Posted on 09/28/2003 10:31:50 AM PDT by ZeitgeistSurfer
Oxford University Press gets the prize for the year's snappiest book title: "God?''
As the subtitle explains, this is "A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist'' about whether God exists, one of humanity's great questions.
The book doesn't assess any old deity but the Bible's unique, all-loving and all-powerful God.
This ancient question became quite current with two recent opinion pieces in The New York Times.
In one, Tufts University's Daniel Dennett caustically championed those like himself who don't believe in "ghosts or elves or the Easter Bunny – or God.'' Dennett said atheists are "the moral backbone of the nation'' and (ignoring opinion polls) its "silent majority.'' He called atheists "brights,'' implying that believers are "dims'' or "dumbs.''
In the second piece, the Times' own Nicholas Kristof lamented a growing, "poisonous'' divide between "intellectual and religious America.'' He blamed believers for clinging to tenets he finds unreasonable, and implied that they lack applied brainpower.
However, there's ample intellect with William Lane Craig of California's Talbot School of Theology, God's defender in "God?'' In fact, he presents the opposite problem, employing new twists taken from physics and mathematics that will flummox ordinary readers.
Quick: What do you get when you subtract infinity from infinity? And do you favor the Oscillating Universe, Chaotic Inflationary Universe, Vacuum Fluctuation Universe or Quantum Gravity Universe?
Craig's equally able counterpart is Dartmouth College atheist Walter Sinnot-Armstrong. (The book is based on two face-to-face debates they held.)
Alvin Plantinga of the University of Notre Dame, an estimable Protestant philosopher (who must have escaped Kristof's notice) has proposed "two dozen or so'' arguments for God. But Craig thinks just five make the case, if taken cumulatively:
* One is the evidence for
supernatural miracles that display God's power, using as an example the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Not a bad argument, but it's unlikely to convince non-Christians.
* God makes sense of the existence of the universe (which is where math and physics come in). Craig says it's good logic that "something cannot come from nothing,'' and God is the only reasonable explanation.
* God also makes sense of a universe that's "fine-tuned'' to support the existence of intelligent life despite the astronomical odds against it. He thinks it's more plausible to believe an "intelligent Mind'' caused this than that it just happened.
* God's existence explains the moral values whose objective reality we recognize, even when they're violated. (The Holocaust was evil even if the Nazis had won; child molesting is always wrong, and so forth.) Where do these absolutes come from, if not from God?
* Hosts of people profess that God can be immediately known and experienced. There's no way to absolutely prove this reality, but we all follow such basic beliefs drawn from experience in other contexts, and "it is perfectly rational to hold them.''
Sinnot-Armstrong, of course, finds Craig full of fallacies, as follows:
* Miracle accounts are "feeble testimony'' from "self-interested parties.''
* On origins, we just don't know enough, and citing God as the cause "is to explain the obscure by the more obscure, which gets us nowhere.''
* Even if "fine-tuning'' for intelligent life is highly improbable, what's to say a Mind created it? Maybe we're just lucky, like lottery winners.
* If moral values are objective, they're true whether or not God commanded them, so "God is superfluous.''
* Religious experiences don't suffice because they contain competing ideas of God. Anyway, if there were a God, he'd have the power to directly make his existence obvious to everyone.
Sinnot-Armstrong also uses what Craig acknowledges is "atheism's killer argument,'' how to explain the reality of human suffering.
I do not mean this to sound, "flip," but I would still say, chickens are chicken-made. What I mean is this. Only living things can produce living things, because life is a self-sustained process. It cannot be started from the "outside" so-to-speak.
While we can do a great deal to manipulate the different forms life will take, it is only because those organisms have about their nature those attributes that allow them to be manipulated. We discover that nature and use it, but we cannot cause a creature to be what it's own nature does not allow.
Even genetic manipulation is limited by the nature of the organisms being manipulated. We can alter organisms, but we can neither create totally new ones, or make a creature something other than what it is. (We can, and do, create things which are essentially monsters, because they are not viable, but nature does this herself, and when men do it, it is never original.)
The domesticated creatures of today were always potentially what they are today, or they could not be what they are today. It was man that discovered the means of making that potential a reality, but it had to be there for us to be able to exploit it.
So, in a sense, domesticated animals are "man-made," after all, they are "domesticated," which means, made conformable to human domesiles. But they are not man-made, in the usual sense, that is, we did not make them from "scratch."
Hank
So, in a sense, domesticated animals are "man-made," after all, they are "domesticated," which means, made conformable to human domesiles. But they are not man-made, in the usual sense, that is, we did not make them from "scratch."
Right, and you could say this about anything. The atom bomb relies on uranium -- which was here in the beginning.
So I gather that the creationist argument against evolution doesn't really deny the fact of natural selection but is focused on the unlikely creation of the first cell. Am I right on that point?
I find this extremely difficult to believe. Now, perhaps 10% of Europeans are practicing Christians. But just think about Poland. Ireland, Spain, Italy. I sincerely believe if you asked the people in those countries whether they considered themselves to be Christian or not, an overwhelming majority would likely say yes. The CIA factbook lists 40 Million Christians of one type or another in Great Britain alone. That's at least ten percent of Europe right there. In Bavaria, they have the crucifix in the classrooms and it seemed to me that most Germans go through baptism and confirmation ceremonies.
Again, practicing- that's another matter. But 10% is hard for me to believe.
I cannot speak for creationists, since I an not one, nor can I speak for evolutionists either, because I am also not one of them. Both views are problematic, and neither is conclusive in my view. Personally, the whole subject of origins, from the question of the origin of the universe (cosmology) to the origin (if that is even right word in this case) of life is terribly over-emphasized. It is much more important to notice that we here and to discover what our natures are and what the nature of "here" (the world we are in) is, then it is to discover how we got here.
However, I am familiar with most of the views in both areas, and while there is great variety in both camps, in general, I think creationists do not deny all natural selection, or what they call, "micro-evolution," small changes within the limits of a species, but I'm sure no creationist would agree that one species could evolve into another one, especially not by means of natural selection. To the thorough-going creationist, the species are what was created, and like can only beget like.
Personally, I do not believe there is scientific evidence that speciation is absolute, but it is apparent that if new species can result from either natural mutations (which would have to be both viable and efficient) or genetic manipulation, it is very unlikely and difficult. That is why we can make domesticated cows from wild cows, but cannot make domesticated chickens starting with buzzards.
Two quick points, about which I would be interested in your comments:
1. One problem with evolution is the fact it requires new species to evolve from others. All higher animals reproduce sexually, meaning there must be both a male and a female. A new species means it is reproductively incompatible with all previous species. All animals of the same species can reproduce (even if with difficulty). This means, the first evolved new species must not only have evolved one newly mutated creature, but two, one male and one female. The statistical chances of producing even one viable mutation by "accicent" are very high. The statistical chances of producing two identical ones at the same time, and one of one sex and one of the other, really is statistically impossible.
2. A problem with creation is since life never comes into being "spontaneously, and life only comes from life, if this is truly a universal and absolute principle, life could not have a beginning at all (a distinct possiblity both creationists and evolutionists ignore). If you insist life must have had a beginning, there is no ground whatsoever for insisting that beginning be the one you like, because, not knowing is only evidence of what you do not know, not evidence of what must be. The case for, "everything must have a beginning," has never been made conclusive. It is more-or-less accepted on "faith," becasue all finite things do have beginnings (and ends). If "everything must have a beginning" is truly an absolute universal law, it must also apply to God. Absolute universal laws do not have exceptions.
Personally, I do not care which veiw people take, but I do care that people want to shove their view down other people's throats, especially the throats of our children. Neither view belongs in a government school.
Hank
Why?
Survey costruction is notoriously difficuly because, among other reasons, the wording, format, and sequencing of the questions affect the answers. Indeed, when asked in this form, many more than 10% answer that they are Christians.
No offense intended by the following comparison, but consider asking people whether they are good lovers, say. What do you think the outcome would be? A great over-reporting; many more people would self-report themselved to be good lovers than actually are there.
What do the two cases have in common? Essentially this: when there is a popular or ethically dictated answer to the question, that answer will be given, in many cases falsely. Thus, the desire to be viewed as successful with the opposite sex leads to overstimation in the second case. The view, adopted from parents in childhood, makes people consider being Christian as synonimous with being a "good person." This too leads to overestimation of one's adherence to, and not just the practice of, his family's religion.
In both of the aforementioned cases, if one want a better handle on reality, one has to rely on better measures than self-reporting, which is clearly flawed. To me, attendance of Churches and synagogues is a much better --- although not ideal, naturally --- measure of one's beliefs.
It is in that sense that I have used the word "identify:" those attending churches identify by their behaviors themseves as Christians.
Two main points:
[1] There are only two religions; the man-centered one where man is sovereign, and the God-centered one, where God is sovereign.
"Atheism" is a religion. It is merely one of the many and varied philosophies in the self-focused, man-centered religion.
There is no such thing as an "atheist" because one of the definitions of god is: something or someone of supreme value -- something or someone that functions as as an ultimate concern in a person's life.
We all care about many things: love of family, the condition of one's home, taxes, war and peace, etc., etc., but for each of us, there can be only one ultimate concern, something so important and valuable that we are willing, at the moment, to sacrifice almost anything for it. (One's ultimate concern can change over time, but that doesn't change the fact that we all have one at all of our stages of life).
Our ultimate concern is the god (or God) we worship.
[2] Regarding "faith" --- do you think it's rational to hold certain presuppositions?
For instance --- do you believe that people, other than yourself, have minds? How do you *know* that other people aren't just robots? Explain, please.
Quoting from the above article: "Dennett said atheists are "the moral backbone of the nation'' and (ignoring opinion polls) its "silent majority.'' He called atheists "brights,'' implying that believers are "dims'' or "dumbs.''"
With that "moral backbone" statement, Dennett has exposed himself as a very illogical mentality. He is the one who is dim.
All who claim not to have any god (atheists), are just your average, every-day relativist. Their personal opinions about what is right and wrong -- what is good and evil -- fluctuates, and is based upon the situation aka "situation ethics".
It is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE that fluctuating, situational, wishy washy personal ideas (as varied as the people that hold them) could, at the same time be called, "the BACKBONE of morality"
But it isn't anything unusual to see such illogical mentalities holding polar opposite, oxymoronic, ideas and beliefs simultaneously.
Their mental confusion has a name -- it's called, "cognitive dissonance".
The day any self-proclaimed "atheist" is able to successfully (legitimately) win a debate with a Christian like Alvin Plantinga, then his opinions might have some credibility with intellectually honest, emotionally mature people capable of critical thought. Hahahaha
The truth of Allah's existence does not require one single athiest's belief.
No one here is denying God, but please, define your God, then we can discuss if such a God is even possible or not.
Hank
BUMP
No. He's given every definition necessary for those who desire to know Him. I am considering your use of "Allah" as a provocative attempt, since it isn't too dificult to visit my homepage and discern for yourself of which God I speak.
"...then we can discuss if such a God is even possible or not."
That's an issue I neither question nor a debate I care to engage in. You decide for yourself if such a God is even possible, and if so, we then may continue a discussion from that point.
Otherwise. Good day.
On this we are in total agreement. Unfortunately we are in the minority and there are government schools and so long as there are, they have no business mucking around with origins when the numbskulls called teachers cannot even teach mathematics, english, geography, and history.
As for the rest of your post, you have made good points, which I would address one at a time, but there is nothing conclusive I could offer, only my opinion and reasons for it. I do not think we are far apart, but our conclusions are a little different.
I did not mean by, "no beginning," circular, but infinite. In spite of the famousness of the "big bang" theory, it is not nearly as conclusive as people believe, and many scientists and philosophers throughout history believe the universe may be both infinite and eternal (although "indefinite" would probably be the better word since both infinite and eternal imply some kind of metric or measurement). Even if one believes in the "big bang" that does not mean nothing came before, or that where the "big bang" takes place, there is nothing anywhere else (whatever that would mean in that context). A beginning is just one view among many possible views (and your circular idea is actually entertained by some phsicists), and as silly as "no beginning" seems, many of the scientific "facts" now commonly accepted seemed pretty silly when first proposed. None of these conjectures may turn out to be correct, but so long as they are possibilities, the certainty of any one hypothesis of origins is not established.
Hank
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.