John Piippo

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Pray for Bangkok

See here.

Monday, October 24, 2011

The Jedi Master of Religious Debate

I think Paul Vallely's article is helpful on Richard Dawkin's refusal to debate William Lane Craig.

See, in The Independent, "Paul Vallely: God knows why Dawkins won't show - Our leading atheists prefer abuse to argument when faced with a tough-talking Christian opponent."

Vallely refers to Bill as "the Jedi Master of religious debate."

Vallely writes: "When A C Grayling was invited to debate Craig's assertion that, without religion, there are no objective moral values, only social conventions, he scornfully replied: "I would be happy to debate him on the question of the existence of fairies and water-nymphs." So much for the assertion by the British Humanist Association, of which Grayling is a luminary, that one of its core values is "engaging in debate rationally, intelligently and with attention to evidence"."

Yes, that is interesting, isn't it?

Vallely: "So who's afraid of William Lane Craig? Not everyone. The philosopher Stephen Law, from Heythrop College, gave Craig a good run for his money on Monday by turning many of Craig's arguments inside out and postulating the idea that God does exist but is evil, not good."

That, too, is interesting. Far more interesting than Dawkins's and Grayling's refusal to debate Bill. I've already commented on Law's point. I think it would be hard to establish an isomorphic relationship between a "all-good God" and an "all-evil God." Similar problems arise when one tries to convert the Ontological Argument into an argument for a perfectly evil being. But this discussion, I am certain, will continue. And bravo to Stephen Law for giving it a go!

Steven Jobs on God

"Sometimes I believe in God, sometimes I don't. I think it's 50-50 maybe. But ever since I've had cancer, I've been thinking about it more. And I find myself believing a bit more. I kind of -- maybe it's 'cause I want to believe in an afterlife. That when you die, it doesn't just all disappear. The wisdom you've accumulated. Somehow it lives on."

- From "Biographer: Mortality motivated Steve Jobs"

Saturday, October 22, 2011

Atheist Daniel Came Weighs In on Dawkins's Refusal to Debate Bill Craig

The Guardian has just published a piece by Oxford philosophy professor Daniel Came. Came is also an atheist. It's entitled: "Richard Dawkins's refusal to debate is cynical and anti-intellectualist - Using William Lane Craig's remarks as an excuse not to engage in reasoned debate is typical of New Atheist polemic."

This is a nice, articulate, reasoned little essay. Highlights include:

"There isn't much in the way of serious argumentation in the New Atheists' dialectical arsenal."
"Dawkins maintains that we're not justified in inferring a designer as the best explanation of the appearance of design in the universe because then a new problem surfaces: who designed the designer? This argument is as old as the hills and as any reasonably competent first-year undergraduate could point out is patently invalid."
"The New Atheism is certainly a far cry from the model of civilised interlocution between "old atheist" Bertrand Russell and Father Copleston that took place and was broadcast on BBC Radio in 1948." (I was required to read the transcript of this as an undergraduate philosophy major.)
Dawkins calls Bill Craig "an apologist for genocide." Came writes: "But whatever you make of Craig's view on this issue, it is irrelevant to the question of whether or not God exists." Correct. As (hopefully) any first year logic student would know.
"There is something cynical, ominously patronising, and anti-intellectualist in their modus operandi, with its implicit assumption that hurling insults is an effective way to influence people's beliefs about religion. The presumption is that their largely non-academic readership doesn't care about, or is incapable of, thinking things through; that passion prevails over reason. On the contrary, people's attitudes towards religious belief can and should be shaped by reason, not bile and invective. By ignoring this, the New Atheists seek to replace one form of irrationality with another."
Came refers to Bill as "an intellectually rigorous theist." He writes: "It should perhaps come as no surprise that Dawkins and [A.C.] Grayling aren't exactly queuing up to enter a public forum with an intellectually rigorous theist like Craig to have their views dissected and the inadequacy of their arguments exposed." (And remember that Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens, and a number of quite intellectual atheistic philosophers have debated Bill.)

But some intellectually rigorous Oxford professors are debating Bill. Oxford philosophy professor Stephen Law's exchange is very interesting. See Law's comments here. I posted a comment re. Law's argument against God's existence on the basis of isomorphic theodicies - supporting a good God, and an evil God - that are the "flip-flop" of each other. I wrote:

How about this as a rebuttal?

1. Love is only “love” if freely chosen.

2. Evil is “evil,” whether freely chosen or not.

3. The relationship between the two theodicies is not isomorphic.

4. Therefore two theodicies cannot be “flipped around.”

Law's argument is... interesting. It is worthy of being engaged. It fits within the wheelhouse of philosophy of religion studies. I think it's going to provoke Bill to respond, precisely because it is worthy of being responded to.

Chris Overstreet at Redeemer Tonight

We had a great night of worship last night. And Chris Overstreet and his wife Stephanie + some Bethel students are with us.

Chris opened with a number of words of knowledge for individual people, and prophetic words for Redeemer. Linda and I especially found some of his words for people accurate and encouraging.

I am looking forward to being with Chris again tonight.

He's also with us at tomorrow morning's worship service, plus Sunday evening at 7.

Chris asked us to pray about bringing others tonight, especially if you have a friend who does not know God.

Redeemer Fellowship Church
5305 Evergreen
Monroe, MI
734-242-5277

In Eldoret, Kenya

One year ago Al Willingham and I were in Eldoret, Kenya. I was teaching my spiritual formation class to these pastors from Kenya and Uganda. My time with them in Africa was life-changing and paradigm-shifting.

Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion: My Posts

Richard Dawkins: Either a Fool or a Coward?

Tim Stanley says "Dawkins has run away from a debate
he probably couldn't win."

This week Richard Dawkins published an article on why he won't debate Bill. Dawkins begins his "Why I Refuse to Debate with William Lane Craig" by writing that "Craig parades himself as a philosopher." When I read this I knew I was reading something written by Dawkins, since he is the king of ad hominem attacks. To correct this: Bill Craig is a philosopher, and a brilliant one. He is a major figure in the area of philosophy of religion. And, e.g., atheist philosopher Quentin Smith has called Bill one of our major scholars regarding the philosophy of time.

But mostly it is a waste of time defending against ad hominem abusives, and that's what one wants to do when reading Richard Dawkins on philosophy and religion.
Oxford University professor Tim Stanley has responded to Dawkins's refusal to debate Bill with an article in The Telegraph: "Richard Dawkins is either a fool or a coward for refusing to debate William Lane Craig."

Bill is now in Oxford presenting his views on God's existence, and refuting Dawkins's arguments in his The God Delusion.

Contra Neuromania and Darwinitis

Raymond Tallis

I confess to having some neuromania ("some neuromania" may be a contradiction). "Neuromania" is an obsession with neural studies and their implications for all things human. I am certainly fascinated by this, and find it important. But some scholars complain that neural studies do not explain as much as some are claiming.

Clinical neuroscientist Raymond Tallis, in his new book Aping Mankind: Neuromania, Darwinitis and the Misrepresentation of Humanity, "argues that neuroscientific approaches to things like love, wisdom, and beauty are flawed because you can't reduce the mind to brain activity alone. And, like a school bully, Tallis taunts philosophers whose views he opposes, like Patricia S. Churchland (he calls her the "Queen of Neuromania"), John Gray (author of "misanthropic ravings"), and Daniel C. Dennett ("neuroscience groupie")." ("Raymond Tallis Takes Out the "Neurotrash"")

Tallis's book is contra Biologism, which is the belief that human beings are essentially animals and can be understood in biological terms. This view is gaining increasing acceptance in contemporary thought. I'll be following this discussion as long as my brain holds out.

Thursday, October 20, 2011

Dr. Seuss and Martin Heidegger

I just read the newest Dr. Seuss book - The Bippolo Seed and Other Lost Stories. I love everything about Seuss - the artwork, the colors, the characters, and the story. These stories are typical Seuss' morality plays. Here's a synopsis.

“The Bippolo Seed”

This is the tale of a duck that lives a simple lifestyle but gets very, very greedy. The moral: Greed is not good.

“The Rabbit, the Bear, and the Zinniga-Zanniga.”

A giant bear with huge teeth and claws is about to clamp down on a tiny rabbit. The rabbit begins to out-think the bear. Rabbit points out that the bear has 10 eyelashes over one eye and only nine over the other eye. This is serious, since the weight of the extra eye lash causes the bear to be lop-sided. The rabbit begins to seriously get inside the head of the bear. It all goes downhill for the bear as he begins to experience serious psychosomatic symptoms. The rabbit then turns into a medical quack who convinces the ignorant and gullible bear that he needs to climb a Zinniga-Zanniga tree, pick one of its flowers, and hold it to its eye for “a couple of hours.” The bear does. The rabbit runs, laughing all the way. The moral: Brains overpower brawn.

“Gustav, the Goldfish”

A boy doesn’t follow instructions and over-feeds his goldfish. The little fish grows to the size of a whale, in just a few minutes. The morale: never disobey.

“Tadd and Todd”

Tadd and Todd are twins who look exactly alike, but Todd is happy and Tadd is filled with angst. Tadd does not want to be an identical twin. So, in a truly proleptic move, Tadd dies his hair red! Todd follows suit. This irritates Tadd, since he wants to be different. Tadd makes a false tail “which he hitched on behind,” puts a rose on his toe, and catches a “queer bird.” Plus he acquires a whole lot of other things. Has Tadd been reading Heidegger's Identitat und Differenz? The moral: accept who you are.

“Steak for Supper”

A boy strolls down Mulberry Street, heading home, when he realizes it is Saturday night, and his family always has steak on Saturday nights. He’s so excited that he shouts out this piece of information. He then remembers that his father has told to “button his lip” in public, “for you can never tell who might hear what you say.” Too late! An Ikka heard, and begins to follow him home for steak. The Ikka opens his mouth and spills the steak to a Gritch, who joins the parade. Then, a Grickle. Then a Nupper, and a pair of Wild Wheef. “All because I’d said, “Steak, every Saturday night!” If you’re a character in a Dr. Seuss book and you disobey the rules, dire, catatrophic, slippery-slope consequences follow! The moral: think before you speak.

“The Strange Shirt Spot”

I looked forward to meeting this, since the title sounds like something I can strongly relate to. Right away we begin with a warning: Mother has said, “Stay out of the dirt. But there I was with a spot on my shirt!” This, to the boy, is as serious as being discovered that one is an ax-murderer. He rubs the spot with a towel, and it comes off the shirt. But then it’s on the towel. He washes the towel in the tub, and the spot remains on the tub. This is the spot from hell! “What kind of spot was this spot I had found?” Things get worse from here on. The moral: Listen to your parents.

“The Great Henry McBride”

A boy sitting under a tree, pondering what he might be when he grows up. His first thought – I’ll be a famer and raise giant rabbits. But that limits his possibilities. He could do this plus be a doctor, too. Here the boy loses all touch with reality, since real doctors have no time to do anything else in life. “But why only two things…? Say! I could do three!” This is the madness of multi-tasking before its time. The boy could farm and raise giant rabbits, be a physician, and a radio broadcaster all at the same time. But guess what? Why not do four? And more? The moral: it's OK to daydream when you're a kid.