Crossway Books was kind enough to send me a readers copy of Al Mohler’s new book, , which is due out at the end of July 2008. As the title suggests, this book is in response to the surge in atheism. According to Gallup polls, there are 12 million new unbeliever-believers between 2001 and 2007.
Book sales by Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens have been impressive. I was personally impressed by Hitchens and his 2007 debate tour to promote his book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. I thought Hitchens dismantled poor Mark Roberts in the Great God Debate hosted by Hugh Hewitt. Others fared much better against Hitchens, but I was still impressed by his skill and boldness.
What is new about these atheists?
Mohler argues there are several things that set this movement apart. While I knew of some of the more spectacular claims of these new apologists for atheism (e.g. Dawkins’ claim that religion is a form of child abuse), there were some characteristics of this movement that were news to me. For example, the New Atheists explicitly reject Jesus Christ as evil. That kind of vitriol is typically reserved for “the God of the Old Testament.” Hitchens argues, for example, that Jesus makes the God of the Old Testament look like an amateur. The New Atheists also refuse to tolerate moderate and liberal forms of Christian belief. Though the liberal Protestant churches have done a superb job of watering down scripture to accommodate modern thought, the liberals are targets too. Why? They still dangerously provide cover for the true “God-believers” (the conservative Bible believing Christians). The luke-warm Christians still make belief acceptable in society. This makes them a part of the problem, not a part of the solution. Even more puzzling, is that this latest version of atheism is cheerful. Unlike the more muscular version of nihilistic, philosophical atheism of a Nietzsche or Sarte, these guys put a layer of hope on top of their naturalism. They cheerily look to a secular new world full of hope in technology and science.
Personally, I have had a hard time getting too excited about the new atheist movement. As far as worldviews go, atheism is a teeny (albeit noisy) percentage of the population. It seems to attract highly educated types who make time to hang out on blogs and internet forums and argue. Why give these pot and pan bangers the time of day?
Mohler succeed in convincing me that I should reconsider my indifference.
First, we should care because these guys are having an effect. Interestingly, the effect is not necessarily building the ranks of the atheists. It is something more subtle and dangerous. Their attacks against Christianity may be helping to build the ranks of believers in vaguely theistic forms of “spirituality”. Daniel Dennett, in his 2006 book Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, identifies a new category that he calls “belief in belief.” Dennett suggests that the annoying persistence of belief in God is not all that it seems. If you scratch beneath the surface, it amounts to a belief in belief. In other words, people like religion because it provides some level of comfort or aesthetic purpose; not because it is actually true. If people truly believed in God, they would live differently. They would live ever conscious of eternity, for example. I think Dennett is correct. As Dennett and his colleagues try to make atheism cool, and try to make the default position that Christianity is impossible to believe, you will see a growth in this group of tweeners who want to hold on to comfort they feel from religion and jettison the part that is uncool and unscientific. It will be a shift away from a theism involving a personal God to a form of spirituality and belief in god as an impersonal concept of love. Just note how pedestrian the word “spiritual” has become in our culture. Being spiritual is acceptable and even cool. Being Christian is not.
Two, Mohler has convinced me that the growth in popularity of this movement provides an opportunity. Like any movement against Biblical Christianity, this movement offers a moment of clarity. It is clear that accommodating the Bible to fit the modern cultural zeitgeist is not the answer. The liberal approach has failed. Mohler also makes an interesting case that offering only philosophical arguments against the New Atheists has an Achilles heel. He points out the critiques offered by Alastair McGrath and Alvin Plantinga against Richard Dawkins are devastating at one level, but open to the reverse criticism of not taking the theory of evolution to its necessary conclusion (note: McGrath and Plantinga accept the larger project of evolution apparently). Our task is not just to argue that God exists, but that he has spoken. The need is not just to promote theism as much as it is to teach, explain and defend Christian theism. This requires using and establishing the credibility of biblical revelation.
Mohler’s book is a quick read and provides an interesting history of thought, particularly of secularization theory. Mohler makes a case that those of us who were ignoring the clanging of the pots and pans ought to pay closer attention.
As far as worldviews go, atheism is a teeny (albeit noisy) percentage of the population. It seems to attract highly educated types who make time to hang out on blogs and internet forums and argue.
Hey! :)
Posted by: tgirsch | July 07, 2008 at 11:42
It is clear that accommodating the Bible to fit the modern cultural zeitgeist is not the answer. The liberal approach has failed.
It could be argued, however, that the "liberal approach" is itself a response to the failure of the conservative/traditional approach to resonate in modern societies. Even taken together, all of the conservative/evangelical/fundamentalist denominations in the country still combine to form a minority of self-described Christians. A plurality at best.
I think a big part of the problem you face in selling Christianity is that it doesn't directly address many of today's most pressing societal ills. Racism, for example, isn't explicitly addressed, and one could argue that it's condoned by much of the scripture.
Posted by: tgirsch | July 07, 2008 at 12:00
Aw, c'mon, tgirsch; he said highly educated. Mr. D. is obviously talking about ME. :-)
Posted by: Rob Ryan | July 07, 2008 at 21:14
"I think a big part of the problem you face in selling Christianity is that it doesn't directly address many of today's most pressing societal ills."
A) Christianity ain't for sell. Simon the Sorcerer tried that approach.
B) Societal ills are all based on sin in its various forms. The Gospel is the only answer for sin.
Listen, before we start our umpteenth long thread debating societal ills and their causes, permit me to ask you and Rob about your perspective on the new atheism(Dawkins-Dennett-Harris-Hitchens).
You and Rob are traditional atheists :) i.e. old fashioned secularists. You seem to believe in and practice tolerance on your better days ;)
What do you two make about calling Jesus evil and calling for an end to religious tolerance?
Do you two think these guys are helping or hurting your worldview? Do you approve of their rhetoric?
Posted by: Mr. D | July 08, 2008 at 09:00
Rob:
Point taken. :)
Mr. D.:
You're right, we've been through it before, but your A and B only really make sense if you believe, i.e., believing that Christianity is correct is a prerequisite for accepting A and B.
But they also miss the point I make entirely, because a lot of what we recognize as societal ills today aren't specifically addressed or prohibited by any part of Christian doctrine. You have to go through some logical gymnastics to get there. If you had scripture that said "Slavery is bad, period," and "racism is bad, period," that sort of thing, you'd have a much better case, in my estimation.
permit me to ask you and Rob about your perspective on the new atheism
I don't know much about Dennett and Harris, so I can't really address them. Hitchens is a pompous jerk, which makes him difficult to stomach even when he's right about stuff (which, outside of the area of religion, isn't very often). I have a lot of respect for Dawkins, even though I think he tends to go too far at times (science doesn't really disprove God, in my estimation, it just shows that the likelihood is incredibly remote).
I'm also not entirely sure I'd call Dawkins and Hitchens "new" atheists. They're a lot more vocal than many atheists have historically been, for certain, but there's nothing particularly new about their viewpoints; you can trace such views at least back to Bertrand Russell, and probably a lot farther back if you worked at it.
What do you two make about calling Jesus evil and calling for an end to religious tolerance?
I think it goes too far, but that opinion is largely pragmatic in nature. For starters, I don't think calling Jesus evil makes any sense. However, I can see the case for calling modern Christianity evil, in the same sense that anything that discourages dissent and critical thinking, and requires acceptance of dogma as incontrovertible without tolerance for challenges is evil. [ Wow, that was an awkward sentence. Perhaps the superiorly-educated Rob can phrase it more eloquently. :} ]
I also don't think an end to religious tolerance is a good idea. At the same time, I think we as a society make far too many accommodations for religious belief, and do so far too selectively. And we're far too eager, even today, to treat religious topics as "taboo" and off-limits to criticism in public discourse. Tolerance is one thing, and appeasement another.
In the grand scheme of things, I'd like to see us move to a society where all sorts of religious belief are allowed, but where such beliefs are generally viewed the way we currently view things like psychics, astrology, and other such superstitions. [OK, let me revise that: we currently also give too much credence to these things, too.] In other words, practice would be allowed, provided nobody is harmed, but religion and other such superstitions simply wouldn't be very influential in public life. I dream of a world in which the nonreligious / nonspiritual aren't necessarily a majority, but aren't outliers, either.
Do you two think these guys are helping or hurting your worldview? Do you approve of their rhetoric?
In the grand scheme of things, I doubt they make all that much difference. For the most part they're ignored, except by two groups: those who already are in agreement with them, and those who don't but need/want something to rail against. I sympathize with much of their rhetoric, even as I recognize that it's not very productive, and is more likely to be counterproductive.
Posted by: tgirsch | July 08, 2008 at 15:58
"What do you two make about calling Jesus evil and calling for an end to religious tolerance?"
Not my style, but it's a free country. I like tgirsch's answer with regard to religious tolerance.
"Do you two think these guys are helping or hurting your worldview? Do you approve of their rhetoric?"
I think they are helping. If nothing else, they are bringing atheism out of the closet and into public discourse. I see the popularity of their work and their personal prominence as positive developments. Maybe the world will be more tolerant of atheists in my children's lifetimes.
I have only read Dennett and Dawkins to any great extent, and they both seem fairly inoffensive, rhetorically speaking. I admire both men. People have to look through their many volumes of work to find material like Dawkins's infamous Religion as Child Abuse quotation, which in context seems pretty reasonable to me. I have not read Hitchens, apart from the occasional Vanity Fair article about waxing or whatever. He seems a tactless sort. Harris I have read about, but not read. There is a big difference, so I will not comment on him until I have read his work. The stuff I read about Dawkins is terrible, but his actual books and articles reveal a fine writer and thinker. i think he is unfairly maligned.
Posted by: Rob Ryan | July 09, 2008 at 18:31
I like tgirsch's answer with regard to religious tolerance.
Not bad for a poorly-educated guy like me. :)
i [sic] think Dawkins is unfairly maligned.
I agree.
Posted by: tgirsch | July 09, 2008 at 21:26
Of the authors listed, I've only read Dawkins. Contrary to Rob, I think that Dawkins is neither a fine writer nor a fine thinker. Frankly, his ultimate argument against the existence of God is nonsensical.
One of Dawkins's arguments essentially goes: a being capable of creating life must be itself in an advanced stage of evolution. See The God Delusion. In other words, anything capable of designing our natural world must have itself evolved from simpler beginnings. In a sense, Dawkins simply shifts the goalposts; something he and other Darwinists often accuse creationists and intelligent design theorists (or, as Dawkins refers to them, "IDiots") of doing.
Dawkins either willfully or ignorantly assumes that the God who many of us believe created our universe must be a part of nature and therefore subject to its laws. On its face, that assumption is untenable: the creator cannot wholly be a physical part of the created. The potter is not a physical part of the clay. An architect is not a physical part of the building he designs.
If Dawkins errant assumption is unknowingly wrong, then it represents incredibly poor reasoning. If, on the other hand, the wrong assumption is knowingly made, then the creation of a weak strawman in order to promote his own argument does not suggest a "fine writer".
Another of Dawkins's arguments is that God is extremely improbable. This argument too is a strong indication that Dawkins is neither a fine writer nor a fine thinker. He offers no explanation, nor could he, for how one can assign statistical probabilities to the existence of God. In fact, his argument seems more to be that the spontaneous generation of life and ultimately the evolution of man is statistically probable because, in part, the universe is vast and there are likely many, many other worlds capable of supporting life, and because we are, in fact, here. In other words, no matter how improbable it might otherwise seem that life could come from non-life, there were a nearly infinite number of opportunities for that to occur and the fact that we are here means it must have occurred. Can you imagine applying the same reasoning to the roll of a set of normal dice: given enough rolls of the dice you'll eventually roll a 13?
Posted by: matt curtis | July 14, 2008 at 09:21
It's been a while since I read the book, Matt, but I think you have the two arguments there the wrong way round. On God's probability we know of nothing else that exists outside the natural world, so in a sense you're right; we lack even the beginnings of a foundation for determining God's probability. Traditionally if we have absolutely no basis for determining the probability that something could have happened we would default to saying it's extremely unlikely. That's even more true when we don't have a solid basis for believing that a thing even has a probability of existing now; most people believe that life on Earth exists, but most don't believe that a God recognizable as yours does.
So I think Dawkins is arguing that, absent some evidence of something, it's sensible to assume that God is unlikely (especially as it appears that God could only be once, by Christian reckoning at least). In contrast, we can sensibly assign a probability of 1 to life existing. If we look at two processes that might create life, and in studying them we find that one (theoretically) works and one (theoretically) doesn't, we'd assign a greater probability to the one that appears to lead to that which we know to be true.
In contrast Dawkins and I (entirely separately, of course!) would accuse you of shifting the goalposts; humans can't imagine how life could have come about 'naturally', hence God. And how did God come about? He didn't, he just is. Why can't life have had a 'just is' moment?
Posted by: Paul | July 14, 2008 at 10:39
"in the same sense that anything that discourages dissent and critical thinking, and requires acceptance of dogma as incontrovertible without tolerance for challenges is evil."
Like, say ... Darwinism, for example ;)
"Maybe the world will be more tolerant of atheists in my children's lifetimes."
Atheism makes objective claims about reality. According to our society's new definition of tolerance, atheism is intolerant because it explicitly denies other worldviews are true.
Like any worldview that claims things are objectively true about reality, it will draw fire. Exclusivity ain't very popular these days.
Christianity and atheism share that in common, ironically.
"I'm also not entirely sure I'd call Dawkins and Hitchens "new" atheists."
Atheism is not new. Dawkins and Hitchens are selling it in a new way, however. That is why they are considered "new".
"In the grand scheme of things, I'd like to see us move to a society where all sorts of religious belief are allowed, but where such beliefs are generally viewed the way we currently view things like psychics, astrology, and other such superstitions."
In other words, you would like your worldview to be treated as real knowledge, and everyone else's to be treated as silly childish belief. ;)
"even though I think he tends to go too far at times"
You cite an example of Dawkins going too far with statistical reasoning. Is that the only way he goes too far? Please elaborate with more examples.
"i think he is unfairly maligned."
What is an example of that? Is any criticism of Dawkins unfair?
"Can you imagine applying the same reasoning to the roll of a set of normal dice: given enough rolls of the dice you'll eventually roll a 13?"
Nice example.
"Of the authors listed, I've only read Dawkins."
Matt, may I ask what compelled you to pick up a Richard Dawkins book and read it? Maybe I should do the same ... I would like to hear a good reason why I should invest the time.
Posted by: Mr. D | July 14, 2008 at 10:50
matt:
I agree that Dawkins errs in trying to assign a probability to God, at least in the technical sense. I would tend to agree with him, however, that the "probability" (in the colloquial sense) of God (as described by Christians) existing is vanishingly small.
The problem with Dawkins' approach here is that he's trying to take a completely irrational proposition and subject it to rational analysis, and that simply doesn't work.
That said, there is some logical analysis that we can do. If God exists wholly outside creation, then His existence can neither be proven nor disproven. In fact, there's no way to coherently discuss the subject in that case. And, in that case, you have an impersonal, dispassionate God. That's a concept that is incompatible with Christianity, so I would presume that you'd dismiss it out of hand.
If, however, God actually interacts with His creation, then those interactions (or, at the very least, the effects of those interactions) ought to be observable, measurable, etc. That is, if He does not exist wholly outside creation, then His presence should be detectable, and in ways that can be empirically verified.
Thus, in the absence of empirical evidence for His existence, it makes sense to me to presume that He does not exist, for no other reason than lack of evidence. Even if He does exist, if His existence has no measurable impact, what difference does it make?
The problem that I (and probably Rob and Paul and Dawkins and others) have is that when it comes to criticizing, validating, or verifying religious claims, a different set of rules seems to apply as compared to when validating other claims.
If I claimed that my brother died three days ago, then rose from the dead, my claim simply would be dismissed with hardly a second thought, and rightly so. Yet because two thousand years ago, a few people wrote about exactly this, we're supposed to believe it without question. Why the double-standard? (Even this sets aside the fact that the death-and-resurrection theme exists in other religions that predate the purported resurrection of Jesus by at least a century. There's a reason we celebrate Christmas roughly three days after the Winter Solstice, you know...)
Paul:
humans can't imagine how life could have come about 'naturally', hence God. And how did God come about? He didn't, he just is. Why can't life have had a 'just is' moment?
Carl Sagan used to make a similar argument. Occam's razor would suggest that you skip the unnecessary step.
The other problem with the God explanation, of course, is that it can be used to "explain" literally anything, and therefore, it doesn't actually explain anything at all. It's the logical equivalent of "because I said so," or "just because."
Mr. D:
Darwinism, for example
Heh. :) Nice try, but "Darwinism" doesn't discourage critical thinking, nor does it discourage dissent. Indeed, many aspects of evolution are hotly debated to this day within the scientific community. It's true that the evolution-isn't-true position is no longer taken seriously, but that's because that position failed on the merits, and continues to do so whem people try to resurrect it.
According to our society's new definition of tolerance, atheism is intolerant because it explicitly denies other worldviews are true.
I don't think tolerance means what you think it means.
Christianity and atheism share that in common, ironically.
Well, except that one enjoys wide mainstream acceptance, and the other does not. :)
Dawkins and Hitchens are selling it in a new way, however.
Again, I disagree with that, using Bertrand Russell as a counterexample. They may be getting more attention now, but there's nothing particularly new about their approach.
In other words, you would like your worldview to be treated as real knowledge, and everyone else's to be treated as silly childish belief.
That's one way of putting it, I suppose. I'd prefer to phrase it that I think all worldviews should be judged on their merits, not on their popularity. To the extent that a worldview makes claims that cannot be empirically verified, we should be skeptical. The more fantastic those claims are, the more skeptical we should be. I think most modern religions clearly call for tremendous skepticism on that basis.
Taking it a step further, when worldviews make claims which can be empirically falsified, or which defy reason and/or require us to set aside rational thought, we should view them with disdain, yes. Things like astrology and homeopathy clearly fall into this category, and there is much about Christianity that does as well.
Is that the only way [Dawkins] goes too far?
It's not so much about his logic as it is about his tone. Dawkins can be a bit too eager to condescend to those who don't agree with him, and I don't find that terribly productive in debate. It may very well be that most of those he's doing it to are deserving of condescension, but even if it's deserved, it can be a turn-off to the casual observer who's relatively new to the debate.
Posted by: tgirsch | July 14, 2008 at 12:43
Mr. D:
I expect that reading Dawkins would be a waste of time for you. What would you really expect to accomplish?
If you were really interested in reading something critical of Christianity, I'd recommend George H. Smith over Dawkins.
Posted by: tgirsch | July 14, 2008 at 12:45
"To the extent that a worldview makes claims that cannot be empirically verified, we should be skeptical."
Considering all worldviews are philosophical beliefs, please empirically verify the fantastic claim you just made. Call me a skeptic. ;)
Posted by: Mr. D | July 14, 2008 at 13:25
"Matt, may I ask what compelled you to pick up a Richard Dawkins book and read it? Maybe I should do the same ... I would like to hear a good reason why I should invest the time."
Mr. D.,
Part of the reason was simply intellectual curiosity; Dawkins seems to draw such adoration among his fans that I wanted to see why. Mainly, though, I wanted to know my enemy and wanted to be able to intelligently take on Dawkins's own stated views rather than relying on his apologists' arguments.
Altough I don't know that it would be the case for everyone, my faith was strengthened by reading Dawkins because his arguments are weak.
--matt
Posted by: matt curtis | July 14, 2008 at 18:29
"So I think Dawkins is arguing that, absent some evidence of something, it's sensible to assume that God is unlikely...."
Paul,
This is poor reasoning. If you lack the means to determine whether a particular orchid grows in the Amazon River basin, is is therefore sensible to conclude that it is unlikely that it exists? Is it not more sensible to accept that you don't know whether it exists?
"If we look at two processes that might create life, and in studying them we find that one (theoretically) works and one (theoretically) doesn't, we'd assign a greater probability to the one that appears to lead to that which we know to be true."
Which one theoretically works? Do you have a workable theory that explains how life came from non-life? Even Dawkins acknowledges there isn't one currently, but he expects that it's just a matter of time. Really, though, the whole idea of assigning probabilities to the existence of God is poor science or logic. There is no basis for saying that God is either more or less probable.
"Why can't life have had a 'just is' moment?"
First of all, let me say that my faith in God is not based on a conclusion that He is the only explanation for the world in which we live. I have made that conclusion based upon my faith.
Second, you are asking that our natural laws have been broken - just once. That just once, life originated from non-life. That just once, a thirteen was rolled from a regular pair of dice.
Tom,
I think it's charitable of you to say that Dawkins is just trying to apply rational analysis to that which is irrational. Dawkins's rational analysis leaves much to be desired. More importantly, however, something can only be deemed irrational if it is first exposed to rational analysis. Consequently, I don't think your defense of Dawkins in this regard is well-founded.
"If God exists wholly outside creation, then His existence can neither be proven nor disproven [A]. In fact, there's no way to coherently discuss the subject in that case. And, in that case, you have an impersonal, dispassionate God [B]."
B does not logically follow from A. What is it about a God that is outside of nature (i.e. He created nature), that necessarily implies that that God is impersonal and dispassionate? Does it logically follow that a God capable of creating our world is incapable of intervening in that world?
"If, however, God actually interacts with His creation [A], then those interactions (or, at the very least, the effects of those interactions) ought to be observable, measurable, etc. [B]. That is, if He does not exist wholly outside creation, then His presence should be detectable, and in ways that can be empirically verified."
Again, B does not necessarily follow from A. If God created nature and is capable of intervening in nature, it does not follow that the intervention is subject to nature's laws. That does not mean that God cannot subject Himself to nature's laws. Christians believe He did just that through Jesus Christ. Ultimately, however, Christians believe that Christ had power over nature (He performed miracles) and overcame death. (You'll agree with me, won't you, that we cannot now scientifically prove or disprove the claims of the Bible in that regard?)
"The problem that I (and probably Rob and Paul and Dawkins and others) have is that when it comes to criticizing, validating, or verifying religious claims, a different set of rules seems to apply as compared to when validating other claims."
Of course a different set of rules applies. Would you tackle the electrical system in your house with a manual on plumbing? It makes no sense, whatsoever, to apply natural laws to something that claims to be supernatural unless you are intending only to show that what is claimed to be supernatural actually has a natural explanation. Dawkins, however, is not intending to show that the claim of the resurrection has a natural explanation. His argument is that science shows that God is highly improbable.
"Yet because two thousand years ago, a few people wrote about exactly this, we're supposed to believe it without question."
I, for one, am not asking you to accept Christ's resurrection without question based upon the Gospel accounts. I feel reasonably comfortable speaking for Mr. D. and others who post here that they similarly are not asking you to do that. I am asking that you not simply reject it.
Posted by: matt curtis | July 14, 2008 at 19:29
matt:
If you lack the means to determine whether a particular orchid grows in the Amazon River basin, is is therefore sensible to conclude that it is unlikely that it exists?
That depends on the purported characteristics of the orchid. If the orchid is said to have extraordinary characteristics, say the ability grow in the complete absence of light, water, or soil, it's pretty reasonable to conclude that it's unlikely to exist. Why? Because while we don't know with certainty about that particular orchid, it's wholly inconsistent with everything we know about orchids in general. So on that basis, your analogy is a poor one, because God's purported characteristics are wholly different from -- and incompatible with -- pretty much everything we can empirically verify about the natural world.
Really, though, the whole idea of assigning probabilities to the existence of God is poor science or logic.
Here we agree. It's silly when the God exists folks try to do it, and it's equally silly when the God doesn't exist folks do it.
I have made [the] conclusion [that God exists] based upon my faith.
Which is why you can't reasonably expect anyone else to draw the same conclusion.
Second, you are asking that our natural laws have been broken - just once. That just once, life originated from non-life.
No, he's not. This presumes that "life from non-life" somehow violates the laws of nature. Extremely rare and extremely improbable are not the same as "impossible." There's nothing I know of about the laws of nature that says life can't emerge from non-life; just that we haven't witnessed it as such. (And, for what it's worth, there's no guarantee that it happened only once. It could have happened many, many times, with the resulting life simply failing to survive the overwhelming majority of those times...)
Dawkins's rational analysis leaves much to be desired.
Granted, but when you're starting from such an absurd starting point, there's really not a whole lot you can work with...
What is it about a God that is outside of nature (i.e. He created nature), that necessarily implies that that God is impersonal and dispassionate?
I think you misunderstood what I meant by "wholly outside." By this I meant completely separate from it, and not in contact with it. This is a poor analogy, but it's late, and it's the best I can come up with on short notice: imagine being outside a building, with lots of people inside the building. In order to interact with the people inside the building in some meaningful way, you have to enter the building. Even if you just shout at them from outside, there's still tangible evidence of your existence as a result of this.
If God created nature and is capable of intervening in nature, it does not follow that the intervention is subject to nature's laws.
A point I'll readily grant, if you're willing to concede that your argument could just as easily be used to defend the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or any number of other far-less-absurd supernatural figures which I'm absolutely certain you dismiss out of hand without so much as a second thought.
It makes no sense, whatsoever, to apply natural laws to something that claims to be supernatural
True, as far as it goes. Of course, you've effectively prohibited us from ever being able to do any sort of rational analysis of the supernatural. It all must be accepted on someone's say-so, or not at all.
I'm curious to know what Mr. D. thinks of this line of reasoning. I seem to remember him arguing vigorously that God can be arrived at via rational analysis, and you seem to be arguing that precisely the opposite is true -- that there's no way rational thought can get you to God, and that even further, one must set aside rational thought in favor of faith.
(If you dispute that characterization of your position, I'd be eager to learn what rational argument can possibly lead one to accept that not only does some sort of god exist, but that god must be the Christian God.)
I am asking that you not simply reject it.
I don't "simply" reject it. I rejected it after nearly 20 years of Christian upbringing and Christian schooling, a good deal of study, and a lot of soul-searching.
That said, however, with the extraordinary claims made about God, I don't think the question should be "Why shouldn't I believe?" It should be "Why should I believe?" Getting back to your orchid example, which side we err on depends entirely upon the nature of the claims being made.
Posted by: tgirsch | July 16, 2008 at 01:45
Re: the orchid example.
Tom, I could not follow the logic of your rebuttal to Matt’s orchid example.
Major Premise : We lack the means to verify the existence of orchids in the Amazon. Minor Premise : We only believe in the existence of things we can verify.
Conclusion : Therefore, it is likely that orchids do not exist in the Amazon.
Matt’s point was that such an argument is silly. Your rebuttal is that God is no orchid. That rebuttal left me scratching my head. You misunderstood the analogy. The analogy was not about the orchid, it was about how we know things.
The argument Dawkins uses is an epistemological claim so let’s stick to that. Now, if Matt has mischaracterized Dawkins’ epistemological argument, then I would like to hear that. If not, then Dawkins philosophical reasoning skills wouldn’t get a passing grade in a freshman logic class.
Re: Really, though, the whole idea of assigning probabilities to the existence of God is poor science or logic.
It also misses the point badly. That is why I have ceased investing a significant amount of time in playing the whole “God Is” –vs- “God Is Not” debate game.
Getting an atheist to convert to deism is not a victory, is it? I used to think getting Anthony Flew conversions was a great victory. Then it dawned on me that I was more excited about winning arguments for my team than I was about telling others how to be united to Christ and find joy.
Re: “Matt: I have made [the] conclusion [that God exists] based upon my faith.” “Tom: Which is why you can't reasonably expect anyone else to draw the same conclusion.”
The irony is, Tom has drawn his conclusion based on trust as well [faith = trust]. His trust is in his own reason, his own philosophy of knowledge, and the testimony of other people (like George Smith, Carl Sagan, a liberal religion prof in college … all whom he respects and agrees with). The great lie is that there is a worldview out there (materialism) that gets a free pass on trust and is somehow true by default.
Re: “True, as far as it goes. Of course, you've effectively prohibited us from ever being able to do any sort of rational analysis of the supernatural. It all must be accepted on someone's say-so, or not at all.”
Any sort of rational analysis? This is your materialist worldview talking. Rationality goes beyond putting things in a test tube, or weighing things, or measuring things or setting up experiments. Rationality is a property. It relates to objects like ideas, arguments and syllogisms … none of which fit neatly into a test tube.
The argument, “I believe God is there because Jesus said so” … is a rational argument. We all accept things based on the word of others. “AGW is true because climate scientists say so” comes to mind.
The focus then shifts to the credibility of the person who says so. Someone who died and came back to life on the third day, raised the dead, healed the sick, performed miracles and spoke with such authority that he changed all of history … has credibility and ought to be taken seriously.
”I'm curious to know what Mr. D. thinks of this line of reasoning. I seem to remember him arguing vigorously that God can be arrived at via rational analysis, and you seem to be arguing that precisely the opposite is true -- that there's no way rational thought can get you to God, and that even further, one must set aside rational thought in favor of faith.”
My thought is that you are trying to turn a question of authority into a question of rationality. Rationality is not in focus here. The question in focus is the authority of those who “say so”. We all rely on authority for our knowledge. You need to explain why your source of authority ( George Smith, Carl Sagan, the liberal religious prof in Wisconsin etc. etc. ) has more credibility than someone who died and was raised on the third day and changed all of history.
Posted by: Mr. D | July 16, 2008 at 10:57
I could not follow the logic of your rebuttal to Matt’s orchid example.
The logic of my rebuttal seemed straightforward enough to me, but it seems to me that you're not properly summarizing the analogy. Matt doesn't appear to be talking about knowledge; he's talking about belief, which is an entirely different matter. He's saying that it's silly to disbelieve in something solely because I can't personally verify it. That's true as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough.
The predisposition to believe versus the predisposition to disbelieve isn't some all-or-nothing choice we make. It's something we do on a case-by-case basis. If someone claims that a certain type of orchid exists in a certain part of the Amazon, my tendency to believe or disbelieve that claim is going to depend on the particulars of the claim, and how well it fits with what I do know.
Of course, such shorthand could certainly lead to the wrong conclusion, I'm not denying that. But even there, the analogy fails. Because in the case of the orchid, if it's really that important to me to figure out the truth or falsity of the orchid claim, there are ways for me to do so, up to and including going to the Amazon and seeing for myself. With God, no such possibility exists. I must beieve, or not believe, sight unseen.
The argument Dawkins uses is an epistemological claim so let’s stick to that.
Since neither you nor I have read Dawkins' book, I don't think it makes sense to do that. Neither of us has first-hand knowledge of what "epistemological claim" he's actually making.
The irony is, Tom has drawn his conclusion based on trust as well [faith = trust].
You sure do love you some everything-is-faith-so-we-can-never-ever-know-anything logic, don't you? ;) As I'm sure I've mentioned numerous times before, when you describe my foundational assumptions as "faith" of the same sort as your "faith" in God, you only serve to drastically demean your own faith.
The great lie is that there is a worldview out there (materialism) that gets a free pass on trust and is somehow true by default.
Not "true by default," and no free pass. It just happens to work better the overwhelming majority of the time. Here's a test: we'll both inoculate ourselves with the black plague. I'll take penicillin. You pray. Let's see who fares better. Of course, it could be that you die, and discover that there actually is a great hereafter, and you get the last laugh. :) [Yes, I realize that you wouldn't "laugh" about that. I'm using it in the figurative sense.]
It relates to objects like ideas, arguments and syllogisms … none of which fit neatly into a test tube.
I never said it had to. However, being internally and logically consistent goes an awfully long way...
We all accept things based on the word of others. “AGW is true because climate scientists say so” comes to mind.
Not even close to the same thing. For starters, if I wanted to, I could go see and talk to climate scientists directly. This simply isn't the case with Jesus. At an even more basic level, I can be quite certain that climate scientists actually exist, without relying on several-generations-removed copies of centuries-old documents containing anecdotes as my primary source of information.
Again, the double-standard comes to mind: we're highly skeptical of all sorts of things the ancients wrote and believed -- to the extent that we believe any of it, it's because we've either tested and verified that it's at least plausible, or -- less convincingly -- because it's at least internally consistent, and consistent with other things that we do know about the time period. But somehow with Christianity (and religion in general), we're supposed to set all that skepticism aside, and I've never understood why. No physical evidence of a massive slave exodus from Egypt? No problem! After all, we have centuries-old scrolls that say it happened. Why would they lie?
Someone who died and came back to life on the third day, raised the dead, healed the sick, performed miracles and spoke with such authority that he changed all of history … has credibility and ought to be taken seriously.
If, indeed, that actually happened. That's going to be the crux of our disagreement. If one believes this truly occurred -- a belief one can only hold through blind faith -- then that's going to open the door to all sorts of related beliefs. But they all hinge on that critical one, one for which there is no compelling evidence (anecdotes are not compelling evidence).
You need to explain why your source of authority ... has more credibility
For starters, because I'm certain they actually exist. :) But more importantly than that, because their claims can be logically and/or empirically tested. Whereas there's no way to learn after the fact if two millennia ago somebody really did die only to come back three days later. I can say, with reasonable certainty, that a story about someone doing so changed all of history, but that doesn't make the root story true.
Posted by: tgirsch | July 16, 2008 at 14:21
By definition theology is the attempt to understand religion in light of other branches of knowledge such as science and philosophy. Granted form of theology is to declare that one does not have to take science and philosophy under consideration. Does trying to understand my faith in light of modern science make me a liberal? I see myself simply as a neo-medievalist, following in the footsteps of thinkers like Avicenna, Averroes, Maimonides, Anselm and Aquinas.
It is a great mystery to me why people find modern science threatening; one is hard pressed to find an issue that does not have its antecedents in Aristotle.
Posted by: Benzion Chinn | July 16, 2008 at 18:34
Tom,
I think Mr. D. correctly pointed out why your criticism of the orchid analogy was flawed. That analogy was offered in response to Paul's argument that seeing no evidence of God makes him unlikely.
Next, let me clarify my position on applying reason to the existence of God and more specifically to the existence of the God of the Bible. I believe that we can use reason to evaluate the existence of God, and we can apply reason to the claims of the Bible. What we cannot do is use science to prove or disprove the existence of God or the more specific claims in the Bible. It is possible that science can give evidence that suggests the existence of a creator although I'm harder pressed to see how it can give evidence against the existence of a creator.
The principal example here is the development of life from non-life. The only evidence we have that life can originate from non-life by natural processes is that life exists. However, the fact that we exist as living creatures is no greater evidence of a natural process that could have caused life to originate from non-life than it is of the existence of a creator that brought forth life from non-life.
Moreover, based upon millenia of observation and numerous attempts to directly create life from non-life we cannot point to a single instance of life originating from non-life. Now, if we were to take your reasoning and that of Paul, then, in the absence of evidence that life can originate from non-life, we would have to conclude that it cannot. However, as I've stated above, that reasoning is flawed. We must conclude simply that we don't know whether life can originate from non-life by natural processes. But, in this case, because we are dealing with evaluating natural processes, we can conclude that based upon the evidence we have so far it seems unlikely that natural processes can be responsible for the origin of life from non-life.
"Since neither you nor I have read Dawkins' book, I don't think it makes sense to do that. Neither of us has first-hand knowledge of what 'epistemological claim' he's actually making."
If this is true, why were you defending Dawkins?
"There's nothing I know of about the laws of nature that says life can't emerge from non-life; just that we haven't witnessed it as such. (And, for what it's worth, there's no guarantee that it happened only once."
I've addressed this to some degree above, but reading this statement again I found it very interesting. Here, although we have no evidence whatsoever that life can originate from non-life by natural processes and we have been unable to accomplish it, you seem to simply accept that it must be possible. Although I am no biochemist, I suspect that the vast majority of biochemists would acknowledge that the chance of life originating from non-life is exponentially small and that they are aware of no process by which it could occur. It's telling that you are so quick, however, to accept that this could have occurred (the equivalent of eventually rolling a thirteen with a pair of regular dice given enough rolls), but you are quick to reject that Christ could have been crucified and then risen three days later. In the latter case, we have at least the foretelling of such an event in the Old Testament and then what purport (for argument sake) to be first-hand accounts that even critics concede were written within a few generations of when the resurrection was said to have occurred.
Finally, I'm afraid that your building analogy and the man calling from outside or entering the building is unhelpful. The man and the building are bound by physical laws yet a God capable of creating the universe, its physical laws, and all that is within the universe is, by definition, not subject to those laws unless He chooses in some instances to subject Himself in part to them.
"A point I'll readily grant, if you're willing to concede that your argument could just as easily be used to defend the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or any number of other far-less-absurd supernatural figures which I'm absolutely certain you dismiss out of hand without so much as a second thought."
If that were the sole point, you might be right. Of course, we have nothing that describes any of the characteristics of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, no witnesses to its existence, nothing that suggests the possible necessity of its existence (unless you're attributing creator to it), no one calling on you to accept its existence on faith, and nothing which we can observe about humanity that would suggest the existence of such a being.
Posted by: matt curtis | July 16, 2008 at 22:54
re: "You sure do love you some everything-is-faith-so-we-can-never-ever-know-anything logic, don't you? ;) As I'm sure I've mentioned numerous times before, when you describe my foundational assumptions as "faith" of the same sort as your "faith" in God, you only serve to drastically demean your own faith."
Tom, you have demonstrated your own blind faith numerous times on this blog over the years and several times in this very thread ... just look at what Matt has pointed out about your faith in a naturalistic means of life forming from non-life despite the complete lack of evidence, no proof, no witnesses, nothing seen, no empirical proof, no logical proof ... in short, nothing ... nada ... zilch.
Yet, you believe ... somehow, someway, we rolled a 13 on normal dice ... and then you suggest maybe, we rolled a 13 more than once possibly.
This is a truly stunning display of blind faith ... then you turn around and belittle others for having blind faith as knowing nothing.
Sorry. The jig is up.
"Whereas there's no way to learn after the fact if two millennia ago somebody really did die only to come back three days later."
Sure there is. Offer a superior explanation for the empty tomb of Christ, the numerous post resurrection appearances, the changed behavior of the disciples, and why each would be martyred for what each knew to be a lie in your opinion.
You are right that resurrection is the crux. The apostle Paul agrees with you in 1 Cor 15.
So far, I hear you saying, we can't know things from the past.
Burn your history books if that is the case. For that matter, burn most of your science text books too.
Sorry, that dog won't hunt.
What you are really claiming is that we can't know things from the past that contradict your unproven faith assumptions about the world ... i.e. your view of reality. That amounts to a circular argument.
Once you come up with the superior explanation of the empty tomb, post-resurrection appearances, changed lives, and martyrdom of the disciples who held to their claim of having seen the risen Christ ... then you can write the book, make millions, and take a victory lap around this blog.
Until then, your authority figures don't really have all that much authority ... one has died and stayed dead ... the others are just human beings with opinions.
I am sticking with the guy who claimed divinity, said he would die and rise from the dead, and then did it. That impresses me.
Posted by: Mr. D | July 17, 2008 at 00:29
Sorry for rejoining late - life is busy! A couple of things stand out:
"you are asking that our natural laws have been broken - just once. That just once, life originated from non-life. That just once, a thirteen was rolled from a regular pair of dice."
We're not asking any such thing. In fact that's actually what you're saying! If you present a theory for the creation of life that requires natural laws to be broken then I would first be skeptical, and I would then ask you to demonstrate the flaw in the natural law. I'd do that because natural laws *can't* be broken, they can only turn out to be wrong or poorly applied. If you could demonstrate sound traveling through a vacuum I would, after initial skepticism, decide that either sound doesn't require a medium to travel, or that there was something about your particular vacuum that meant the natural law on propagation of sound shouldn't be applied to it.
In contrast Christianity says that there are natural laws exist about the creation of life, but God 'broke' them to create us. In effect God rolled 13.
But I'd welcome being shown to be wrong. Let's start with your rolling 13 assertion - you're basically saying that it's impossible for life to come from non-life. Please prove this assertion.
The second thing I picked up on is God's interaction with the world. Assuming for a moment that God exists outside of nature, but that he can interact with it, then we can in principle evaluate those interactions. If we can't, then the interactions haven't happened; if a being that doesn't exist in this world did something that left no trace in this world, then why would someone in this world even think that something had happened?
(Incidentally, I'm abandoning the probability argument for now - we're so far apart that I lack the wit to bridge the gap from either direction).
Posted by: Paul | July 17, 2008 at 07:19
matt:
That analogy was offered in response to Paul's argument that seeing no evidence of God makes him unlikely.
Well, I guess that depends on how one takes the meaning of "unlikely." The lack of positive evidence for God may not make him any less statistically likely, I'll grant. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and all that. However, part of the point I was trying to make in my rebuttal to your orchid example is that in the absence of positive evidence for God, we're left with no rational reason to believe in Him.
And again, the other part of my point is that how much we're inclined to believe something without proof is going to depend a great deal upon how well (or poorly) the claim conforms with our understanding of reality. If someone tells you there's a statue of George Washington in some major US city you've never been to, you will (and any rational person would) treat that claim a great deal differently than the claim that, say, there's a man in Cedar Rapids, Iowa who can cut your hair using only the power of his mind. The primary difference, then, between your camp and mine is that you put the "Christian God" claim much closer to the former claim, and I put it much closer to the latter.
The only evidence we have that life can originate from non-life by natural processes is that life exists. However, the fact that we exist as living creatures is no greater evidence of a natural process that could have caused life to originate from non-life than it is of the existence of a creator that brought forth life from non-life.
True as far as it goes, but based on this evidence, the argument for God is essentially a God-of-the-gaps argument. We can't explain it through natural processes alone, so therefore it must be supernatural. But history is littered with examples of things that we appealed to the supernatural to explain, only to find perfectly natural explanations later. At some point, it becomes reasonable to presume that the same will be true of those things that we can't currently fully explain through natural processes alone. And, taking it a step further, because natural explanations exist for the overwhelming majority of what we see and what we know, it becomes reasonable to assume that natural processes are at work even where we don't ever expect to be able to fully explain it.
Now, if we were to take your reasoning and that of Paul, then, in the absence of evidence that life can originate from non-life, we would have to conclude that it cannot.
For starters, I'm not certain that there's no evidence for life coming from non-life by natural processes, but I'm not an expert on (or even terribly knowledgeable about) abiogenesis, so for the sake of argument, I'll take it as a given. Your argument here still doesn't follow. The logic I am using (and, I presume, Paul is using) applies to questions of existence. In other words, of whether, not of how. We know -- to the fullest extent that we can ever know anything at all -- that life does exist; we're simply left with the question of how it got here. Thus, it had to have gotten here somehow.
And, of course, the logic you've applied can be just as easily used against you. In the absence of any evidence that life was created by an all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful creator, we must assume that it wasn't. In fact, the same logic would rule out every conceivable explanation, and hence isn't terribly useful in this case.
All that said, we can only speculate as to how life began from non-life. That doesn't mean, however, that every such speculation should be given equal merit. Some posited explanations seem more plausible than others. That doesn't make those explanations right, but it does make them the most logical places to start looking.
If this is true, why were you defending Dawkins?
I was defending Dawkins in general. I haven't read that particular book, so I'm not intimately familiar with his arguments therein. However, I have read several of his essays, and as such am familiar with some of his arguments, his writing style, etc. I'm familiar with the author, in other words, just not that particular work.
Here, although we have no evidence whatsoever that life can originate from non-life by natural processes and we have been unable to accomplish it, you seem to simply accept that it must be possible.
As I explained above, I'm highly skeptical of your "no evidence whatsoever" claim. But further, I've also already explained why my assumption seems reasonable -- because absolutely everything that we can explain, we can explain through natural processes. Perhaps people were right, and the Black Death was a punishment from God, but we now know that the mechanism of that punishment was a bacterium spread by rats. How many times does a pattern have to repeat itself before it becomes rational for one to expect that pattern to continue?
the equivalent of eventually rolling a thirteen with a pair of regular dice given enough rolls
OK, you've repeated this enough times, but it's self-evidently false. It's not the equivalent of that at all. You're conflating "exceptionally unlikely" with "impossible" here. It is literally impossible to roll a thirteen on a pair of standard dice. The odds of a single person winning the lottery twice are vanishingly small, but it's happened to several people. Extremely unlikely, but by no means impossible.
we have at least the foretelling of such an event in the Old Testament
That's debatable, actually. First of all, some of the "foretellings" really aren't. Matthew's reference to Isaiah, for example, doesn't withstand even the most basic scrutiny. He cherry picked a line out of context, when in context that line simply can't possibly be referring to Jesus. Even setting that aside, of course, you're ignoring a very real possibility: if you were fabricating a story about God-made-flesh, wouldn't you take the trouble to make your story conform to a prophecy that people were already aware of and believed in?
The man and the building are bound by physical laws yet a God capable of creating the universe, its physical laws, and all that is within the universe is, by definition, not subject to those laws unless He chooses in some instances to subject Himself in part to them.
And if such a God behaved in such a manner, then His existence would be totally irrelevant to us. What's the practical difference between a God who cannot be seen or felt or detected in any way, and one who does not exist? What's the practical difference between a God who is unknown and unknowable, and one who does not exist? My answer: no difference at all.
Of course, we have nothing that describes any of the characteristics of the Flying Spaghetti Monster ...
Which is why I also included the far-less-absurd examples. Allah, Vishnu, Mithras (aka, Jesus 100 years before Jesus was cool), etc. Take your pick. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is, of course, intentionally absurd, but exists to point out the unintentional absurdities of arguments often used to defend other imaginary beings.
Mr. D:
Tom, you have demonstrated your own blind faith numerous times on this blog over the years and several times in this very thread
I disagree with that assessment. "Blind faith" is belief in the complete absence of any reason to believe. I have explained my reasons for believing as I do, especially the ones you talk about "in this very thread," and I'm confident that most neutral observers would view those reasons as entirely rational, even if they don't ultimately agree with them.
As for the "rolling a 13" example, I've already explained to Matt why that example is a poor one.
Finally, I stand by my claim that trying to equivocate between my "faith" and yours only serves to cheapen your faith. You're using a definition of "faith" that essentially states that everything is faith, at its core, and that's not a terribly useful definition. I continue to contend that this line of reasoning is useless, in that it assumes that knowledge is simply impossible.
Offer a superior explanation for the empty tomb of Christ, the numerous post resurrection appearances, the changed behavior of the disciples, and why each would be martyred for what each knew to be a lie in your opinion.
That's easy: None of it ever happened. The story was fabricated. Of course, as current events in the Middle East show, it's really not all that hard to get people, especially oppressed people or people with nothing to lose, to martyr themselves, even for a false cause. I would assume that you wouldn't dispute that the causes Islamic terrorists martyr themselves for are false ones. Yet by the logic you've just put forth, the fact that they're willing to die for their cause is evidence that their cause must be true!
No, the far simpler explanation applies now as then: the people who martyred themselves truly believed in their cause, but that doesn't in any way show that the cause is true. All you need is people who are receptive to the message, and a charismatic leader willing to manipulate them.
Even in the modern world, it's possible (and not even that difficult) to fabricate a story -- even a story that's patently false on its face -- and have that story widely believed. Just look at how many people today believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, or that Barack Obama is a Muslim, etc.
Based on this, it's not at all difficult for me to believe that people bought into a myth, rallied around it, and took extreme action based on it. It would be far from unprecedented in history.
So far, I hear you saying, we can't know things from the past.
Then you're hearing me incorrectly. :) I've never said that we can't know anything about the past. Only that (almost) two-thousand-year-old anecdotes are not, in and of themselves, sufficient reason to believe this or that about the past. And that what we do know/believe about the past is based not just on writings, but on things like archaeological evidence, our current understanding of the laws of physics, etc.
That's completely different from saying "we can't ever know anything," which frankly sounds more like the line of argument you've been taking. ;)
What you are really claiming is that we can't know things from the past that contradict your unproven faith assumptions about the world
See above. This allegation only holds true if everything we know -- about physics, about science, about anything -- is tantamount to an "unproven faith assumption." Which brings us right back to "knowledge is impossible," which brings us back to this argument (and all arguments) being futile, because it's all faith, it's all unproven and unprovable, and therefore, anything goes. All Hail FSM! :)
Once you come up with the superior explanation of the empty tomb, [etc.]
Already did. A made-up story (or, somewhat more likely, a grossly embellished story) sold to a receptive populace by a charismatic leader.
one has died and stayed dead
Maybe I'm a little sensitive today, but that seems like an unnecessarily cheap shot, and beneath you.
Paul:
As usual, you've made excellent points, using a fraction of the bandwidth I did. :) I find your application of the "rolling a 13" argument to be particularly cogent.'
Then again, "With God, all things are possible," even rolling a 13. Disprove that! :)
Posted by: tgirsch | July 17, 2008 at 14:22
Tom, you do seem a little more sensitive than normal ... and based on what you have posted on your own blog, I think I can understand why.
Take care friend.
Have a restful weekend.
Posted by: Mr. D | July 17, 2008 at 18:49
Thanks for the kind thoughts, but I'm not unusually touchy, or at least I don't think I am. :) Maybe a little snarkier than usual. I'll try to work on that.
Have a good weekend yourself.
Posted by: tgirsch | July 18, 2008 at 00:40
Paul and Tom,
Look again at the dice analogy. The very point of the analogy is that rolling a 13 with a regular pair of dice is impossible. If you have 300 million people each rolling a pair of regular dice an infinite number of times, there will never be a 13 rolled.
Applied to abiogenesis, or what up until about 350 years ago was referred to as spontaneous generation, the analogy was intended to address what we currently understand to be impossible: the origin of life from non-life by natural processes. If life cannot come from non-life by natural processes, then Dawkins's argument that given enough time and enough chances life might actually happen is the equivalent of saying someone will eventually roll a 13.
Now, lest there be any misunderstanding, I am not arguing that the existence of life and the apparent impossibility of life originating from non-life by natural processes must mean, therefore, that there is a Creator. I am simply taking issue with Dawkins's poor argument.
Tom, you also argued that "applying [my] logic" - that in the absence of evidence for it something doesn't exist - God must not exist. Please take a look at that again. You and Paul had argued that it's unreasonable to believe in God in the absence of evidence of Him. I responded and applied your logic, not mine, to the issue of life from non-life. In short, we came full circle applying your logic rather than mine.
Paul, you asked me to prove that life cannot come from non-life by natural processes. As you undoubtedly know, one cannot prove a negative. The reverse is not so, however. Therefore, I invite you to prove that life can originate from non-life by natural processes.
You also stated that applying the dice analogy to my faith requires that I accept that God rolled a 13. In a sense, that is true, but it is also false. If God is outside of nature and created its physical laws at the same time that He created nature, then it's not accurate to say that He rolled a 13. However, to the extent that you're merely pointing out that I believe God is not bound by the physical laws of nature, then you are certainly correct.
On the issue of God's interaction with the World and our ability to "detect" that interaction, let's revist a couple of analogies I've used here before (one of which is borrowed from C.S. Lewis). In the case of the clay bowl or the building, the potter or the architect has, and may again interact with his creation. Neither the bowl nor the building is aware of the role of the potter or architect in its creation, nor can either perceive any continued interaction with it. You're likely to respond that these are both inanimate objects that, of course, cannot perceive the acts of their creators. But that is not the point of the analogies so please consider them further. The point is that there is something that is outside of them, that is not part of them in a physical sense, that is responsible for their creation.
Consider also a simple look from a husband to his wife, or a father to his child that is able to convey love, warmth, and affection. Here, we have both husband and wife within the world and both as physical beings. We have a cause (the look) and an effect (feelings of love, contentment, and security) and yet, with all of our scientific know-how and technology, we could never measure or record the passage of that look. Here again, you might retort that we could actually measure and record activity in the brains of both husband and wife. To a certain degree that is almost certainly true. However, would you not also expect to be able to measure and record such brain activity in someone at church who feels the presence of God, or in the hiker who crests a summit and looks out over the sun casting its first light over the valley below.
My point here is that there is no reason to expect that we should be able to detect God's interaction with this world. Additionally, the inability to detect any interaction does not necessarily mean that it is not occurring. Why do you both so easily accept, despite no recorded observation of life originating from non-life, no successful creation of life from non-life, and no currently testable hypothesis for the origin of life from non-life, that life simply happened? You believe it happened despite lacking the ability to observe or explain it.
Finally, let me respond just generally to your assertions that Chistianity and Judaism is merely a myth and to some degree a fraud. Would you agree with me that if your assertion is true, then it is certainly the most successful, widespread, and longstanding such myth born out of fraud? Would you not also agree that if your assertions are true, then it is an incredibly elaborate myth born out of fraud and perpetrated by at least hundreds of primary, principal actors over thousands of years? Is there really any equivalent to it in its scope (and most importantly to its message) in the world's other religions?
Posted by: matt curtis | July 18, 2008 at 11:01
Matt,
Well argued, friend. I'll just shut up now and go sit in the back seat. :)
Have a great weekend, everyone.
Posted by: Mr. D | July 18, 2008 at 11:18
we currently understand [the origin of life from non-life] to be impossible
Who's "we?" If anyone has established that the origin of life from non-life is impossible, I sure haven't seen it. That would be pretty big news, I'd think.
Nobody has ever hit a home run completely out of Yankee Stadium. That doesn't mean doing so is impossible -- just that nobody has done it yet. [It could be that it's physically impossible -- I haven't done the math. The point, however, is that the simple fact that nobody has done it is not a sufficient criterion for a claim of impossibility.] It's a long way to go to get from "nobody has done it" to "it's impossible," or even apparently impossible.
Please take a look at that [logic] again.
Uhh, I ask that you please re-read my rebuttal, because it seems you misunderstood it completely. At least that's what I'm going to assume, because otherwise it would mean that you're intentionally misrepresenting my argument. To repeat, succinctly, arguments about existence are different than arguments of method or arguments of events. And even within each group, we don't assess all such arguments uniformly.
You have yet to answer the question I asked before: given the claim that there exists a statue of George Washington in some major city, and the claim that there exists a man in some small town that can cut my hair using only the power of his mind, why do you insist that I err on the side of assuming truth or assuming falsity in both cases? Why should the relative plausibility of the two claims not be a huge consideration in evaluating them?
Also, you misstate our logic as "in the absence of evidence of God, God 'must' not exist," but I don't believe either Paul or I argued that. Dawkins probably didn't, either. What I said was that in the absence of evidence for God, there's no good reason to believe He exists. That's a far cry from "must not." You certainly disagree with the "no good reason" logic, but that doesn't give you license to misrepresent it.
Would you agree with me that if your assertion is true, then it is certainly the most successful, widespread, and longstanding such myth born out of fraud?
Successful and widespread, sure. It even beats cow tipping! :) As far as "longstanding," however, both Buddhism and Hinduism long predate Christianity, and Hinduism used to give it a run for its money in number of adherents (despite the fact that most Hindus don't believe in proselytization).
Would you not also agree that if your assertions are true, then it is an incredibly elaborate myth born out of fraud and perpetrated by at least hundreds of primary, principal actors over thousands of years?
That's the beauty of it, though: once you get true believers, it's a lot easier to spread and sustain. They don't view themselves as perpetuating a fraud, so it doesn't exactly take a highly-coordinated effort. Which is why I think your "primary, principle actors" characterization is a giant stretch. I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of people who have ascribed to and helped spread Christianity in their lifetimes truly did believe that it's true.
In fact, that's part of why Christianity is as successful as it is: without any sort of centralized control for much of its history, it's been allowed to splinter into disparate, passionate groups that all call themselves Christians, even though, say, the United Church of Christ, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Seventh Day Adventists seem to bear little resemblance to one another.
And, of course, it's hard to debunk such a myth when saying anything bad about it at all is likely to get you killed, as was true for most of the history of Christianity.
Is there really any equivalent to it in its scope (and most importantly to its message) in the world's other religions?
Maybe not equivalent, but certainly analogous. Christianity has about a 610 year head start on Islam (Actually, probably more like about 575, depending on the age of Jesus at the time of his purported death), but the latter is gaining plenty of ground. One would presume you believe this to be a fraud, and yet it persists and continues to grow somehow, at an even more rapid rate than Christianity. Surely a 1400-year-old fraud with 1.8 billion adherents is nearly as impressive as a 2000-year-old fraud with 2 billion adherents.
Posted by: tgirsch | July 18, 2008 at 18:55
Tom,
Are you suggesting that the scientific community presently believes that life can come from non-life by natural processes? My understanding of current thought is that at one time, life must have come from non-life, although the mechanism is unknown, because we are in fact here. As Dawkins argues: we're here; therefore, it must have happened. I don't think there is any prevalent idea within the scientific community that life is presently capable of originating from non-life.
You've observed often within this thread that experience and observation provide us some means to evaluate the plausibility of a claim (e.g. the statue of Washington and the supernatural barber). In the case of life from non-life, however, you choose to ignore that experience and observation. No one has ever demonstrated the origin of life from non-life nor presented a testable hypothesis of how that might occur. It's true that we might someday be able to demonstrate that it can, but it's also true that someday we may see Christ in all His glory and His existence will be undeniable. ("Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1)
"To repeat, succinctly, arguments about existence are different than arguments of method or arguments of events. And even within each group, we don't assess all such arguments uniformly."
There are certainly difference between how one might test or evaluate arguments related to existence, method, or past events. However, I fail to see how those distinctions render the analogy of either the orchid or the rolling of 13 unhelpful. (I'm not sure which analogy you were referring to because, as I recall, the existence vs. method vs. events rebuttal was to the dice analogy and the Washington statue was to the orchid analogy. The dice rolling related primarily to method, and the orchid related to existence.) Please expand on your rebuttal argument.
"given the claim that there exists a statue of George Washington in some major city, and the claim that there exists a man in some small town that can cut my hair using only the power of his mind, why do you insist that I err on the side of assuming truth or assuming falsity in both cases? Why should the relative plausibility of the two claims not be a huge consideration in evaluating them?"
I'm not insisting that you err on either side. I believe the statue is infinitely more plausible than the "supernatural barber". But the process you use to evaluate the plausibility of the "supernatural barber" is not applicable to the question of whether God exists. Where that process would be applicable is to the claim of miracles. Based upon observation and experience, you would be rightly skeptical of the healing of a blind man, the raising of a man from the dead, or the feeding of five thousand with five loaves of bread and two fish. I would be skeptical now and, if I lived in Jesus's time, I suspect I would have been skeptical then. In the case of miracles, we have observation, understanding, and experience upon which to draw in evaluating the claims. In the case of God's existence, we have no means of evaluating that question in the same manner. If God has always existed, we could not compare His existence to nonexistence and the opposite is equally true.
Applying the above to the statue example, if one had never seen a Washington statue and didn't know who he was, you would not have a basis upon which to evaluate how likely it was that there would be a statue of him in any particular city.
"Also, you misstate our logic as "in the absence of evidence of God, God 'must' not exist," but I don't believe either Paul or I argued that. Dawkins probably didn't, either. What I said was that in the absence of evidence for God, there's no good reason to believe He exists. That's a far cry from "must not."
Here I think we're getting caught up in semantics. You and Paul have both argued that, absent evidence, there is no reason to believe God exists. You've gone so far, as has Dawkins, to equate the belief in God with belief in fairy tales. Dawkins apparently holds out a 3% chance that God does exist so I suppose it is technically true that he is not arguing that God "must not" exist, but I think your statement above is elevating form over substance and unnecessarily nitpicking.
more later on Christianity and other world religions.
Posted by: matt curtis | July 20, 2008 at 18:33
"As far as "longstanding," however, both Buddhism and Hinduism long predate Christianity, and Hinduism used to give it a run for its money in number of adherents (despite the fact that most Hindus don't believe in proselytization)."
First of all, you are both correct and incorrect. While Judaism doesn't recognize Christianity, Christian believers trace their heritage back to Judaism. We do not believe we are part of a separate or new religion. Rather, we believe that Christ's birth, death, and resurrection are a fulfillment of the Old Testament. With that understanding, Christianity predates Buddhism and it's unclear whether it predates Hinduism. Second, Hinduism's number of adherents are almost solely related to its position as the major religion of one of the most populous nations on Earth. Christianity thrived and grew despite its beginning in cultures that were often extremely hostile toward it - remember, Christians were fed to the lions as entertainment for the Romans.
Islam borrows from the history of the Old Testament and, apparently, treats the Pentateuch of the Old Testament and at least the Gospels of the New Testament as holy (although altered) writings. The Qu'ran, Islam's principal text, unlike the Bible, was written by a single man, Muhammad, but is believed, like the Bible, to reflect the actual word of God. It's present growth would seem to be more related to exponential population growth within its geographical sphere of influence, including West Africa, although it has also begun to spread beyond those boundaries - principally, I believe, into Southeast Asia.
It is certainly true that once there is a group of believers established, then a religion can spread regardless of its truth or falsity. But here is the thing with Christianity. You have a single man who teaches some pretty radical ideas, who takes on the established church leadership, and claims to be the actual Son of God. He gathers disciples who observe Him perform miracles and raise people from the dead. (Jesus, His 12 disciples, and the early followers are the "primary, principal actors to whom I referred) He seeks no power and submits Himself to arrest and death on the cross.
Now, you can choose to reject that two of the early disciples, Matthew and John, actually wrote of what they saw and heard, or that later, Mark and Luke, wrote of what they either witnessed (Luke in the book of Acts) or what they heard from first-person accounts (Mark perhaps writing of Peter's recollections), but you must still deal with the fact that these are either accurate written histories or they are at some point based upon an elaborate hoax perpetrated by a significant number of people in concert and spread over two or three generations (sticking just with the New Testament). Could such a hoax have happened? Sure, but it seems unlikely that it would have become such a powerful movement within a matter of just a couple of generations and in the face of the opposition it faced. And I haven't even touched on the role of Paul, his claims, and the history he provides. We would have to include Paul as one of the chief conspirators in the hoax you think Christianity is for he claims to have physically heard God's voice and been blinded by His light on the road to Damascus where he was going to further persecute the Christians.
And consider the message of the Bible. Does it coincide with what we can observe about humanity? Do we recognize its fundamental truths about the interaction of man with man? Does it elevate the self interest of any one man over another?
You suggest significant differences between different Christian denominations. I think you have overstated the differences. At the heart of the Christian denominations is a single set of core beliefs: that there is a single God in three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit); that Jesus Christ, God's Son, became man, was crucified, died, and resurrected; and that His death paid our debt for our sins.
"And, of course, it's hard to debunk such a myth when saying anything bad about it at all is likely to get you killed, as was true for most of the history of Christianity."
This too is an overstatement. While there is a significant history of dissenters from Christianity being persecuted, that was certainly not the case of the early Church when believers were terribly persecuted. Nor is it even the case in more recent history where being a Christian can still get one killed or arrested.
Posted by: matt curtis | July 21, 2008 at 00:42
Are you suggesting that the scientific community presently believes that life can come from non-life by natural processes?
Well it depends on what you mean by believes, but I think the consensus is that this is probably how things happened. That's a long way from certainty, of course, but I think it's a reasonable assumption, because it's based on thinking that has served us well for hundreds of years. Time and time again we've managed to reach useful conclusions based on the assumption that things happen naturally. In fact the only area I can think of where an assumption that things happen outside of nature is in religion; you only need to account for 'unnatural' cause and effect if you presuppose unnatural exists and must be accounted for.
So yes, I think that scientists generally believe that life came from non-life. I'll speculate that they would be very surprised if it was proven that it could not, in fact. But if it was shown to be so then it would, after some protestation, be accepted. That's how science works in aggregate.
Posted by: Paul | July 25, 2008 at 08:27
Paul,
Science will never prove that life cannot come from non-life by natural processes; you can't prove a negative.
I don't dispute that many scientists believe that at some point life originated from non-life by natural processes. But, that isn't what I stated above in this thread. What I stated is that most believe that it is impossible for life to come from non-life by natural processes. What I should have added to that for clarity was "presently" impossible. With that clarification, my point stands. Moreover, my point was more importantly that, despite believing life at one time originated from non-life by natural processes, no one has been able to accomplish that feat, nor has anyone been so far able to come up with a testable hypothesis for how that might have occurred - scientists have been left with some pretty wild theories trying to account for life.
But hey, despite all that we have observed about the division between life and non-life, it may be that given just the right circumstances and the correct chemicals in the necessary proportions, life at one time did originate from non-life. Why stop there, though? Why not also say that despite what we know of death, it's possible that 2000 years ago a man, who had been dead for a couple of days, came back to life?
Posted by: matt curtis | July 26, 2008 at 23:42
With copy editing: "most believe that it is presently impossible for life to come from non-life by natural processes."
I'm entirely sure that this isn't true. If it was possible 3 billion years ago then I think virtually all scientists would say it is now. The issue isn't whether it's possible now or not, it's whether it's possible at all. That we haven't been able to do it yet, despite literally a few years of trying, doesn't surprise me at all; the list of things that might be possible but haven't been achieved yet is almost beyond measure.
On the division between life and non-life, we lack agreement on whether virii, the single most common (potential) life form on Earth, are alive or not. Given that level of uncertainty, I don't think the gap between life and non-life is necessarily so hard to bridge. Certainly I'd expect some good evidence before I believed anyone who said they'd done it, just as I'd expect it from someone who said that a man died and then came back to life. An authorized written account of what somebody says somebody said wouldn't count, if you were wondering.
Posted by: Paul | July 28, 2008 at 07:21
matt curtis:
Are you suggesting that the scientific community presently believes that life can come from non-life by natural processes?
What I'm suggesting is that they don't hold it to be absolutely impossible, as you've repeatedly suggested. And you've suggested not only that it is impossible, but you've at least strongly implied that it has been firmly established that it's possible.
In the case of life from non-life, however, you choose to ignore that experience and observation.
I'm not ignoring the experience and observation at all. When you consider the fantastic nature of the alternative explanation most frequently given (God), I'm essentially doing the same thing: extrapolating from what I know about the world, and believing what fits better. Can I explain life from non-life by natural processes? No. But there are lots of things I can't explain by natural processes which I nevertheless know to occur naturally. (Don't ask me how metamorphosis works, for example, but I'm certain there's nothing supernatural involved.)
Further, there are plenty of things that
at one time could not be explained by natural processes alone by anyone (and which were widely attributed to the supernatural), but for which we later discovered perfectly natural explanations. Infectious diseases spring to mind. So it seems perfectly plausible to me that life from non-life is just another example in a long line of examples of things which we cannot currently fully explain, but which will one day prove to be explainable without any sort of appeal to the supernatural (which, truth be told, never actually explains anything).
It's true that we might someday be able to demonstrate that it can, but it's also true that someday we may see Christ in all His glory and His existence will be undeniable.
Both very true. But again, that doesn't mean we should assign anything remotely close to equal credence to the likelihoods of those potential outcomes. And, indeed, neither one of us does.
The dice rolling related primarily to method
Seems I missed that completely, then. It struck me as more of an existence argument, which might be why we keep talking past each other on this issue. In any case, we're talking about a difference between something that's physically and logically impossible (the dice example), versus something (life from non-life) which, while it may be exceptionally improbable, we can not rightly describe as being impossible.
Applying the above to the statue example, if one had never seen a Washington statue and didn't know who he was, you would not have a basis upon which to evaluate how likely it was that there would be a statue of him in any particular city.
I don't think that quite works. In order for your revised analogy to work, the person would need to not even know what a statue is, or whether or not it's even possible for statues to exist.
But in pointing out why we can't use traditional logic to evaluate the claim that God exists, how do you suggest we do go about evaluating that claim? How can we say that God is real, as compared to, say, Allah, Shiva, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
You've gone so far, as has Dawkins, to equate the belief in God with belief in fairy tales.
I believe that's a fair assessment, yes. In fact, it seems to me that the only difference between a "fairy tale," a "myth," and a "religion" is the number of people who believe it to be true, and how strongly they believe it. :)
With that understanding, Christianity predates Buddhism and it's unclear whether it predates Hinduism.
Yeah, but with that understanding, the United States of America dates back to gaellic times, and thus predates France and England. :) More seriously, though, whether the difference is 600 years or 2600 years isn't really all that important. The point is that plenty of false religions continue to persist and grow, despite being false. (At the end of the day, at most one of them can be true, and I think that's probably one too many.) So your argument that the pervasiveness of Christianity is somehow evidence for its legitimacy is plainly false.
The Qu'ran, Islam's principal text, unlike the Bible, was written by a single man, Muhammad, but is believed, like the Bible, to reflect the actual word of God.
A nit: Muhammad didn't "write" anything. He was illiterate, and could neither read nor write. He gave the prophecies orally, and they were transcribed by others. IIRC, the word "Qu'ran" translates roughly as "recital."
It's present growth would seem to be more related to exponential population growth within its geographical sphere of influence
Which has been historically very true of Christianity as well. Ditto for conversions by force, which both Christianity and Islam were very good at for a very long time.
But here is the thing with Christianity. You have a single man who teaches some pretty radical ideas, who takes on the established church leadership, and claims to be the actual Son of God. He gathers disciples who observe Him perform miracles and raise people from the dead. ... He seeks no power and submits Himself to arrest and death on the cross.
Well, you have a loose collection of stories that say these things happened, which is far from the same thing as them actually having happened. I'm sure you know the old adage about history being written by the winners...
You go on to claim that the four gospels are actual eyewitness testimony, an idea denounced by most Biblical scholars, including the ones who are themselves devout Christians.
Even if the original manuscripts were written by actual eyewitnesses, you have to consider the fact that we don't have the originals (only copies), and anyone who has ever played "telephone" knows the problem with this. And how can we know that there was no exaggeration or embellishment in the documents? Plus, you have to consider that the four are often in disagreement or even direct contradiction with one another -- a fact which the many of the devout ironically seem to believe is compelling evidence for the authenticity and accuracy of the contents.
but you must still deal with the fact that these are either accurate written histories or they are at some point based upon an elaborate hoax perpetrated by a significant number of people in concert and spread over two or three generations
False dilemma often? :)
Sure, but it seems unlikely that it would have become such a powerful movement within a matter of just a couple of generations and in the face of the opposition it faced.
It seems less so in the context of the history of the time. Revolution was coming one way or another, and the people were itching for a cause to rally behind. If the populace of the Roman empire had been largely content and happy, Christianity never gains a foothold.
We would have to include Paul as one of the chief conspirators in the hoax you think Christianity is for he claims to have physically heard God's voice and been blinded by His light on the road to Damascus where he was going to further persecute the Christians.
So anyone who claims to hear/see God is either a conspirator, or really did see/hear God? Talk about a false dilemma! (Although, to be honest, I wouldn't rule out Paul as a conspirator. Based on his writings, it seems like exactly the sort of thing he would do.)
Does [the Bible] coincide with what we can observe about humanity?
It sure doesn't correspond with what we can observe about rabbits. Or pi. As for humanity? Well, a lot of what Dr. Phil says coincides with what we can observe about humanity, but that doesn't make him any less full of bologna! :)
You suggest significant differences between different Christian denominations. I think you have overstated the differences.
The core set of beliefs you describe is where the similarity ends, however. (And if you count the Unitarians as "Christians," even the core set doesn't hold.) Once you start talking about what all that means, how it translates into our lives, and how it should be put into practice, the similarities pretty much vanish. Sure, polo fans and soccer hooligans are both technically "sports fans," but pointing that out doesn't really tell us much useful about either.
While there is a significant history of dissenters from Christianity being persecuted, that was certainly not the case of the early Church when believers were terribly persecuted.
They went from persecutees to persecutors in pretty short order, actually. A few centuries of being oppressed, followed by nearly a millennium and a half of oppressing others. I wouldn't be surprised if there are still places in the world where not being a Christian is cause for oppression. (In this regard, Christianity is no different from most other religions.)
Nor is it even the case in more recent history where being a Christian can still get one killed or arrested.
Tell that to African Christians. Your statements here reflect a very America-centric view (or, at the very least, "western" view) of Christianity in the world.
What I stated is that most believe that it is impossible for life to come from non-life by natural processes. What I should have added to that for clarity was "presently" impossible.
I would like to see you back up that assertion with evidence, please. "Impossible" is a strong word, after all, and I seriously doubt even a sizable minority of scientists believe this to be the case.
scientists have been left with some pretty wild theories trying to account for life
Yes, and "an old guy with a long beard and flowing robes one day [well, six days actually] just 'willed' it all into existence" isn't the least bit "wild?" :)
Posted by: tgirsch | July 28, 2008 at 15:39