Friday, August 7, 2015

The Warfare Thesis and BioLogos

Hindsight is 20/20

Today professor Ted Davis, historian and Fellow at the BioLogos Foundation, explains why BioLogos does not promote the Warfare Thesis. Davis explains that just because the Warfare Thesis (the claim that Christianity often conflicts with and opposes scientific advances) is wrong doesn’t mean there aren’t real conflicts here and there. Davis points to geocentrism and the young-earth beliefs as examples of legitimate conflicts between religion and science. Davis’ point is that while the overarching model of Warfare between religion and science is flawed, there certainly are particular conflicts. So while we need to clarify the failure of the Warfare Thesis, we must not over compensate. We must not reject any and all conflicts as unreal:

My first goal in writing for BioLogos is to get the history right, in all of its complexity. If we want to overthrow the Warfare Thesis (and all of my work is aimed at doing just that), we can’t be replacing it with an equally inaccurate, sanitized view of things.

It was precisely this error that I fell into when I claimed that BioLogos promotes the Warfare Thesis, according to Davis. Davis says that I have a “Misunderstanding of the History of Science and Religion.” After all, BioLogos’ position today is comparable to Galileo’s position four centuries ago when he advocated heliocentrism.

Davis makes many good points, not the least of which is that the history of the interaction between science and religion is a complicated one. The Warfare Thesis is obviously flawed, but nonetheless there certainly have been, and remain today, areas of conflict. That is an important point that I have made many, many times. It is central to this blog and the recent posts (here, here and here) about BioLogos make this very point. Therefore it is a bit perplexing that Davis can, nonetheless, find what would be a sophomoric mistake:

What he fails to understand—or at least, what he fails to tell his readers—is that we historians continue to think there are some instances of genuine conflict between science and religion

Of course there is genuine conflict between science and religion. But how did Davis miss my telling my readers about it? For instance, one post explains that “Evolution was never about the science, but rather is motivated and justified by, yes, religious beliefs. That is abundantly documented, from Leibniz to Darwin to Coyne.” Another post gives this explanation:

evolutionary thinking is obvious in ancient Epicureanism, but its resurgence in the seventeenth century was almost exclusively the work of Christian thinkers. Descartes, Malebranche, Cudworth, Ray, Burnet, Leibniz and Wolfe are good examples of how widespread was the movement within Christian thought, and of how varied were the arguments for a strictly naturalistic origins narrative. These Roman Catholics, Anglicans and Lutherans agreed that the world must have arisen by natural causes. The common theme was that the arguments were theological and philosophical (i.e., metaphysical rather than scientific). These mandates for naturalism increased and by the nineteenth century were the received truths for progressives. This was the culture Charles Darwin was born into and his book applied these arguments for naturalism to the problem of the origins of the species. Darwin’s thought—from his early notebooks, to Origins, to his later works and autobiography—was thoroughly metaphysical. God must have created via law not miracle and, ever since Darwin, Christians have embraced this belief just as strongly as the pre Darwin Christians had promoted it. … In fact, from a strictly scientific perspective, a naturalistic origins fares no better than a perpetual motion machine. The clear message of science, then and now, is that the world did not likely arise spontaneously.

If that isn’t conflict between science and religion then what is?

But Davis seeks to defend the BioLogos evolutionists and clear BioLogos of the Warfare Thesis. One way to do this is to label any such criticism as a na├»ve misunderstanding—a failure to understand genuine conflicts. To identify BioLogos with the Warfare Thesis is to deny the existence of any legitimate conflicts between religion and science, because BioLogos is doing nothing more than pointing those out.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. BioLogos is not merely pointing out some particular, current examples of religious resistance to science. Instead, BioLogos fits precisely into, yes, the Warfare Thesis.

BioLogos advocates the spontaneous origins of the world (i.e., evolution according to chance plus natural law), claims that this evolutionary conviction is a compelling, empirical scientific conclusion, and then accuses skeptical Christians of using their religion to oppose science. This is precisely the argument of the Warfare Thesis. And like earlier Warfare Thesis proponents, they (i) appeal to Galileo, as though that brings some justification and (ii) seek a “harmonization” in which today’s Epicureanism determines the facts, and skepticism is demoted to mere feeling and faith. Where it counts, this is no different than yesterday’s Warfare Thesis.

But in fact evolutionary thought is soaking in religious influence. Theological proofs are what motivate and justify evolutionary thought—they are at its foundation. Evolutionists, from the seventeenth century to today, have made that abundantly clear. And they use the Warfare Thesis claim the high ground of science and blame the other guy for what they do.

It is easy to look back to centuries past and see the error of those who have come before. It is more difficult to see that same error today. But we must if we are to educate ourselves and avoid such recurring errors. As a previous post explained:

So whereas the seventeenth and eighteenth century evolutionists were clear about their metaphysical assumptions and how those assumptions mandated naturalism, today’s evolutionists obfuscate their message with the Warfare Thesis. They make the same non biblical, theological and philosophical arguments for evolution in their apologetic literature. But then argue that their proofs are scientific, not metaphysical, and claim their skeptics are the ones with the bad science and bad religion.

The Warfare Thesis is not merely something from long ago. It is not a problem from the past that we have now fixed. It is inherent in our modern day Epicureanism, and it won’t go away until we recognize it.

88 comments:

  1. Dr.Hunter, I think I'm beginning to understand your position, which would be: Evolutionary theory is based on religious (theological) beliefs, such as, "God would create via natural law," or "God would not create evil." And from these beliefs it derives the belief that evolution must be true. But the belief that evolution is true is actually anti-scientific. Therefore, religion, by which you mean evolution, is in conflict with science.

    Would that be correct?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes Bilbo. However, it isn't really "my position." I'm simply reporting on the literature. I realize this may seem peculiar, but there it is. It is not something I have hypothesized as some new explanation of evolutionary thought.

      Delete
  2. Okay, now I'm trying to understand the Warfare Thesis (WT) in light of this point of view. You would say that the WT was constructed as a way to reframe the debate. Evolution, even though it was religion, was depicted as science. Traditional religion was depicted as being in conflict with this science. So BioLogos is merely following in the tradition of the originators of the WT.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "You would say that the WT was constructed as a way to reframe the debate."

      Right, but again, this isn't me. It is not very controversial that the WT was an ahistorical, partisan construct.

      Delete
  3. It is not very controversial that the WT was an ahistorical, partisan construct.

    Reference, please.

    And, please explain why being ahistorical or partisan is proof of being in error.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pendant

      Doesn't the Warfare Thesis make a claim and therefore at least share in the burden of proof? What evidence is there to support it?

      Delete
  4. Having read as much of BioLogos' position as time allows I can't escape the sense of elitism. There are some fundamental assumptions that have to be made to accept the storyline of biological evolution. If those assumptions are called into question you are simply declared in error and therefore in conflict with science. Even if their interpretation of science seeks to destroy the Gospel.

    Without special creation of man there can be no fall.
    Without the fall there is no need for redemption.
    Without a need for redemption there is no need for Christ.
    Without Christ what is a Christian?

    So why do Christians scrutinize the "science" of biological evolution?? I think the bigger question is why would a "Christian" organization of higher learning NOT question it?

    One of the elitist claims is that the earth is so very old. That may be, but is the science really conclusive on that?

    When I was a kid I went to Carlsbad Caverns. I remember being told to be so very careful because I could destroy formations that took tens of thousands of years to form. Modern science now knows that these whole caverns could have been formed within just a few short years, they even had to take down their sign. I was lied to about this... what else is a lie?

    I'm not really concerned with the age of the rocks and such, but as a Christian I need more than scientific conclusions derived more from a worldview than actual evidence.

    In Ted Davis' article he wrote 'The DI, however, appears to be simply too busy with 'nuanced' PR and marketing tricks to actually 'come clean' about how IDT is properly a 'science, philosophy and theology/worldview' topic, rather than being a 'strictly scientific' theory.'

    It seems to me that BioLogos and others are too busy trying to be accepted by the world around them to recognize that Evolutionary Theory is properly a science, philosophy and theology/worldview' topic, rather than being a 'strictly scientific' theory.

    I frequent this blog because it questions and invites critical thinking without declaring fixed conclusions. Kudos for persisting and shame on "Christians" who

    ReplyDelete
  5. Who get distracted and don't finish their sentence.

    .... Kudos (to Dr. Hunter) for persisting and shame on Christians who pursue acceptance by the scientific community over pursuing truth. Or at least acknowledging that the nature of science is that there are no foregone conclusions.. even to the age of the earth.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Maybe you christians guys should put forth some kind of unified theory to explain how life arose, its diversity and which could explain what we observe in the natural world.
    Some kind of Trent concil of science and religion.


    Then maybe you'll have some credible arguments against naturalism and evolutionary biology.

    All those squabbles won't net you anything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I kinda thought that the First Law of Thermodynamics, the fact that energy cannot created or destroyed is a pretty credible argument against naturalism.
      Ghazali's argument
      1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
      2. The universe began to exist.
      3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
      We believe that in the beginning God created the universe.
      Give me a credible argument that naturalism did it.

      Delete
    2. I don't have one. I'm not a specialist and there is only hypothesis out there.

      You need to study again the first law of thermodynamics, you don't understand its premises. Who knows what kind of system the universe was at its beginning ?

      Then give me a credible argument that it's the God of the bible who created the world and we should not consider other creation myth, like the ancient greek or the Ainu people.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. "Then give me a credible argument that it's the God of the bible who created the world and we should not consider other creation myth, like the ancient greek or the Ainu people."

      That question reminded me of "The Great Debate" between Greg Bahnen and Gordon Stein. During the Q&A the moderator asked Greg Bahnsen the following question that was submitted by a member of the audience:

      "What solid evidence do you have to maintain that the Christian faith is the only true religion with a God? There are religions far older and more or just as widespread which millions of people consider valid. Once again, what solid evidence do you have to maintain that the Christian faith is the only true religion with a God?"

      Greg Bahnsen replied:

      "That's a very good and relevant question. I want to say two things just by way of preface.

      One, that isn't what the subject of our debate was tonight. However, that can't just be taken for granted and it's worthy of a debate. It's just that we couldn't do everything in one debate.

      Secondly, you might be interested to know that in my original opening statement, I had a long paragraph dealing with that very question so that it wouldn't be thought that I was just flying over it arbitrarily, and dealing with the matter. But, when I read it back to myself and timed myself, it just turned out that I had to cut a number of things out, and so I cut that down.

      What I did say, however, was that - if I can find it here - that I have not found the non-Christian religions to be philosophically defensible, each of them being internally incoherent or undermining human reason and experience.

      Unless it will violate your debate format, I'll give just a couple of illustrations, it's obviously not going to cover all of them. But, for instance, Hinduism assumes that God, or Brahman, is the impersonal universal soul of the unchanging One of which all things are part, for instance, and because of that particular outlook Hinduism says that everything in terms of my normal experience of the world and thinking is Maya, or illusion, because everything in experience and thinking presupposes distinctions. But that is contrary the most fundamental metaphysical fact, and that is that there are no distinctions, all is one. So basically, Hinduism tells me that all of my thinking, all of my reasoning, is illusion, and in so doing underlies reason.

      You can take religions such as Shintoism, its view of Kami and the forces that permeate the universe; or Taoism, the ordering force in the universe and they are impersonal forces and as such are even less than human beings because they don't have volition or intelligence."

      Delete
  8. calamity,

    "we should not consider other creation myth, like the ancient greek or the Ainu people."

    So is your argument that because there are other creation myths in existence they should all be ignored?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To the best of my knowledge, most other crationmyths don't actaully explain the origin of the Universe. They start with something like an ocean or chaos, and the gods and other things come out of that. The Abrahamic faiths start with a transcendent God that created the Universe,

      Delete
    2. It's not my argument. My argument is : How can you prove christians are right and the other religions are wrong ?

      Delete
    3. "It's not my argument. My argument is : How can you prove christians are right and the other religions are wrong ?"

      See the above quote by Greg Bahnsen.

      Delete
  9. The quote don't explain anything.

    The Shinto religion has a creation myth. Why would it be not as credible as the one from the bible ?



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To the best of my knowledge the Shinto creation myth starts with a primeval ocean and gods that stir the ocean up. It doesn't explain the origin of the ocean.

      Delete
    2. So for you when the bible says "God created the ocean" that's an explanation ?

      Delete
    3. Calamity,

      "So for you when the bible says "God created the ocean" that's an explanation ?"

      I guess that would depend on how detailed you wished an explanation to be.

      Delete
    4. So if you are simpled minded it's enough ?

      Because the creation myth in the bible is like what, one page ?

      I don't see it superior to any other creation myth of other religion. Even scientology one is more detailed.

      Delete
    5. Calamity,

      "So if you are simpled minded it's enough ?"

      It has nothing to do with being simple minded, it has to do only with what you as an individual wish to accept as an adequate explanation.

      "Because the creation myth in the bible is like what, one page ?"

      So, to you quantity is what is important?

      "I don't see it superior to any other creation myth of other religion."

      On what basis do you quantify 'superior'?

      Delete
  10. "The quote don't explain anything...The Shinto religion has a creation myth. Why would it be not as credible as the one from the bible ?"

    You missed the point. ALL religions that undermine reason and intelligible experience should be rejected, according to Bahnsen (and I agree), along with their individual "creation myth[s]".

    There's really no reason to even consider creation myths put forth by religions that are not philosophically defensible because they are internally incoherent and undermine human reason and experience.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A philosophical argument never solved any problem to my knowledge. It's just your opinion and the guy you cited against the opinion of others.

      You won't solve the origin of the earth and the solar system with discussion about who is right and who is wrong.

      Delete
    2. Calamity,

      "A philosophical argument never solved any problem to my knowledge. It's just your opinion and the guy you cited against the opinion of others."

      Ahh, a light might just about be ready to come on.

      If philosophical arguments never solve problems why do evolutionists persist on using them?

      Delete
    3. Maybe you could cite one of those philosophical arguments ?
      People who work in evolutionary biology don't use philosophy in their published papers.

      Delete
  11. Calamity,

    "People who work in evolutionary biology don't use philosophy in their published papers."

    The whole premise from which they work is philosophical; that life arose spontaneously and has evolved from a single common ancestor. It is certainly not a scientific argument.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First, people who are concernedwith how organism evolve are not studying about how life arose on earth. That's not what evolutionnary biology is about.

      Second, living organisms changes over generations with DNA being the recipient of those changes. That's a fact. Nobody in their sane mind can deny it. The body of proof is overwhelming. Since scientist don't believe in miracles, they believe that there is no reason all thoses changes can't lead to completely new species.

      This idea is scientific since we don't believe in arbitrary forces that would limit the amount of changes brought by evolution.

      There is no philosophy here. Just facts and deduction.

      Delete
    2. Calamity,

      "Since scientist don't believe in miracles, they believe that there is no reason all thoses changes can't lead to completely new species."

      That is a philosophical position, not a scientific position.

      "This idea is scientific since we don't believe in arbitrary forces that would limit the amount of changes brought by evolution."

      Not believing in arbitrary forces is a philosophical position, not a scientific position.

      Maybe I was wrong. It looks like that light coming on is further away than I thought.

      Delete
    3. Yeah sure, believing in life after death and bread multiplication is a philosophical statement. That's just denying reality and being credulous .

      Nothing about philosophy.

      Delete
    4. Calamity,

      "Nothing about philosophy."

      You're like virtually every evolutionist, absolutely no understanding of what the term philosophy actually entails.

      Delete
  12. Nic:
    That is a philosophical position, not a scientific position.


    Actually it is a logical decision, a miracle by definition is beyond natural causation,so unless you have some method that science can detect and examine supernatural causation
    one's philosophical tendencies are irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
  13. velikovskys,

    "so unless you have some method that science can detect and examine supernatural causation
    one's philosophical tendencies are irrelevant."

    That is a philosophical statement, not a scientific statement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. velikovskys,

      "Which philosophy?"

      That demonstrates a lack of understanding of the term 'philosophy'.

      Delete
    2. Why so coy ,Nic? First no method that would allow science to detect and examine supernatural causation and now avoiding a direct question of what philosophy my statement demonstrates.

      Nic:
      That demonstrates a lack of understanding of the term 'philosophy


      My question pertains to your understanding of the term philosophy.

      Delete
    3. velikovskys,

      "First no method that would allow science to detect and examine supernatural causation and now avoiding a direct question of what philosophy my statement demonstrates."

      Now you're demonstrating you don't understand the meaning of supernatural.

      If something is supernatural, it is by definition beyond nature and as such logically cannot be measured by natural means.

      In regards to philosophy, the term is simply used to describe a particular set of beliefs held by an individual and used by them to, among other things, determine what they believe to be true and what they believe to be false.

      So, when you ask the question 'what philosophy' you would be the one who needs to provide the answer.

      Delete
  14. Calamity: "People who work in evolutionary biology don't use philosophy in their published papers."

    I can't imagine that someone who follows Cornelius's blog could make such a statement while keeping a strait face. You were either giggling like a giddy teenager when you wrote that, or you read with your eyes closed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This blog is not my only source of enlightment. If you would read other sources you would realize that a lot a papers are discussed in a purely scientific point of view, without bringing any kind of philosophical statements.

      As a scientist who publish paper, I can tell you that we never talk about philosophical statements, even on evolution when we are in the publishing process.

      Philosophy sucks by the way, useless discipline now. Useful a few centuries ago, now useless.

      Delete
    2. Calamity,

      "Philosophy sucks by the way, useless discipline now. Useful a few centuries ago, now useless."

      You are hilarious. You're probably completely unaware you just used the 'useless' discipline of philosophy in an attemot to make your argument against the efficacy of philosophy. Simply mind boggling how poor your understanding and critical thinking really is.

      Delete
    3. "As a scientist who publish paper, I can tell you that we never talk about philosophical statements, even on evolution when we are in the publishing process."

      Surely you realize that the very enterprise of what is "science" is arrived at philosophically, don't you? The decision that intelligent causation should be ruled out in biology because it is assumed that intelligent causation is ipso facto supernatural causation is not a "scientific" decision; it's a philosophical one.

      "Philosophy sucks by the way, useless discipline now. Useful a few centuries ago, now useless."

      That's a self-refuting assertion. Do you know why?

      Delete
  15. Alethinon,

    "I can't imagine that someone who follows Cornelius's blog could make such a statement while keeping a strait face."

    I can. Such is the depth of the delusions they function under.

    Evolutionists sincerely believe it is a fairy tale to talk of an omnipotent God who created everything, while at the same time believing it is sound logic and deep rational thought that leads them to conclude everything created itself. That is probably the absolute ultimate in delusional thinking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's simple. If you don't believe in an omnipotent God, what is left ? Naturalistic explanations.

      The same naturalistic explanations that help us sent men on the moon, the same that help make your cellphone working and not forgetting all those wonderful drugs that increased human lifespan like nothing before.

      The real question is : what benefits is there in believing in an omnipotent god (from whatever religion) that created the universe and can break the rule when he wants ? Does it help us ?
      It does not help anybody in a lab at least.

      Delete
  16. Calamity,

    "It's simple. If you don't believe in an omnipotent God, what is left ? Naturalistic explanations."

    That is your opinion and you're entitled to hold it. But you have to realize it is a position arrived at philosophically, not scientifically.

    "The same naturalistic explanations that help us sent men on the moon,..."

    You always speak of naturalism as if it is some form of entity. It's not. The origin of nature itself has to be explained, it cannot be simply assumed to be the independent driving force behind all we experience, as you are doing.

    "omnipotent god (from whatever religion) that created the universe and can break the rule when he wants ?"

    As an omnipotent God that would be his prerogative. However, as an omnipotent God exercising the prerogative of suspending his own rule would not be done capriciously.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nic:
      As an omnipotent God that would be his prerogative.


      Of course.


      However, as an omnipotent God exercising the prerogative of suspending his own rule would not be done capriciously.

      I can see how omnibenevolence but not omnipotence might preclude caprious actions. Of course humans are in no position to judge what is caprious from an omniscient God. After all, drowning children seems a bit caprious

      Delete
  17. velikovskys,

    "After all, drowning children seems a bit caprious"

    The God of Judeo/Christian theology is not capable of acting in a capricious manner. Though his actions may seem capricious to you, you are not omnipotent or omniscient and as such are not in the position to determine that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is what I said,Nic though I don't think that omnipotence is the justification of that view. It might flow from the concept that illogic action are imperfect, God being perfect can only act Logically, non capriously.

      Delete
    2. velikovskys,

      "That is what I said,Nic though I don't think that omnipotence is the justification of that view."

      I can agree with that. Too often omnipotence is used as an all encompassing description of God, when in fact it is not. I am often guilty of that. Thanks for correcting me, vel.

      Delete
    3. No problem, it is an interesting conjecture. Personally I think a God being bound to only act according to His nature and in a logical manner might be viewed as not having free will or even choice, He would be similar to forces in nature. Just a thought

      Delete
    4. velikovskys,

      "God being bound to only act according to His nature and in a logical manner might be viewed as not having free will or even choice,..."

      I can see where you're coming from with that, but personally I don't think acting in accordance with one's nature is the same as lacking free will or the ability to make choices. In fact the story of Jonah is one example of God making a choice. In that case deciding not to destroy Nineveh, as he told Jonah he would, because its people listened to the pleas of Jonah and repented.

      Delete
  18. Yeah, don't blame the grown ups for their disobedience and not heeding Gods warnings before the flood. Wait. Couldn't they have been responsible for their children's drowning?? Hmmm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An omnipotent God could punish only the guilty if He choose, therefore God choose to punish the innocent for the sins of others.

      Delete
    2. velikovskys,

      "An omnipotent God could punish only the guilty if He choose, therefore God choose to punish the innocent for the sins of others."

      We are all guilty, vel.

      Delete
    3. Nic

      We are all guilty, vel.


      Hey Nic, how many pregnant women and their unborn babies did God murder in Noah's Flood? 5000? 10,000?

      I'm sure those unborn babies were guilty and had it coming to them, right?

      Delete
    4. ghostrider,

      "I'm sure those unborn babies were guilty and had it coming to them, right?"

      We are all guilty.

      How are you doing with your assignments, ghostrider?

      Why do whales and dolphins swim differently than fish?

      How about your demonstration of a reptile turning into a non-reptile? You claim this happened, why can't you provide evidence for it?

      You have had a few weeks to work on these problems, surely you've come up with something by now. Perhaps it is because you simply don't know the answers and all your talk was nothing more than empty rhetoric.

      Delete
  19. The God of Judeo/Christian theology is not capable of acting in a capricious manner. Though his actions may seem capricious to you, you are not omnipotent or omniscient and as such are not in the position to determine that.

    Apparently, Nic is in a position to determine that his god's action are not capricious.

    How did Nic acquire the omnicience to determine that?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Pedant,

    "Apparently, Nic is in a position to determine that his god's action are not capricious."

    Instead of being your usual flippant self why not spend some time studying Judeo/Christian theology? It does not require omniscience to realize God is not capricious, just a little reading.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It does not require omniscience to realize God is not capricious, just a little reading.

      Really?

      Why are you shy about making your case?

      What should one read to justify the perfection of your god?

      Delete
    2. Pedant,

      "What should one read to justify the perfection of your god?"

      The Bible.

      Delete
    3. Read the Bible [to learn that Nic's god is not capricious].

      Why are you running away (again) from making a case for the claim that your god is not an emotionally capricious projection?

      If there were an argument, presumably you would have made it.

      Delete
    4. Pedant,

      "Read the Bible [to learn that Nic's god is not capricious]."

      You can learn that and many other things as well.

      "Why are you running away (again) from making a case for the claim that your god is not an emotionally capricious projection?"

      Running away? Hardly. I was on holidays for a few days and will be again for the next while. While on holidays I do not indulge in blogs.

      As for the capriciousness of God; as you say, that is your claim and therefore you must support it. Why don't you demonstrate in what way God is merely an 'emotionally capricious projection'?

      Delete
  21. "Why are you running away (again) from making a case for the claim that your god is not an emotionally capricious projection?...If there were an argument, presumably you would have made it."

    Because of the impossibility of the contrary: If God does not exist, then science would be impossible, logic could not exist, and reason and moral values and duties are merely subjective. Ironically, your request for evidence that God is not a projection is itself evidence that God exists, because your desire for a reasoned argument assumes that reason is objective.

    As Greg Bahnsen told Gordan Stein during "The Great Debate", the very fact that Stein showed up for the debate meant he lost:-)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLZdOGCE5KQ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If God does not exist, then science would be impossible, logic could not exist, and reason and moral values and duties are merely subjective.

      That is a claim. Your warrant?

      And while you're at it, which god?

      Delete
    2. "That is a claim. Your warrant?"

      Bahnsen develops the warrant in the debate you can hear at the link I provided. Additionally, in his debate with Eddie Tabash he explains (albeit briefly) why Christian theism specifically is the best option. I think he develops this further in lectures that you can obtain from cmfnow.com.

      So the argument has been provided, but you don't like it and won't accept it, which is out of my control.

      Still, pretty funny calling God a projection when in an atheist universe there'd be no reason to believe that anything we believe is more than a projection. As David Hume and Bertrand Russell observed, there doesn't appear to be anything in an atheist's universe that justifies our believe in the uniformity of nature, and with out that science is impossible.

      Delete
    3. Bahnsen develops the warrant in the debate you can hear at the link I provided.

      Make an effort. Tell us the gist of Bahnsen's argument.

      If you can't, you are literature bluffer.

      Delete
    4. Still, pretty funny calling God a projection when in an atheist universe there'd be no reason to believe that anything we believe is more than a projection. As David Hume and Bertrand Russell observed, there doesn't appear to be anything in an atheist's universe that justifies our believe in the uniformity of nature, and with out that science is impossible.

      Hume and Russell.

      More bluffing. Typical Creationist apologetics.

      Give us the quotations.

      Delete
    5. Pedant

      "Give us the quotations."

      It is not as simple as giving a quotation, you must read the whole argument. Look up Hume's argument against induction.

      Delete
    6. Look up Hume's argument against induction.

      If you have a point, kindly make it.

      Otherwise, it would be a kindness (Christian charity ) to shut up.

      Delete
  22. Pedant,

    "If you have a point, kindly make it."

    "Otherwise, it would be a kindness (Christian charity ) to shut up."

    Your arrogance, which is monumental, is only matched by your ignorance.

    I was simply saying you must read and understand Hume's argument against induction to understand the point being made by Alethinon61. Simply quoting a few sentences or paragraphs will not suffice.

    But with typical Pedantian arrogance served up with a large dose of ignorance, you once again show you have no intention of actually engaging in a civil discussion. You will instead take your usual route of spouting rhetoric and employing personal attacks while steadfastly refusing to actually engage in learning something about a subject you pretend to know so much about, but of which you continually display your complete and utter ignorance.

    I'm curious. Why don't you just admit you know nothing about the disciplines of philosophy, theology, etc.,; and have no desire to learn; and simply move on to another blog which does not demand so much from you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I was simply saying you must read and understand Hume's argument against induction to understand the point being made by Alethinon61. Simply quoting a few sentences or paragraphs will not suffice."

      Yeah, and I don't waste my time educating trolls, because they have no interest in becoming better educated. As I've pointed out to you before, Nic, Trollery -- i.e. arguing and being as offensive as is humanly possible while doing so -- is who they are. It's all they're really interested in.

      Delete
    2. Amazing. These bozos can't tell us what they're driving at, so if you question them and they can't answer, they castigate you.

      Are they speaking for Jesus? Would Jesus behave like they behave?

      Delete
    3. "Amazing. These bozos can't tell us what they're driving at, so if you question them and they can't answer, they castigate you."

      Are you seriously denying that you enjoy arguing and being as offensive as is humanly possible while doing so? That would be the mother of ironies, i.e. being so good at something without a deliberate effort.

      ~Sean

      Delete
  23. Pedant,

    "Amazing.These bozos can't tell us what they're driving at, so if you question them and they can't answer, they castigate you."

    What's really amazing, Pedant, is that you don't understand the difference between asking a question and hurling insults.

    If you have a question, ask it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Teach us, Nic.

      Explain, if you can, how Hume's argument against induction is relevant to the issues discussed in this thread.

      Identify, if you can, the passages in THE BIBLE that demonstrate that your god is not capricious:

      Nic:

      The God of Judeo/Christian theology is not capable of acting in a capricious manner. Though his actions may seem capricious to you, you are not omnipotent or omniscient and as such are not in the position to determine that.

      How is Nic able to decide the contrary? Wouldn't he have to be omniscient to make that judgment?

      Or is there a double standard?

      Hypocrite.

      Delete
    2. Pedant,

      "How is Nic able to decide the contrary?"

      This kind of comment is why it is so frustrating trying to get anything into your thick skull. I don't 'decide' factors concerning God's character, his character is revealed in the Bible. If you think you know his character is not as revealed the onus is then on you to demonstrate that fact.

      So, have you got evidence that God is capricious, or is this just more of your mindless jaw flapping?

      So no, Pedant, I am not being hypocritical. I'm simply asking you to back up your statements. However, that is something you have consistently demonstrated you cannot do.

      As for Hume's argument against induction I suggest you ask Alethinon61 what his intent was for bringing up the subject. I am not a fan of Hume's arguments. I don't see him as the philosophical giant that others do.

      Delete
  24. Nic seems to be an especially dim bulb, and an arrogant one at that.

    One doesn't need to scroll up very far to read my question:

    My quote at September 5, 6:56 PM of a previous Nic claim:

    The God of Judeo/Christian theology is not capable of acting in a capricious manner. Though his actions may seem capricious to you, you are not omnipotent or omniscient and as such are not in the position to determine that.

    My following questions:

    How is Nic able to decide the contrary? Wouldn't he have to be omniscient to make that judgment?

    I see nothing in his post that tells us how Nic knows that his God is not capricious. He says it's his theology that tells him that. For sure, it's not the Holy Bible, which abounds in instances of his God being an emotional child:

    God: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (Genesis 2: 17)

    If Adam had died, Nic wouldn't be here.

    Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. (Matthew 16: 28)

    They tasted death. Jesus hasn't come yet. To Israel or anywhere, even to his kingdom.

    In the morning, as he was returning to the city, he became hungry. And seeing a fig tree by the wayside, he went to it and found nothing on it but only leaves. And he said to it, “May no fruit ever come from you again!” And the fig tree withered at once. ( Matthew 21:18-19)

    Spoiled brat.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Pedant,

    Despite what I am sure are your best efforts you have not demonstrated the capriciousness of God. Not even close. However, that is not surprising considering your woeful knowledge of the Bible and Christian theology.

    Feel free to try again.

    Before you do, perhaps you should look up the meaning of capricious.

    "If Adam had died,..."

    Did Adam not die?

    As for Matthew 16:28 and 21:18-19, perhaps if you tried reading the passages in context while applying some sound hermeneutics you might understand what is being taught. That would go for Genesis 2:17 as well.

    I guess you would first need to understand what hermeneutics means and why proper application of the discipline is necessary. So take some time and make an effort to educate yourself.

    I may be a dim bulb, but at least I am a bulb. That is infinitely more than I can say for you.

    As for arrogance, I'm afraid you have the market cornered on that commodity.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Nic:

    Did Adam not die?

    Eventually. But your tinhorn god predicted that Adam would die in the day that thou eatest thereof

    Explain that, genius.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Nic, I don't think Pedant understands that a perfect God could postpone judgement and still be just. Much in the same way every moment Pedant spends alive, that same good God is postponing his judgement.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I guess you would first need to understand what hermeneutics means and why proper application of the discipline is necessary. So take some time and make an effort to educate yourself.

    Proper application [of hermeneutics] is necessary, because a plain reading of the bible reveals that its god is a psychopath, and that reality contradicts all the claptrap about what a loving, compassionate person that god is supposed to be: the person that gleefully condemns its creatures to eternal fire if they dare to think for themselves.

    What a sick religion.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Thank you, Marcus, for advancing the discussion not an iota.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Pedant,

    "Explain that, genius."

    This is why you need to apply proper hermeneutics and exegesis, Obviously you lack the intelligence to know what either discipline entails or to learn the nature of either discipline.

    "condemns its creatures to eternal fire if they dare to think for themselves."

    God condemns no one to hell, we do that all on our own. You would understand that fact if you knew even one iota of Christian theology. But, alas, you do not, and seem completely unwilling and unable to learn. All you wish to do is hurl invectives in accordance with the child you are.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Marcus,

    "Nic, I don't think Pedant understands that a perfect God could postpone judgement and still be just."

    If it was merely a lack of understanding Pedant would actually attempt to learn. It's not a lack of understanding, it's wilful ignorance and hatred for any thing to do with religious belief. He is woefully ignorant and wishes to remain that way. His comments and arguments are beyond childish.

    ReplyDelete