Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Phil 4483: The Language of God (Collins)

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2010,09:56    I am providing this thread in an attempt to provide an outlet for a (semi-)serious debate over the stated topics of Dr. Dembski's course, Christian Faith and Science I ask everyone to restrict their comments to things directly relating to this syllabus and Francis Collins' book, The Language of God (a major focus of the course) From the syllabus... Quote STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES In this course the student will: - Understand the main strategies for relating science and the Christian faith. - Be able to summarize the main scientific challenges to the Christian faith. - Learn to write critical reviews appropriate to the debate between science and religion. While I don't have the ability to directly enforce the requested rules of this thread, I might be able to encourage self compliance by pointing out this is an opportunity to show off your understanding of the above topics. I dare say most of the commenters in After the Bar Closes probably feel they are as close to experts in antievolution issues as one can get. If both side can leave their complaints about "tone" and complaints about complaining to the other Phil:4483 thread, I would appreciate it. This thread will also be a (hopefully) detailed review of The Language of God.  Dr. Dembski's students should have no excuses of an inability to talk to this subject.  A review of this book is supposed to be worth 30% of their final grade. Here is the table of contents... Quote Introduction Chapter 1: From Atheism to Belief Chapter 2: The War of the Worldviews Chapter 3: The Origins of the Universe Chapter 4: Life on Earth Chapter 5: Deciphering God's Instruction Book Chapter 6: Genesis, Galileo, and Darwin Chapter 7: Option 1: Atheism and Agnosticism Chapter 8: Option 2: Creationism Chapter 9: Option 3: Intelligent Design Chapter 10: Option 4: BioLogos Chapter 11: Truth Seekers APPENDIX The Moral Practice of Science and Medicine: Bioethics I have found a version of the book that I can copy and paste from.  It has 272 pages with the appendix taking up 38 of those (which we may or may not want to address).  It looks like a reasonably easy read. I will be going through chapter by chapter with a summary.  I am hoping this will inspire some of Dr. Dembski's students to engage in meaningful conversation because I am going to look foolish if this ends up with me as the only one talking.

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2010,10:11    Quote Be able to summarize the main scientific challenges to the Christian faith. That's backwards. Science does not challenge Christian faith-based beliefs. With regard to the major faith-based belief of Christianity (the divinity of Jesus Christ), science is silent. Silence is not a challenge. When Christians choose to ignore Augustine's advice about using Scripture to tell non-Christians how the world works, they are challenging science. And that's where they have lost, are losing, and will continue to lose. If you make a claim about the natural world around us, you are entering the realm of science, not faith. It's possible that by providing an alternative to superstition and woo, science is seen as a "challenge" to Christianity. But that is not specific to Christianity; rational alternatives to superstition are a threat to all religions. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2010,10:59    Introduction: Francis Collins', Dr. Dembski's and mine. I have a confession to make about an ethical dilemma.  The copy of Francis Collins; book I found is obviously in violation of copyright law and Collins' implied agreement with me.  I have little doubt we will get into how and why an atheist would be worried about ethical issues like this.  However, I am.  My resolution to this dilemma is to only post review-like snippets which is in keeping with the copyright agreement.  I will also spend the $15 necessary to download a legitimate copy even though I don't need one. Dr. Dembski chose a very interesting quote for his introduction on the syllabus...   Quote What you believe to be true will control you whether it’s true or not. –Jeremy LaBorde This is a multi-edged sword that generally goes to the heart of many philosophical discussions.  If a belief in God is good and necessary what difference does it make "whether it’s true or not" just as long as we believe it? I doubt Dr. Dembski would openly admit to this, but it is rather obvious he feels a moral obligation to "...replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God..." regardless of the truth of the matter. link Francis Collins' introduction can be summarized with this quote from his book...       Quote So here is the central question of this book: In this modern era of cosmology, evolution, and the human genome, is there still the possibility of a richly satisfying harmony between the scientific and spiritual worldviews? I answer with a resounding Yes! In my view, there is no conflict in being a rigorous scientist and a person who believes in a God who takes a personal interest in each one of us. Science's domain is to explore nature. God's domain is in the spiritual world, a realm not possible to explore with the tools and language of science. It must be examined with the heart, the mind, and the soul—and the mind must find a way to embrace both realms. This is pretty much a restatement of Stephen Gould's Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) Dr. Dembski is doing his students a disservice if he doesn't at least mention Gould's ideas.  I noticed Gould is not on the required reading list. I happen to embrace NOMA but that is probably a subject for later discussions.

skeptic reborn Posts: 16 Joined: Nov. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2010,11:22    You've brought me out of my self-imposed exile, TP.  I will follow this thread to see where it leads.  I'm guessing it will rehash earlier discussions of NOMA, which I have advocated in favor of, but it will be interesting to see if 3 years has brought on any changes.  I doubt I will post from here out but I wanted to let you know that you're not posting to empty air.

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2010,11:58    Chapter 1: From Atheism to Belief This chapter started with...       Quote MY EARLY LIFE WAS UNCONVENTIONAL... And ended with...       Quote ...the evidence of God's existence would have to come from other directions, and the ultimate decision would be based on faith, not proof. Still beset by roiling uncertainties of what path I had started down, I had to admit that I had reached the threshold of accepting the possibility of a spiritual worldview, including the existence of God. .... For a long time I stood trembling on the edge of this yawning gap. Finally, seeing no escape, I leapt. How can such beliefs be possible for a scientist? Aren't many claims of religion incompatible with the "Show me the data" attitude of someone devoted to the study of chemistry, physics, biology, and medicine? By opening the door of my mind to its spiritual possibilities, had I started a war of worldviews that would consume me, ultimately facing a take-noprisoners victory of one or the other? It is an unsurprising conversion story with the obligatory wise minister (this time he was a Methodist) giving just the right sagely advice (this time it was reading C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity) to get the ball rolling. The informative part, for me, is that it appears Collins really didn't struggle with his philosophical outlook until late in life.       Quote I practiced a thought and behavior pattern referred to as "willful blindness" by the noted scholar and writer C. S. Lewis. I have struggled with my philosophical outlook for many years.  I am still struggling with it.  One of my main philosophies is to question my beliefs and motives by testing them. One of the many religious people I have talked to in the past was a Jewish co-worker who I respected.  He said something odd during a religious discussion we were having.  It was something along the lines that my intelligence makes it much harder for me to come to the belief in God. He was sincere and genuinely sympathetic with my difficulty in understanding his faith in God's existence. I don't have a problem with Francis Collins choosing to take a leap of faith any more than I would have a problem with him deciding to become a survivalist in a cabin in a wilderness.  Either can be seen as a form of escape.  While I get a little nervous that Collins wrote a book on it which could be interpreted as trying to force his belief on others, I take some solace in that Collins' says near the end of the book...       Quote Each person must carry out his or her own search for spiritual truth. If God is real. He will assist. Far too much has been said by Christians about the exclusive club they inhabit. Tolerance is a virtue; intolerance is a vice. I find it deeply disturbing when believers in one faith tradition dismiss the spiritual experiences of others. Regrettably, Christians seem particularly prone to do this. In short, while Collins' own life story isn't that compelling of an argument, I can hardly fault him for providing his readers with background information.

Doc Bill Posts: 1039 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2010,12:10    Quote I have little doubt we will get into how and why an atheist would be worried about ethical issues like this. Really, TP? I have no recourse but to mock.  You are a moron and I call bullshit on this entire thread. Hammersmith.

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2010,13:15    Quote (Thought Provoker @ Mar. 28 2010,10:59) Dr. Dembski chose a very interesting quote for his introduction on the syllabus...     Quote What you believe to be true will control you whether it’s true or not. –Jeremy LaBorde This quote is fine for philosophy and morality and ethics (up to a point).  But in reality, it cannot apply to science. When PE came out, I dearly wanted it not to be true.  Still, the evidence mounted up and PE is more supported than not. I can believe that my next check will have my bonus on it, so maybe I'll go spend some money. However if my belief is unfounded (and since the announcement of the bonus in January, so my belief has been unfounded in every paycheck so far), then I will be a bit of trouble come rent time. What you believe should not be used to 'control' or as an excuse for a lack of control. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2010,14:08    Hi Albatrossity2, Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 28 2010,10:11) It's possible that by providing an alternative to superstition and woo, science is seen as a "challenge" to Christianity. But that is not specific to Christianity; rational alternatives to superstition are a threat to all religions. I agree, that is a good point.  There may be challenges unique to Christianity but since Muslims also generally believe Jesus was/is something special than just about any scientific challenge to Christianity would also be a challenge to Islam. Let's see if any of Dr. Dembski's students are brave enough to respond to this. EDIT - I think it would have been more appropriate for the syllabus to read... "- Be able to summarize the main scientific challenges to the Christian faith [and vice versa.]" Unless, of course, Dr. Dembski thinks there is nothing Christianity can challenge science with.

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2010,14:29    Hi Skeptic Reborn,   Quote (skeptic reborn @ Mar. 28 2010,11:22) You've brought me out of my self-imposed exile, TP.  I will follow this thread to see where it leads.  I'm guessing it will rehash earlier discussions of NOMA, which I have advocated in favor of, but it will be interesting to see if 3 years has brought on any changes.  I doubt I will post from here out but I wanted to let you know that you're not posting to empty air. Thank you for speaking up. At the risk of starting an off-topic discussion I think recent developments in Quantum Biophysics has the protential of illuminating a definitive barrier between that which is deterministic and that which is not. I suspect even Dr. Dembski is aware of it (since here mentioned it in his Expert Witness Report).  As I indicated, his class would be woefully incomplete without a discussion of Gould’s NOMA. If none of Dr. Dembski's students are confident enough to discuss NOMA, please consider doing so. Sure, it might be a lot of rehash, but at least we can keep each other company.

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2010,14:56    Hi OgreMkV, Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 28 2010,13:15) from the syllabus...       Quote What you believe to be true will control you whether it’s true or not. –Jeremy LaBorde This quote is fine for philosophy and morality and ethics (up to a point).  But in reality, it cannot apply to science. When PE came out, I dearly wanted it not to be true.  Still, the evidence mounted up and PE is more supported than not. I can believe that my next check will have my bonus on it, so maybe I'll go spend some money. However if my belief is unfounded (and since the announcement of the bonus in January, so my belief has been unfounded in every paycheck so far), then I will be a bit of trouble come rent time. What you believe should not be used to 'control' or as an excuse for a lack of control. I wish Dr. Dembski's students would hurry up and get here.  They are missing a good opportunaty to try out their developing skills in writing "...critical reviews appropriate to the debate between science and religion" For example, PE = Punctuated Equilibrium, right? It goes toward the argument with science it is supposed to be evidence, not philosophy, which controls what inferences to make and what experiments to run. To be fair, I don't know how much the LaBorde quote is indicative of what Dr. Dembski is teaching.  Let's find out what his students have to say. Students?

JLT Posts: 740 Joined: Jan. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2010,16:57    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 28 2010,16:11)   Quote Be able to summarize the main scientific challenges to the Christian faith. That's backwards. Science does not challenge Christian faith-based beliefs. With regard to the major faith-based belief of Christianity (the divinity of Jesus Christ), science is silent. Silence is not a challenge. When Christians choose to ignore Augustine's advice about using Scripture to tell non-Christians how the world works, they are challenging science. And that's where they have lost, are losing, and will continue to lose. If you make a claim about the natural world around us, you are entering the realm of science, not faith. It's possible that by providing an alternative to superstition and woo, science is seen as a "challenge" to Christianity. But that is not specific to Christianity; rational alternatives to superstition are a threat to all religions. Dembski could mean something like "No Adam & Eve, no Fall --> Jesus' sacrifice was unnecessary." For a Dembski-type Christian that's a challenging thought. AFAIK, his latest book is some far-fetched explanation of how the fall worked both forward and backward in time, thereby explaining why there was death before the first humans even existed (or some such). But in that case, it's more reality that's challenging to your faith than science. Death is an integral part of life. Even if I accepted that Adam & Eve actually existed. What if they hadn't eaten from the tree and no human or animal (plants apparently don't count as living) had ever died? We'd be buried under a thick cover of insects, for starters.... -------------- "Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...] Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2010,17:16    Quote (Thought Provoker @ Mar. 28 2010,14:08) Hi Albatrossity2, Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 28 2010,10:11) It's possible that by providing an alternative to superstition and woo, science is seen as a "challenge" to Christianity. But that is not specific to Christianity; rational alternatives to superstition are a threat to all religions. I agree, that is a good point.  There may be challenges unique to Christianity but since Muslims also generally believe Jesus was/is something special than just about any scientific challenge to Christianity would also be a challenge to Islam. Let's see if any of Dr. Dembski's students are brave enough to respond to this. EDIT - I think it would have been more appropriate for the syllabus to read... "- Be able to summarize the main scientific challenges to the Christian faith [and vice versa.]" Unless, of course, Dr. Dembski thinks there is nothing Christianity can challenge science with. This phrase on the syllabus has been bugging me ever since I read and I'm still not sure I have the reason totally down. But from what I can figure out is that this statement is decidedly NOT a fair proposition.  It implies that science is a challenge to Christianity or whatever religion and that's just not the case. It's basically telling students to expect to find problems with science. Of course, it's pretty much impossible for an undergrad student with little if no science or math training to find problems with science.  But people like Dembski keep telling these kids that basic algebra, made up numbers, and incorrect versions of the science are problems for science. It's a straight up lie. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2010,17:21    Quote (JLT @ Mar. 28 2010,16:57) Dembski could mean something like "No Adam & Eve, no Fall --> Jesus' sacrifice was unnecessary." For a Dembski-type Christian that's a challenging thought. Yeah, I do understand that Christians who are adamantly opposed to the thought of hominid life before Adam and Eve often take that particular line of "argument". But there are far more profound arguments against the "Jesus died so that original sin could be forgiven" belief. Like logic, for example. What kind of omnipotent omniscient deity would dream up such a convoluted scheme to forgive the sins of creatures he made and which he knew were going to sin well in advance of the sinning? Only if you are raised with that notion drummed into your head a million times does such a scheme make any sense at all, and then only if you don't think about it. So that is not only a challenge posed by science. It's a challenge posed by anyone who has two neurons to rub together. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Amadan Posts: 1337 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2010,19:11    Remember what Dembski’s students are there for. This is not High Academia, an Ivory Tower where ideas and knowledge are explored for their own sake. This is a missionary school. The whole point of Dembski’s course is to rub up intellectual callouses that will let students survive contact with The Enemy with The Message intact, in their minds, if not in the other bloke’s. This serves two purposes: 1. Positive reinforcement for the infantry: “The atheists could only swear at me” / “They just keep repeating the arguments I was inoculated against in Apologetics last October” / “The need for missionary work is so much greater than I thought!” 2. Feedback for the marketing bureau: “Hmmm, I’ll give a comprehensive criticism of that data in my next peer-reviewed paper in Nature dismiss that argument as irrelevant/unscientific/absurd in my next sermon.” This is not about science. Science is not the ground on which this battle is being fought. Where Dembski is vulnerable is in his expectation that students (as self-selected missionaries rather than academics) will equate refutation with rejection. Most, but not all, of these people are saturated with an authoritarian mindset. Some of the brighter, more empathetic ones, will compare the arguments they have been given as Holy Writ with those they have heard described as Wrong. Seepage will occur. So lay off the abuse, if only on the kids' thread here, guys. Edit: cuz yur wurthit -------------- "People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011 JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2010,20:33    CHAPTER TWO - The War of the Worldviews Starting with...   Quote IF YOU STARTED THIS BOOK as a skeptic and have managed to travel this far with me, no doubt a torrent of your own objections has begun to form. I certainly have had my own: Isn't God just a case of wishful thinking? Hasn't a great deal of harm been done in the name of religion? How could a loving God permit suffering? How can a serious scientist accept the possibility of miracles? The chapter deals with each of these four questions. Collins argues God isn't the result of wishful thinking because it would be doubtful anyone would wish for the type of God we allegedly got. Ironically, Collins made a statement in his first chapter that supports the idea God could be wishful thinking.  He wrote "I grew up with the general sense that you had to be responsible for your own behavior and your choices..." This is hard work.  It is much easier to externalize responsibility (i.e. a form of escape). As to the second question, unpleasant conclusions don't make the conclusion invalid.  IMO, arguing that religious doctrine is inaccurate because its bad is just as unpersuasive as arguing the doctrine is accurate because it is good. This gets back to trying to control reality with beliefs. No religious conversion would be complete without at least trying to deal with the problem of evil as Collins does in his attempt to answere his third question.  He didn't say anything very definative or unusual. In another thread I came up with something I thought was an interesting concept for explaining how both a benevolent God and evil can coexist. In the movie Matrix it was noted mankind would reject a utopian reality. If mankind does not struggle against adversity, its spirit dies. Man is also intelligent enough to see through a faux simulation of adversity. The adversity has to be real. This would include an inherent doubt of God’s existence. For man’s own good, God made it so his existence could never be known as a certainty which included providing scientists a difficult but consistent set of clues suggesting his existence was unnecessary. I don't know how persuasive it is, but it’s about as persuasive as anything else I have heard, including Collins' version. As for miracles (the fourth question) Collins relegates them to being very rare; nearly impossible but not totally impossible, only to be used on special occasions. If I didn't already know Collins thinks Common Descent is scientifically supported, this would have been foreshadowing that conclusion.

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2010,21:32    Quote (Thought Provoker @ Mar. 28 2010,21:33) In the movie Matrix it was noted mankind would reject a utopian reality. [OT] Yeah, but it was also claimed that net energy could be derived from a human body. Why not just burn the food, and skip all the trouble? Sorry. Pet peeve of mine. Lamest sci-fi premise EVAR. [/OT] -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2010,09:35    Quote If mankind does not struggle against adversity, its spirit dies.   Assertion lacking experimental evidence. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2010,10:36    Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 29 2010,07:35) Quote If mankind does not struggle against adversity, its spirit dies.   Assertion lacking experimental evidence. Also, terms not defined. -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2010,11:46    Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 29 2010,09:35) Assertion lacking experimental evidence. Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 29 2010,10:36) Also, terms not defined. Both are valid critisisms and though I would like to explore this further, the thread is supposed to be about Dr. Dembski's class and Francis Collins' book.  Please excuse my weakness in bringing it up in the first place.

khan Posts: 1554 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2010,11:46    Quote (Doc Bill @ Mar. 28 2010,13:10) Quote I have little doubt we will get into how and why an atheist would be worried about ethical issues like this. Really, TP? I have no recourse but to mock.  You are a moron and I call bullshit on this entire thread. Hammersmith. Shit I agree with you.  I have been generous/charitable with no need for god-thingy. I have been an atheist since 1966 or so after my older brother spent most of his (& my) life dieing from cancer. If Collins had seen 4 waterfalls, would he have become a Muslim? -------------- "It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad Frequency is just the plural of wavelength... -JoeG

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2010,12:01    Quote What you believe to be true will control you whether it’s true or not. Is the converse true? Does the absence of brotherly love imply lack of faith? If so, the question of faith is moot. There are no believers, only hypocrites trying to gain worldly advantage by swinging their faith penises and claiming theirs is the biggest. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2010,12:24    Quote (skeptic reborn @ Mar. 28 2010,16:22) You've brought me out of my self-imposed exile, TP.  I will follow this thread to see where it leads.  I'm guessing it will rehash earlier discussions of NOMA, which I have advocated in favor of, but it will be interesting to see if 3 years has brought on any changes.  I doubt I will post from here out but I wanted to let you know that you're not posting to empty air. Self imposed exile? You were restricted to the Bathroom Wall for acting the uneducable dolt, if memory serves. Morphing names to post again, classy move. Your comment implies that learning is not something you have acheived in the interim. As for the topic, when someone gives me a good reason to take Collins' special pleading (or Gould's special pleading over NOMA for that matter) more seriously than that of any random buddhist, pizza delivery boy or closet pastafarian, then I'll listen most attentively. Thus far no one has managed it. Importantly no one has managed this for ANY religion, as the existence of multiple back and forth conversions and mutual disagreements attests. This isn't thought provoking, it is yet another interminable round in the utterly futile struggle of the religiously inclined to map their irrelevant wishes onto uncompromising reality. If one of Dembski's students comes here and manages to acheive even a basic restatement of the philosophical issues underpinning the subject I will be utterly staggered. I might, and heaven forfend this actually happens, even contemplate, with some help, being nice about it. Louis -------------- Bye.

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2010,12:40    PART TWO - The Great Questions of Human Existence CHAPTER THREE - The Origins of the Universe     Quote MORE THAN TWO HUNDRED YEARS AGO, one of the most influential philosophers of all time, Immanuel Kant, wrote: "Two things fill me with constantly increasing admiration and awe, the longer and more earnestly I reflect on them: the starry heavens without and the Moral Law within." An effort to understand the origins and workings of the cosmos has characterized nearly all religions throughout history, whether in the overt worship of a sun god, the ascription of spiritual significance to phenomena such as eclipses, or simply a sense of awe at the wonders of the heavens. Was Kant's remark merely the sentimental musing of a philosopher not benefited by discoveries of modern science, or is there a harmony achievable between science and faith in the profoundly important question of the origins of the universe?     Quote In God and the Astronomers, the astrophysicist Robert Jastrow wrote this final paragraph: "At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." While I don't agree with some of what he wrote, I think Collins presented his arguments fairly and well in this chapter.  As an example of fairness, he wrote "...any assumption that a conspiracy could exist among scientists to keep a widely current theory alive when it actually contains serious flaws is completely antithetical to the restless mind-set of the profession" Apparently, at one time he had studied to be a physicist.  Therefore, he has a reasonable understanding of Quantum Mechanics (as much as it is possible for anyone to have a reasonable understanding of it). I highlighted the Robert Jastrow quote, because its sentiment is one of my favorites.  I have noticed religious proponents quoting it and/or having the saying posted on their work cubical walls. I don't know about others, but I smile at the thought that somehow this idea would be seen as a negative for those skeptical of religion.  Sure, one can avoid reading a mystery novel by just peaking at the last chapter, but what is the value of that?

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2010,12:47    The phrase "highest peak" indicates a rather limited understanding of science and its history. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2010,12:52    Quote (Thought Provoker @ Mar. 29 2010,17:40) PART TWO - The Great Questions of Human Existence CHAPTER THREE - The Origins of the Universe [SNIP] Quote In God and the Astronomers, the astrophysicist Robert Jastrow wrote this final paragraph: "At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." [SNIP] I'll trade that quote for another, thanks:   Quote God is the immemorial refuge of the incompetent, the helpless, the miserable. They find not only sanctuary in His arms, but also a kind of superiority, soothing to their macerated egos: He will set them above their betters. H L Mencken, Minority Report: H L Mencken's Notebooks, no. 35 (1956) The theologians are not at the top of the mountain waiting. They are trying to pretend the mountain doesn't exist and only occasionally skirting the foothills by dint of either sheer luck or agreement with the blindingly obvious. Louis -------------- Bye.

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2010,13:24    The only height theosophists climb is Mt. Hubris. -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2010,16:15    It looks like I might have touched a sensitive spot. While my distrust and distain for organized religion approaches loathing, I really would think it kind of neat if it turned out there is a supernatural scientist (God) who created our universe. It wouldn't bother me in the slightest to have the faithful claiming "I told you so" because they know and knew nothing.  A belief in something which happens to be true isn't knowledge. A five year old girl could be taught to say "The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa."  Should a trained physicist be disturbed by this? So far, Francis Collins hasn't gone too far out on a limb.  He is stating his opinion that God exists is based on little more than personal feelings.  He admitted this took a leap of faith.  In other words, he doesn't know God exists he is assuming it as a philosophical truth. We know the waterfall event was the defining moment when Collins took his leap but that is in the final chapter.  In chapter 3 we are still discussing the possibility of some kind of supernatural force creating the universe. It is often assumed the Big Bang is the one God-in-the-gap argument which can never be explained by science.  Collins has pretty much made that argument.  I disagree with him.  I think Roger Penrose would too.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2010,16:40    Not a sensitive spot, an area of annoyance. These discussions are invariably a waste of time, clouded by obfuscation and unstated preconceptions. Usually what happens isn't the argument that's needed, it's what needs to happen before then argument that's needed happens. People, in my experience, often confuse the two. However, I will say that this doesn't apply to all theists/theologians etc, in honour of the wonderful discussion I had this weekend with some chums. Louis -------------- Bye.

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2010,17:29    Careful Louis, if you are too nice it might hurt your reputation.   Anyway, thank you for commenting.  The argument that needs to happen is surely not happening here.  It's pretty sad if I'm what passes for a religious proponent. Even Francis Collins isn't a very persuasive advocate for believing in God. I'm a little disappointed that it appears to be more of the same-old, same-old but I guess I shouldn't have been surprised. On the positive side, I wasn't aware C.S.Lewis was the creator of the "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" trilemma.  At least I learned something new. On the negative side, and definitely not a surprise, it doesn't look like anyone is willing to put their religious philosophy to the test. However, I am the type who likes to finish efforts once started.  Maybe I will be pleasantly surprised by one of Dembski's students. P.S. I really like your signature line.  I think it applies to much more than just science.

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2010,17:38    I live on the Canadian west coast, one of the most ridiculously beautiful places on the entire planet.  I have seen mountain and waterfall views that almost make me cry, and forget to breathe.  It takes a certain proclivity to begin with, I think, to attribute this reaction to any touch of the divine. -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard