Atheism as a Crutch

Thomas Nagel, in his book The Last Word, offered a revealing insight into his personal motivations for his atheistic beliefs: "I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope that there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that."

Jay Budziszewski responded to Nagel's comments in the journal First Things. There he said that if Nagel's motivations are true of most atheists, then "those who say that theism is a crutch have got it backwards…; it is atheism that serves as a crutch."

A Darwinist Begs the Question

I am currently in a dialogue/debate on line at nytimes.com over the issue of Intelligent Design theory.

Consider this recent post by a Darwinist, who writes: “It's true that arguments by ID proponents that organisms are too complex to have evolved step by step are clearly wrong, since one step at a time is just how complexity develops.”

This is a pefect, textbook example of the informal logical fallacy of "begging the question."

This argument states: Premise 1. One step at a time is just how complexity develops. Conclusion: Therefore it is wrong that organisms are too complex to have evolved step by step.

But of course! Because it's just circular reasoning.

Frightened By Intelligent Design Theory

In today's New York Times Paul Krugman states his fears re. Intelligent Design Theory. I just e-mailed him this response:

Dear Mr. Krugman:

· To hint that ID is using “fake research” is dishonest. The truth is that a growing number of actual scientists show interest in ID. This includes ID-ers problems with Darwinian macroevolution.
· “Fake research” has been used by Darwinists. See, e.g., Jonathan Wells’ Icons of Evolution.
· “Science” and “scientific truth” and “peer review” and “the self-policing nature of science” present actual scientists in universities as pure Cartesian intellects devoid of “politics.” Politics has long been involved in Neo-Darwinist promotion. Not all Neo-Darwinians have engaged in it. Just as not all ID-ers engage in it. But it seems to be a quite human thing.
· If it is true that some politicians hate Darwinism, so what? One commits the ad populum fallacy by inferring that this somehow undermines ID theory.
· It is an empirical fact that a small-but-growing number of actual scientists have doubts about macro-evolution. It is true that more scientists today accept macro-evolution than not. But, as Thomas Kuhn pointed out in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, this is always the way a potential revolution happens in science. So, when it comes to revolutionary science, numbers do not matter. Yet in the history of science, theories can come and go (see Kuhn again, e.g.). A prevailing scientific paradigm gets questioned, sometimes by only one scientist. It takes many years for the then-prevailing paradigm (called “normal science” by Kuhn) to gain acceptability.
· The political and emotional resistance to a candidate for a paradigm shift is understandable. I personally see this in a lot of the anti-ID literature. Yet there are serious discussions going on. See, e.g., Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA, edited by non-ID-er Michael Ruse and ID-er William Dembski. Don’t you think that the dialogue that takes place in a text like this is more fruitful than pointing out the political hatred on both sides?

Sincerely,

John Piippo, Ph.D

Philosophical Naturalism and Miracles

Philosophical Naturalism (PN) holds that there is nothing outside of nature. Everything in our experience can be accounted for by pure natural forces.

Obviously then, a person who holds to PN cannot believe in miracles (defined as events that cannot be explained by pure natural forces). The non-existence of miracles is assumed by definition. Just as it would be impossible to believe in a married bachelor it is impossible – logically – to believe in miracles.

Now note this: PN cannot be itself established by science since, by definition, science only studies natural (not supernatural) events. PN defines the parameters of science; viz., everything in nature. This definition of “science” does not nor cannot prove PN. As philosopher Richard Purtill states, “a position that describes natural laws as simply a summary of what happens cannot even make the contrast between miracles and nonmiraculous events” (“Defining Miracles,” in A Defense of Miracles: A Comprehensive Case for God’s Action in History, eds. Douglas Geivett and Gary Habermas, 70).

Philosopher Winfried Corduan adds, "By virtue of their assumptions about the nature of science the naturalists [adherents of PN] will never be convinced that a miracle has actually occurred... We can now see that the naturalists have laid out the rules of the game in such a way that they cannot possibly lose" ('Recognizing a Miracle," in Ib., 101).

Any attempt to argue from this notion of science that miracles do not happen is to beg the question.

Blatant Falsehoods in The Da Vinci Code

Page 1 of DVC states: "Fact": "all descriptions of ...documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate."
But this is false. Here are but some examples which Margaret Mitchell of The University of Chicago cites.

• There were "more than eighty gospels" (p.231; the number 80 is factual-sounding, but has no basis)
• "The earliest Christian records" were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls (including gospels) and Nag Hammadi texts (pp.234, 245)
• The Nag Hammadi texts "speak of Christ's ministry in very human terms" (p.234)
• The marriage of Mary Magdalene and Jesus is "a matter of historical record" (p.244)
• Constantine invented the divinity of Jesus and excluded all gospels but the four canonical ones
• Constantine made Christianity "the official religion" of the Roman Empire (p.232)
• Constantine coined the term "heretic" (p.234)
• "Rome's official religion was sun worship" (p.232)

The Selling of The Da Vinci Code

I was in Borders today and saw some "Da Vinci Code" games/etc. for sale. Here comes the spinoff marketing of the movie.
Today's New York Times has an article stating that Christian groups are putting pressure on director Ron Howard and Sony Pictures to revise the plot so as to "soften" it and hopefully not upset so many Christians. But the basic plot, horrifically false though it may be, will surely remain since it is the core of the fictional work; viz., that "Jesus married Mary Magdalene and the Catholic Church has done everything in its power, including murdering millions of people, to cover it up."
I'll be doing a seminar on DVC at our church when the time is right to help our people see the story's false claims.

Evolution of the Automobile (from Bill Dembski's blog)

Philosophy Links

For some excellent Christian links re. philosophy see The Evangelical Philosophical Society's web page.

Dave Matthews' Incoherent God-Talk

A recent quote from Dave Matthews on God is an example of confusion, incoherency, and maybe "mosaic" thining (as opposed to linear thinking). Matthews says:
"The idea of a God that's preoccupied with our well-being is totally foreign to me. I'm more inclined to think that a very miraculous indifference is responsible for most things. I have faith, but I think there's a difference between faith and absolute belief. Faith requires a certain amount of suspended belief, whereas absolute belief doesn't really require any faith. If you think God is absolutely there watching you, then why do you need any faith? But I do like the idea of a force that made all the miracles. All the stuff we don't understand that we arrogantly pretend to be in control of, that stuff is where I think my faith is."--Dave Matthews in Rolling Stone (cited at thunderstruck.org)
Now this is incoherent.
Assuming Matthews' quote is in context, we can state the following.
1. "A very miraculous indifference is responsible for most things."
a. What is: "a very miraculous indifference?" I think it is no more than a poetic oxymoron with no identifiable cognitive content.
b. "Miraculous" implies God. "Indifference" implies no God or, at most, deism.
c. "Responsible" implies personal agency (Again, God).
d. "Indifferent responsibility" is probably a logical contradiction, akin to "round square."
e. "Responsible for most things" is vague and thus unhelpful.
2. "There is a difference between faith and absolute belief."
a. "Absolute belief" means...??? Dogmatism? Certainty?
b. Matthews commits the logical fallacy of false dichotomy. There are other possibilities rather than just "faith" and "absolute belief" (whatever that is). Such as, e.g., reasonable faith. Or: reasons to believe.
3. Faith does not require "a certain amount of suspended belief." And even if it did, how much? How little? But to act in faith does not require that one suspend belief. Actually, it is because of belief and out of belief that persons act in faith.
4. "If you think God is absolutely there watching you..."
a. What does this mean? Does it mean: if you really, really believe God is watching you?
b. Why would such a fact remove the need for faith? The answer is: God's watching you does not mean one can do away with faith anymore than a coach watching their student means the student does not need faith to follow what the coach wants.
5. "A force that made all the miracles..."
a. Does Matthews mean a "force" that acts miraculously?
b. And, of course, "force" is vague and, anyway, it's from Star Wars.

Scientology

Scientology is getting a lot of publicity recently because of one of its advocates, actor Tom Cruise. To find out some good information on scientology see this information located at christianitytoday.com. Click here for the Matt Lauer interview with Cruise plus more.