is this romantisation of peasant life, and the idea that industrial societies are the destroyers of the world.
The envionmental movement has evolved into the strongest force there is for preventing development in the developing countries.
I think it's legitimate for me to call them anti-human. Like, Ok, you don't have to think humans are better than whales, or better than owls, or whatever... if you don't want to, right.
But surely it is not a good idea to think of humans as being scum. ..That it's ok to have hundreds of millions of them go blind or die or whatever. I just can't relate to that."
Patrick Moore - cofounder of Greenpeace
Here's some hilarious stuff from http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/uds-first-suck-up-to-darwin-contest/#comments , in honor of the 2009 bicentennial of Charles Darwin's birth and the sesquicentennial of his publication of "The Origin of Species". Here are three of the 'odes'... the link has several more. They're especially funny because they weave in a lot of real evolutionists' rhetoric, and expose some of the irony involved. The second and third one especially bring out the problems atheism/naturalism/evolutionism has with reductionism and determinism... i.e. whether consciousness, morality, and free will are merely illusions or not.
Darwin lived in age of superstition and squalor yet rose above it to lead humanity into sunlight, into the promised land.
Darwin was abandoned by his mother at the age of three months after the insane King George III ordered the death of all infants named “Charles”, “Chas” or “Chuck”. The King’s daughter saw him floating in a basket amongst the bullrushes, however. His superior persona was obvious even at that age and she adopted him as her own.
Darwin grew into a comely man of great height and uncommon strength. He was known to be able to carry a full-grown cow upon his shoulders. Many respected accounts have him running a four-minute mile over a century before Roger Bannister. And in boots.
Still it is the prowness of his mind, not his body for which he is known.
Science was in a primative and unenlighted state before his birth. There was no telephone, eletric light, or aeroplane.
There was no motor car. Not a single luxury.
Darwin’s then theorized that whales might have descended from bears - swimming bears, that is — and all these things became possible.
The glories of the 20th Century would not have occurred without Charles, Chas, Chuck, Darwin.
Much has been written about Darwin, and much more will be.
It can never be enough.
He was a real man of genius. Charles Darwin, we salute you!
As we approach 200 years since Darwin’s birth, how can we go about gauging his importance to the world? When looking at the role of individuals in history, it can be easy to forget that history moves dialectically. Ideas are not the result of individuals, but material, historical processes. If Darwin had chosen a different profession in his youth, the idea of Evolution would have still emerged as a great force in the world.
Does this mean that we shouldn’t honor and revere Darwin? Absolutely not. Material reality chose Darwin to reveal the truth of evolution. By honoring Darwin, we honor the ultimate material reality. Conveniently, Evolution also molded man so that he needed heroes to look up to. Evolution, amazingly, built in a mechanism by which the idea of Evolution can spread. We can honor Darwin by celebrating him and reading his work. In doing so, we fulfill two important Evolutionary needs: the need for a hero and the need for truth about reality. Truth about reality, of course, helps humans advance as a species. Darwin’s work, by undoing the misguided superstitions that evolved for thousands of years, has done more to help us advance as a species than any other man in modern times
Listen my child and I shall tell you
Of the Prophet and His mighty works
The story begins eons ago,
Indeed in the very beginning
For in the beginning were the particles
And, lo, the particles were in motion
Eons passed
Galaxies formed
stars were born; burned for billions of years and died
And in all this time, the particles knew naught
Of themselves or anything else
There was no knowing, my child, for what can particles in motion know?
But slowly, ever so slowly, some of the burned out star stuff
Began to coalesce around a core and form a small planet
Further eons passed and still there was nothing but particles in motion
That knew nothing, for what can particles in motion know?
But then one day, in a warm pond on this little planet
Some of the particles received a surge of energy and
Formed self-replicating groups of bio particles
But still, the particles knew nothing; for what can particles in motion know?
Further eons passed.
And then, oh day of days, came a descendant
Of that first group of self replicating bio particles from that warm pond
And he looked to the heavens and declared “I know.”
This great and glorious amalgamation of bio particles we call the Prophet
Others call him Darwin.
But alas, Darwin did not really know, as he himself recognized
For what can particles in motion know?
I would call you “best beloved” but we know
That love is not real; it is just a chemical reaction in our brain.
So, I shall say, “one who is the object of
The illusory but nevertheless pleasurable chemical reaction in my brain
That I choose (alas, another illusion) to call love”
That is how we came to know that we do not know
For what can particles in motion know?
Here's a recent email I wrote to a email group of creationists... I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
Dear -------, -------, and other friends,
I think you're both right. We Christians can (and must) base our belief structure upon Christ and the Word of God as our sure foundation (more sure than shifting science). Yet our faith in Christ is not subjective or based on circular reasoning, but is based on real historical facts (1 Corinthians 15:1-8) that have empirical/historical/scientific backing.
Our "presuppositional structure" can be based on the Bible (a more 'postmodern' emphasis), while our trust in the Bible itself can be based on the "evidence" for the accuracy and truth of the Bible (a more "modernist" emphasis). Neither full postmodernism nor full modernism are correct (they are both human-centered rather than God-centered), but both philosophies of knowledge have some truth to them.
While saying "Christ should be our starting point" sounds great, problems arise whenever we ask the "What" and "Why" questions. What/who exactly is this "Christ"? Is He the Christ of the modern emergent church, the liberal socialistic activist-for-the-poor? Is He the Christ of Luther? or of the Catholics? "He's the Christ of the Bible," one might say. But all of those groups claim Biblical basis. It is necessary to go back to the "brute facts" of the not-completely-subjective Word of God to ascertain exactly who Christ was and is. Furthermore, "Why" should Christ be our starting point? Why not Muhammad or Buddha or Joseph Smith? Why must we believe in any God whatsoever? Again we must go back to the historical "brute facts" of creation and the history surrounding Jesus of Nazareth to provide a basis for our hope (1 Peter 3:15).
Yet brute facts presented to a nonbeliever will be as ineffective as water rolling off a duck's back... unless God opens the heart and mind to believe.
The Bible itself supports both perspectives on the issue I think (they are complementary rather than contradictory) - in Acts 26:26, 17:22-32, 1 Cor. 15:1-8, etc, examples are given of pointing to Christ from empirical evidences and proofs, philosophical reasoning, and historical facts. Yet in Col. 2:1-10, 1 Cor 1:18-2:16 and 1 Tim 6:20 we are warned against "philosophy"/"human wisdom" and in 2 Peter 1:19 we are told that the prophetic word is even more sure/reliable than direct sensory experience.
Will people come to believe in Christ without God working in their hearts to open their eyes? No. "Evidence" or "brute factuality" without God's regenerating power is useless. (Acts 16:14, Rom. 1, John 6:44, 65, Eph. 2:1-10, etc). Kuhn and Polanyi showed the stubbornness of mere scientific paradigms in the face of data... how much more the stubbornness of a human heart that hates God.
On the other hand, was Van Til right that the only way to witness to people is to first get them to adopt your presuppositional starting point (e.g. the Bible is God's Word)? I see plenty of evidence from Scripture that there are other ways to present the gospel... including ways that start from "scientific facts" or philosophical reasoning, and end at Jesus Christ as portrayed in the Scriptures (e.g. Acts 17:22-32).
Different people are led to Christ from different starting points (1 Cor. 9:19-23).
With esteem,
In Christ, Tim
This six minute video is absolutely hilarious... especially if you've ever heard any of these arguments from an atheist or evolutionist. There's also a related piece of text, but the video is even funnier.
This really hits on many of the most important questions about God. Right at the beginning, the question is asked: "If there is a Dawkins, why hasn't he shown himself to me?"
There are lots of obvious answers - perhaps "because he's got better things to do with his time", etc. But personal subjective experience isn't the only type of evidence... maybe he's "shown himself" to other people...? Ah, but what if all those other people who claimed to have seen him are all lying? Or delusional?/hallucinating? Or merely spreading legends and hearsay?
The logic is almost exactly the same as the evidence for the Biblical Jesus and His miraculous life and resurrection... and once you have a miracle-working, resurrected, Messiah who teaches that God does exist and that He is in fact "one" with Him, the evidence for the existence of "God" begins to stack up quite substantially...
I came across this cool list of questions today... thirty-seven questions from atheists toward theists/Christians... with some excellent answers by Rob Bowman.
I especially like the question "What would convince you that you're wrong?" I've asked this question before to atheist friends of mine, and they've had a hard time answering it. One guy said, "If a ten-foot-tall angel were to appear to me right now, with flaming sword, and tell me that I'm wrong, then I'd believe it." Then I pressed him a bit on it, and he admitted that he could still think of some reasons to disbelieve it (it might be a elaborate special-effects hoax, etc). Atheism turns out to be rather "unfalsifiable." On the contrary, as Bowman says, just a few simple things would be enough to "falsify" Christianity. Such as... a plausible explanation for the origin of the resurrection stories, the New Testament documents, and the origin of the Christian church in Jerusalem around 30 AD.
Here's a roundup on more dust stirred up by Dawkins' crusade/book tour (cf. also my previous post about Dawkins' new book The God Delusion).
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0086.htm - Quinn interacts with Dawkins and pins him on several rhetorical and evidential flaws. Notice where Quinn correctly points out that Dawkins is using an appeal to mystery/wishful-thinking (i.e. Scientists havn't figured it out yet, but they've shed light on many other things, so they'll eventually figure this out too...). Uh huh.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1740 - The fascinating controversy between Dawkins and the more "under-the-radar" atheists/agnostics such as the NCSE.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1739 - Dawkins can't explain free will and subsequently has difficulty with the illusion (!) of morality.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html - a seven-page article about "the New Atheists", with interviews with Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris, well-known contemporary atheists (hat tip: Snincr). See Plantinga's review at http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/plantinga/Dennett.html for an awesome discussion of Dennett's/Darwin's views on atheism/evolution and the reliability of the human mind (from a reformed perspective).
My overall take on Dawkins is that he's sadly mistaken, but commendably attempting to be honest (not in all of his beliefs and rhetoric, but in more areas than is typical for an atheist).
Recent Comments