Thanks for checking us out. This is our first post and it could probably use some introduction. Well first of all, the idea of making a blog didn't occur to us until recently. What is below is simply a compilation of our emails and I know this post is too long. Sorry about this. It will be like this just for this first post. We will try to update this once a week and each response will be its own post from here on out.
The goal of this correspondence is to learn about the other person's worldview. On what points can we agree? Where exactly are our sticking points? Can we defend our position? Let's find out.
You can comment on the bottom and give us some advice or criticism as you see fit. We will try to update this blog regularly.
Lotz:
Hey, man. Thanks for a good talk yesterday. Sorry I didn't get this started last night like I said I would, I had basketball.
I guess I should make it clear that during this talk I really won't be coming from a Christian point of view. If you don't believe in God then it would make more sense to come from a general theistic POV instead of a concentrated Xian POV. So here we go.
I guess we should begin by coming up with agreed upon/compromised definitions for words. Instead of using what we think a word means we might try to see what the general concensus is globally. We'll figure it out as we go along, there's no rush.
Some of these words might be faith, belief, certainty, God/god, dogma, etc.
Let's get some of these words going, it isn't terribly important but it is if we will be using those words frequently.
My POV (and only mine, these might not be agreed upon)
Faith: trust in something/someone that cannot be seen or proven 100%
Belief: the point of view that you hold where something is true to you. this might be a subjective opinion, this might tie into our definition of certainty. (EX: I believe unicorns have never existed,we have no skeletons or eyewitness accounts to their existence.) I can say this with 100% certainty.
God/god: wherever your heart/trust is placed. This can be a transcendent being(s), money, work, the Cleveland Browns, etc.
Also, I think it might be good to discuss what, from our human standpoint, can we know for sure (certainty).
Let me know where else we can start. Thanks, have a good day.
Rosenberg:
The only real objection I have so far is your definition of God. The others I think are fine. Belief is what we accept to be true. We can also say that we have varying degrees of belief with certainty being the top tier. The definition of faith, I don't think is correct but we can fine-tuned latter if we need it. This is mainly because I am not sure the best way to define it myself. For starters, I think we could say that faith is a non-rational belief. But then we have to discuss what makes a belief rational. That is a big issue in itself but for most thinkers it does not require 100% certainty. But lets put this aside for the time being. Now for God, you say that God is wherever your heart/trust is placed. In other words, it is whatever you deeply care about. This is certainly not how I would define God. I could care a lot about money, but in what sense would that make money a god? Or the Browns? Perhaps the individual players are gods, but I don't think that is what you mean. A being needs to have supernatural powers for us to consider him a god. Otherwise, he is just another human or creature of some sort. The traditional view of God includes a being that is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good. He was the creator of the universe and some people believe in a personal God that cares about us and answers our prayers. For the gods that this does not describe, the Greek gods for instance, they were at least supernatural.
Now what are we able to know with certainty? Well we know that we ourselves exist. This is what Descartes established in his Meditations. "I think, therefore I am." Are you familiar with that? Well what else can we know for certain? I think we can know some mathematics. 2+2=4 and I think it is pretty hard to doubt this. But this is about all that I can accept with 100% certainty. I can doubt the existence of an external world outside of my mind. Perhaps there is an evil demon that is controlling my thoughts. Or perhaps I'm in a world like the matrix where I am hooked up to some supercomputer.
Do you accept this idea of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good being that cares about you and answers your prayers?
Lotz:
Awesome stuff...
I guess my definition of god/God comes from something I heard from Martin Luther, "wherever you put your trust, that's your god. (or something to that effect)" Money is a perfect example, I'm glad you mentioned it. There are people who trust so much in their money just as someone trusts the Providence of a god/God. Money, as we have seen in the decline of our economy, is a horrible master and a better servant. Yet, people trust it and love it to an unhealthy extent because of the power that it has--there is no denying money has power. To call it a god, as I did, I feel is an example of comparison to the gods of theology(ies). It is held to a standard where it is the driving force in one's life. I do not see how that is any different from Jesus being the driving force in a Christian's life. You may not call it a god,and that's fine, but upon further review it holds that function in a person whose whole being is devoted to making/having money. The Browns example was more or less an example of religion, head down to the Stadium lot on Sunday mornings and you will see religious fervor. This is why I am ALWAYS hesitant to use the word "religious" when describing myself. It is such a broad term, much like the term "art." What is art? We could discuss that ALLLLLLLL DAY, art's definition is so broad, just like religion's, but you know it when you see it, and it isn't restricted to our stereotypical definition of it...
Faith on the other hand might be something we need to discuss further. Faith, again, cannot be seen only in terms of its religion context. When I was little and my mom had cancer (twice), she would tell me everything would be ok...yet, she didnt know that. There was an element of faith there, which correspended to my definition in my last email. And she is jewish and also like you, agnostic (except it's complicated, but that's not important now). But you're right, the definition, or a working definition in our case may be hard...but I wouldn't label it as irrational, but you also said that we'd have to discuss rationality in re:to faith--which I think is a great idea.
Certainty, I agree with almost everything you said. I usually use 1+1=2, but you nailed that point. Descartes, some might say, is the father of Modernism, a philosophy of certainty. Postmodernism, rampant in our western culture, is counter to that. I liked Descartes notion of "cogito..." but I think he is wrong in is quest to "prove God."
I am of the camp, and I think you might agree, that we can only know so much with certainty. This includes our individual worldview's notion of a transcendant reality. This is where faith comes in, and I will argue that it is a faith based on rationailty, precedent, and empiricism (and more).
No offense, but I feel prayer in our discussion has to wait, we are not there yet. If one doesn't believe in God/god then the idea of prayer is most likely irrelevant to them and it would be a point of useless contention. We will get there, just not now.
I hope this email finds you well.
Rosenberg:
I am confused as to how defining God in these terms help our discussion? This is definitely not the traditional view and is not what people think about when they talk about about God. Of course there are people that obsess over money but that doesn't make money some sort of god. And perhaps they pray to God for money. But money is still simply only a tool for exchanging goods and services, etc. For if money is God, then surely I would accept the proposition that God exists. In fact, I think I might have a few little gods in my pocket right now. But this is not what either of us mean when we talk about God. When we talk about God, we are talking about some sort of deity. If you still disagree with me, that is fine. We can work past this. You are a Christian. You believe in is the Christian God. This God has certain attributes. He is thought to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent. He created the universe, and according to some, He did this in six days. And according to some bumper stickers that I've seen, He also loves me.
Now faith, I agree is not restricted to belief in religious context. But what is it? Let's say for the time being that faith is belief that is not rational. There is a quote by Mark Twain "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." Now, of course, this is an exaggeration but perhaps he is on to something. We need do discuss what it means to have a rational belief. Let's start with talking about the structure of knowledge and then see where rationality fits in. OK now there are two main theories when it comes to the structure of belief: Foundationalism and Coherentism. On a foundationalist account, we have a set a basic beliefs and that these beliefs support other beliefs. We can think of these basic beliefs as "axioms" on which a system of belief is built. All nonbasic beliefs are accepted in virtue of the basic ones. Coherentism is the theory that beliefs make sense within a web of other beliefs. In this theory, a belief is justified when it fits together tightly with one's other beliefs. Beliefs mutually support one another. There is also a theory that combines the two of these, Foundherentism. The first theory has the analogy of a pyramid. There is a base and beliefs are supported unilaterally. The second is analogized as a raft. There are no foundational beliefs and so a belief system is free to "float" as a raft does. This third theory is analogized as a crossword puzzle.
I would say that a belief is rational if it is justified (more or less). What it means to have a justified belief depends on which of these theories you accept.
Here are the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entries of the topic. This encyclopedia is usually a good reliable resource on philosophical topics.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-foundational/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-coherence/
Lotz:
I only responded w/my def of God because you disagreed with it...but I would like to defend/add one more piece to it:
You said, "This is definitely not the traditional view and is not what people think about when they talk about about God." I disagree.
First: Who are these people? Can we really speak in generalities (words like "all" and "never" for example)?
No, we cannot. Second, you keep saying I am a Christian, and rightly so, because that is what I am. And the Christian Bible talks directly about God as the one and only true God. Yet, Saint Paul in the New Test. talks about there being other "gods." St. Paul, born and raised a Jew, is monotheistic. Yet he acknowledges other "gods." Clearly he is being a tad sarcastic--but within a serious framework. The first commandment of the 10 explicitly states: "I am the LORD your God, you shall have no others gods but me (paraphrased)." So I will argue, from a perspective that acknowledges the divine (Christianity), that my definition of "God" is very on the mark as opposed to a secular view that deals with non-theistic "stuff." Who introduced the concept of the divine to the world? People who looked around them and thought that there is more to us than just "this." Of course they worshipped trees and the sun and the like but you get my point. You can't have any second guessers w/out a first guesser. Who gets to make up the definitions? I don't know, your view of God is limited to the God of transcendence. My view, a theistic one, acknowledges that false "gods" (money, power, etc) exist counter to the one true God I confess as truly Divine.. We probably won't agree and that's fine, I understand where you're coming from and I hope you understand me as well--that was all I was getting at. It's all good.
Now, the Bible says that faith w/out works is dead. I will also say that faith without a foundation upon which it is built is dead. I have cogent reasons for believing the things I do. I didn't just wake up one morning and say, I think I'll be a Christian. HELL NO. That is not the way it went. I was in a low point in my life looking for meaning, from what I remember I became aware of something very holy going on around me ( I know, very cliche, right?). I started reading the Bible, but I refused to take it at face value. Before all of this I was more or less an believer/doubter who only went to church on xmas/Easter to please Grandma--plus there was this hot chick in the front row, I think her name was Sarah. I used my doubt to "research" the Judean-Christian faith. What I discovered did not please me, it did not please me because it was counter to what I wanted, I wanted the J-C faith to be based on false/warped ideas. The idea of a God bothered me because it meant that I wasn't Him. After pondering that concept I became comfortable with it, I finally felt was true love was, without that I don't get married and I certainly don't have my son who I Iove with a love that I cannot describe...Yet, none of this is relevant to those who don't believe. This was only my story in a nutshell. I had a period where I was a six-day creationist, anti-evolution, and very in-your-face to those who weren't Christians, including my best friend Jeff who I almost lost because of my very un-Christian attitude. After I chilled, I read, and read, and read. I entered philosophy and logic classes, I started reading more about science, I learned that there are just as many theistic (even Christian) scientists as Atheistic ones, the same went for philosophy.
As far as your three terms go, Foundationalism, Coherentism, and Foundherentism, I guess I would say my faith is built more like a pyramid (the first term?), but I'd say skyscraper. It doesn't come to a point on the top because both you and I agree that there is only so much we can know for certain. Atheism and Theism, in my opinion, are cases/conclusions/guesses based on evidence and processes that we use here on earth. My question is, if the evidence is that conclusive for both parties, why don't we all agree? Are we really willing to challenge ourselves in our beliefs? Your Twain quote, while good and humorous, simply does not work all of the time. I have found that (and I am quoting someone whose name escapes me) the opposite of faith is not doubt--but the opposite of faith is certainty. My doubt fuels my faith. Am I certain that God exists? Honestly, I'd say no, but based on what I can see and prove, using everything available to us, I can justify that there is something other than us...and it's not peach and ugly and eats Reese's Pieces.
I hope this all makes sense. I enjoyed your definitions/terms. I don't like putting myself in a "box" but I hope I understood those terms you sent me. I id'd with the first, I think. Either way let me know if I royally screwed up in understanding your last email. We have no timetable, let's do this right.
Have a good weekend.
Rosenberg:
OK let's start over. So far we have been arguing over semantics and this isn't helping either of us. I will agree with you that conceptions of God are varied. And the same is the case for faith. I will adopt the definition of God from the Christian philosopher, Richard Swinburne. He says God is "something like a person without a body (i.e a spirit) who is eternal, free, able to do anything, knows everything, is perfectly good, is the proper object of human worship and obedience, the creator and sustainer of the universe." Is this fair? Of course there are gods that don't fit into this description but I think this is alright for our purposes. Neither of us believe in the Greek Zeus or the Sumerian sky god, etc. And in fact, I don't think we differ all that much. We both reject some 99.9% of the gods in history. The only difference here is that I go one god further. Now for faith, let's see how far we can get by avoiding this term. Instead let's talk about belief and justification. You think that one is justified in believing in God whereas I do not. Let's discuss.
Lotz:
Sounds good, we will agree to disagree...
The ball is in your court.
Lotz (again):
...and as far as RS's def of God, I won't disagree 100%, he is eastern orhtodiox, that differs from western traditions, but nonetheless let's basically agree that's a fair assessment.
Ok, now the ball is in your court, haha
Rosenberg:
I think the best way to start is by you giving me an argument for the existence of God. Perhaps the burden of proof lies with the theist (according to Anthony Flew. See http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/flew01.htm). Let us discuss the arguments for God's existence before we talk about arguments against God's existence.
But let us agree on something before we start, namely that belief in God requires evidence. This is opposed to another view put forth by Alvin Plantinga in which belief in God requires no evidence but is rather a basic belief. It starts on page 200. http://books.google.com/books?id=D4-VXqSD-PEC
Bertrand Russell famously said, after being asked what he would say to God if he were found in that position, "I should reproach him for not giving us enough evidence."
Lotz:
Wow, you really like to get to the point, don't you? haha...You have asked me to do what no one in the history of the human species has ever accomplished. I guess the short answer is, "no", I cannot prove the existence of God. What I can do is give you the evidence that has compelled me to believe that we are not a cosmological accident. I am not arguing from a Christian POV, but more of a deist POV. I have my reasons for believing in the personal, Christian God, but unless you buy the notion that we are creations you will have no interest in my defense of Xty.
What I am about to unfold is probably something you've heard before, if you're familiar with Richard Dawkins' work then you can read the God Delusion (his most recent work) and see his arguments against everything I am going to say. Unfortunately for Dawkins' his selfish gene work was refuted by Antony Flew even when he was an Atheist!! (it's funny you mentioned Flew, he is now a quasi-deist as of 2004) Dawkins, besides already issuing occasional disavowals of the God Delusion (according to Flew) errors in assuming that the issue of God is a scientific one. Flew says in his new book (There is a God) :
"You might ask how I, a philosopher, could speak to issues treated by scientists. The best way to answer this is with another question. Are we engaging in science or philosophy here? When you study the interaction of two physical bodies, for instance, two subatomic particles, you are engaged in science. When you ask how it is that those subatomic particles—or anything physical—could exist and why, you are engaged
in philosophy"
(page 89)
Flew then goes on to say that the reasons he is disregarding almost every Atheistic thought he once defended (including his "presuppose Atheism") are these:
The world picture, as I see it...has emerged from modern science. Science spotlights three dimensions of nature that point to God. The first is that nature obeys laws. The second is the dimension of life, of intelligently organized and purpose-driven beings, which arose from matter. The third is the very existence of nature. But it is not science alone that has guided me. I have also been helped by a renewed study of the classical philosophical arguments…(Which is followed by the quote above this one on p.89)
Two of your home boys (I assume they're your boys), Bertrand Russell (whom you quoted) and David Hume, admit to something I think you might find interesting. Russell(in Is God necessary for morality?, a Jewish wisdom book by Joseph Telushkin), who lived a long life was never able to produce a more compelling argument against cruelty other than that he didn't like it.
Hume on the other hand, in personal correspondence from his life said: “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that a nything might arise without a cause.” Though I've even heard Atheists say that the proof that something can arise from nothing is our existence itself. This is kind of what Flew is alluding to and what Richad Dawkins rails against in his work The Blind Watchmaker, where he claims to destroy the argument from design of a guy named William Paley, who argued that the universe is too complex, like a watch, to be self-created. Dawkins argues that natural selection is analagous to the watchmaker (chapter 2 of RD's TBW, I think, check me on that).
How?? Dawkins argues in TBW that the analogy between the watch and living organisms is false...how??? Dawkins is the one using false analogies. In the God Delusion he criticizes Theist claims by using Russell's teapot theory/sarcastic critique of believers (which says anyone can claim that an unobservable teapot floats in orbit between Mars and Earth, because I say so and you can't prove me wrong I must be right!). Russell is wrong and Dawkins is self-contradicting for using it. As a Theist, I don't claim there is a teapot between Mars and Earth, I claim that we live in a highly complex universe governed by laws--which is scientifically verifiable. God and a teapot are not comparable. I understand Russell's point, but it's out of context and rediculous. We see examples of this in our everyday lives. Computers, cars, microchips, etc are all designed, there is no way they appeared on their own--they were caused. What makes one think that the human brain, the water cycle, our digestive system, clotting, the fact that stuff we can eat growns right out of the ground, etc aren't designed either?? I don't care what Dawkins says, evolution might be true, evolution doesn't disprove the Bible or God, in fact evolution lends more credibility to the argument from design, Dawkins is wrong. Natural selection is not analagous, natural selection, if it is true, is the work of a creator.
So what do you consider to be evidence?? You can't prove God doesn't exist anymore than I can prove God does exist. All I can show you is what I feel are God's fingerprints all over the universe. According to the rules of philosophy, math, and science, we can't have what we know as our existence without a cause. Call that cause whatever you will but I believe it was caused by a being that Flew calls an Intelligent Mind. I can buy that. I have no other choice, the evidence that you demand from me tells me so. You can't get something from nothing. Have you ever comprehended nothingness? It's nothing! The universe is NOT eternal. Theories like the Big Bang, Inflation, Vacuum theories, and theories involving subatomic particles all beg the question...how????
Naming more theories doesn't cancel out God, they only take us back to the original question of origins. Sam Harris, another of your homeys, says that "The question of why physical events have causes, say, is not one that scientists feel the slight est temptation to ponder. It is just so." (the End of Faith, p.183-paperback version)
Really, Sam?? The fact that we have theories and people who are cosmologists prove him wrong right off the bat. The Hubble telescope does not exist so we can have cooler versions of Google Earth (I kid), it takes pictures of space so scientists can study the universe and among those studies ponder origins. Bye the way, Dr. Hubble's main-man, Allan Rex Sandage converted from Atheism to Xty--by studying the universe. Sandage is a big name in this area. Look it up.
One more thing, Dawkins argues (in the God Delusion) that the number of Atheist scientists outnumber the Christian scientists. Does this mean that the minority is inferior? Dawkins also says that Christians used to outnumber the Atheists, if this is the case then Atheism is inferior. I don’t buy that one bit. A large group of people can be wrong, might doesn’t make right.
Have I killed your Atheism? Probably not. You've probably heard all of this before. You're probably sick of these arguments, you probably could care less about the name dropping I did above. I know Dawkins doesn't care either.
It doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to be considered.
If the tone of this email seems harsh--that was not my intention. Please understand I have been where you are. I also want you to know I have read these books, I don’t go to websites and quote freely, pretending like I read. I own a few of them, the others are notes I’ve gathered through the years of reading, I’m currently finishing the God Delusion as we speak, I just wanted you to know I wouldn’t insult your intelligence that way.
I guess it’s your turn. Do you refute here or do you present your case? I have no idea, it’s up to you.
Have a good night and thanks again for your time.
Rosenberg:
OK so you touch on a lot of topics here. I will do my best to respond to everything. First, l think you misunderstood me last time. I am not at all asking you to prove God's existence. I was just putting out the question dealing with the burden of proof and the presumption of atheism. It basically states that we should withhold belief (atheism in the weak sense) until we have reason to accept one side or the other. But we can move on because the atheist, if he is to be informed on his position, should none the less understand the arguments from both sides. I mainly started with this just to get you to begin the discussion by giving me an argument.
Now on the topic of science and religion, I think I would have to side with Dawkins. Religion does not just deal with existence (as stated in your quote from Flew). If that was all that it laid claim to, I don't think there would be too much of a problem. Creationism for instance is directly opposed to science. I know that you told me you no longer accept this but there are many others that do and so I am using it as an example. There are other claims as well. What about a virgin birth? What about a man that can walk on water, raise the dead, and turn water into wine? These are claims about physical things and are therefore well within the realm of science. I can continue. What about faith healing, or even prayer? To believe in these is to believe that God intervenes in the natural world. What about, for example, in the bible where it talks about the spread of the heavens. Now I have heard claims that this is to be taken as a prediction about the expanding universe. I take this last example to be on the extreme end but you get my point.
I don't think Dawkins is using a false analogy when he discusses Russell's teapot. The teapot analogy is made to illustrate the concept of the burden of proof which I mentioned above. The burden lies with the person making the claim to show that this is the case rather than with the skeptic to refute it. His example is a bit ridiculous but that's the idea. The case of the celestial teapot is meant as an analogy for God but it works just as well for any claim that one cannot falsify. Carl Sagan has his own version which I like as well . Imagine someone claiming that, in their garage, there exists an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire. There is no evidence that this dragon exists. We cannot see it since it is invisible. We cannot test for footprints because it floats in the air. We cannot detect the invisible fire with an infrared sensor because the this fire is heatless. We cannot spray paint on the dragon to make it visible because the dragon is incorporeal and the paint won't stick. And so on, etc. Sagan asks in what way is this a meaningful claim? And what is the difference in believing in this dragon and believing in nothing at all? The claim that God exists also seems to evade all reasonable attempts of verification as well. If the theist has a way out if he can show that belief in God can be falsified.
http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
In the watchmaker analagy, Paley likens the complexity of a watch to the complexity of the natural world. The watch is complex and must have had an intelligent creator. And since the world is complex, just like the watch, it also must have had an intelligent creator. Dawkin's tries to show that this is wrong. The world, although immensely complex, was not created by an intelligent being but rather by evolution. Evolution, in this sense, is a blind watchmaker.
"What makes one think that the human brain, the water cycle, our digestive system, clotting, the fact that stuff we can eat growns right out of the ground, etc aren't designed either??"
Evolution should be a sufficient explanation. Are you familiar with Occam's razor? Well basically it is the principle that calls for parsimonious explanation of phenomena. Take for instance once again Carl Sagan's dragon that I discuss. Both the dragon hypothesis and the skeptic's view are empirically equivalent. If we can explain what is going on in the garage just as well without the dragon hypothesis, let's drop the hypothesis of the dragon. We just don't need it.
"In fact evolution lends more credibility to the argument from design, Dawkins is wrong."
Really? Imagine if we had no theory of evolution.
Now you asked what I consider to be evidence. Roughly I would say that evidence consists of facts that lead one to accept a proposition. OK let's say I look outside and see that the ground is wet. I could take this as evidence for the proposition that it has rained recently. Now how much evidence do I need to be justified in believing a certain proposition? That's another issue. But let's be clear. Having evidence in favor for a proposition does not mean that one is justified in believing a proposition. Also, being justified in believing a proposition does not mean that the proposition in question is true. I asked you whether or not you think evidence is crucial for belief in God, aka natural theology. There are other non-evidentialist reasons for believing in God. People believe in god for ethical reasons. Perhaps they think that God provides them with an ethical foundation. You could believe in god simply because you want to. Perhaps it comforts you to believe that there is a supreme being that is watching over you and you will get to go to heaven when you die. I think this is Martin Gardner's position. There are people that believe in God because that is how they were raised and have never really questioned their beliefs. I know some people like that too. Some people may think it is fashionable or admirable to do so in their society and therefore convince themselves to believe in God. What about Pascal's wager? Perhaps the existence of God is extremely unlikely but people might sill believe because that leads to their maximum expected utility. And last time I brought up another position that I found interesting, namely belief in God as being properly basic. I sent you sent you a link to Plantinga's argument for it. Anyway, my point was that if you believe in God for any non-evidentialist reason, we should discuss that first.
You did bring up a couple of the classic arguments for God here, the cosmological and design arguments. We should discuss these more in greater detail. But I would like to discuss the issue of the concept of God being coherent first. I think this is a good place to start. Perhaps I should have started with this last time. But anyway, it is 1:30 in the morning and I am going to sleep. This will have to be continued.
Lotz:
(I will also try an answer one by one)
I agree, discussions are best when, for instance, I am able to tell you what you believe, and visa versa. I understand that you weren't asking me to do the impossible, I just thought it was funny how you started it.
I agree to an extent with your siding with RD, but I hope you understand Flew's POV (I included in my last email) where science can only take us back so far, origins are in the realm of metaphysics.
You mention miracles (virgin birth, water walking, dead raising, and Jesus' holy distillery) and how the fact that Christians claim these as physical events. I cannot disagree with you, when it comes to physical events like the claims of miracles then yes, science, to a degree, should be used to understand them. The best way I can describe a miracle is thru science! Consider oxygen and potassium, when put into a controlled environment, we get combustion, right? Yet, our bodies have both of these elements, and other than Michael Jackson or that guy from Weird Al Yankovic's "Smells Like Nirvana" video I don't see people running around on fire. Why?? Because there are other factors in our body intervening. This is precisely what a miracle is, you used the word 'intervene' and I can't think of a better word to describe it. God intervenes. Flew even said in his book, once you believe that there is a God of some sorts, the concept of the miraculous isn't so far fetched anymore.
(as far as your reference to 'in the bible where it talks about the spread of the heavens. Now I have heard claims that this is to be taken as a prediction about the expanding universe' I am unfamiliar with that, let me know if you find it, I'm curious.)
I understand the point of the teapot/dragon is to put the burden of proof on Theists…I want you to know that I get what you are saying and why you defend these arguments, but I want you to know that, and I cannot say this clearly enough, I do not believe there is an unidentifiable teapot in orbit nor are there any invisible dragon’s in Carl Sagan’s garage. Theists believe that existence itself owes its existence to a creator. This has nothing to do with outlandish claims about teapots and dragons (again, I understand your burden of proof argument). We are making an educated guess--and yes, I will call it that--about the origins of the universe, which a lot of scientists believe is NOT eternal. If the universe is not eternal then it had a beginning, science can only take us to, for example, the Big Bang. Philosophy--metaphysics--deals with it beyond that (Do you see why the teapot/dragon comparison doesn't work here? Again, I understand the whole burden of proof thing, I cannot say enough that I understand what RD is saying, but we only believe that there is a creator because it sure as hell looks like there are a creator's deliberate fingerprints all over the place). Science cannot possibly begin to test origins. Evolution is a nice answer to everything that has happened after the Big Bang (actually, evolution is a nice answer to everything that has happened after every hypothesis that science has about the origin of the universe, Inflation, Vacuums, etc), but evolution in itself is not and cannot be the beginning. Why? Because what started evolution? This is what Flew means, and I agree with him, when he says that this is a philosophical stage where science can only be the ticket taker outside. I’m interested in your take on this…
I won’t deny evolution, evolution is a nice way of explaining the way by which we have arrived at 2009. How did it get started? How did we get, as I’ve heard it said, from fish to philosopher? What came first, the chicken or the egg? At what point does sexual reproduction become necessary? Evolution is good, I never said it wasn’t, but I don’t think it replaces or supersedes creationism.Why can’t evolution be a product of creationism? Because you don’t like the idea of a creator God? I think it makes perfect sense, of course Atheists like Dawkins think computers have just a good of a chance of popping up out of nowhere--uncaused--just like the universe. I know he never said such a thing but according to his reasoning, if given a few billion years, I could have a nice Toshiba computer on my desk that was not built by some guy in a factory.
If20I were to argue that cpu’s were here thru evolution, you’d say I was crazy, that they're clearly designed. But I know you don’t argue that because you aren’t a moron, your highly complex brain tells you not to believe something so absurd. I also know, using my highly complex brain and logic that if complex things like cpu’s are intentionally made then how is it that the same argument isn’t applied to photosynthesis, the water cycle, clotting, etc? I know I’m repeating myself but it has it’s purpose.
"Really? Imagine if we had no theory of evolution"
Then I'd still believe in God w/out evolutionists telling me that God and evolution are mutually exclusive.
"how much evidence do I need to be justified in believing a certain proposition?"
Enough to defend your standpoint. I've already said I can't prove God and you and your boy Dawkins can't disprove God. Yet we still believe what we do, why is that?
"There are other non-evidentialist reasons for believing in God. People believe in god for ethical reasons. Perhaps they think that God provides them with an ethical foundation. You could believe in god simply because you want to. Perhaps it comforts you to believe that there is a supreme being that is watching over you and you will get to go to heaven when you die. There are people that believe in God because that is how they were raised a nd have never really questioned their beliefs. I know some people like that too. Some people may think it is fashionable or admirable to do so in their society and therefore convince themselves to believe in God"
I don't argue from these POVs. They're nice but they don't rely on logic, thus they wouldn't hold much water in, say, an email dialogue with an Atheist you went to high school with. I don't disagree with all of them but they don't offer the evidence i am giving to you. This I won't insult your intelligence by arguing from these POVs.
"my point was that if you believe in God for any non-evidentialist reason, we should discuss that first. "
I don't, my previous 2-3 emails should be sufficient in proving to you that I don't come from them 1st.
I hope that thses answers (though long) give you an adequate pictureof my POV. I know RD refutes them, but in my opinion he does a lousy job of it, though he does a wonderful job of doing it as an Atheist!
One thing I want to know and am curious about is why does Dawkins attack Christian scientists/thinkers/arguments that have been dead for hundreds of years? I wonder why, even though he mentions him, he doesn't talk more in depth about Frances Collins in The God Delusion? He never once mentions Allan Sandage or Stephen Meyer.
Do Dawkins and Harris have to reach back into history to win philosophical fights?? Will Dawkins discuss them in his new book that is due out this year? I'll leave to you to answer.
Have a good one
Rosenberg:
Well maybe I just do not understand where you stand on the issue of the relation between science and religion. First you seem to agree with Flew that Dawkins errs in claiming that the issue of God is a scientific one. Now you agree that it is except for concerns of origin. My view is similar to Dawkins on this point as well. I would say that it is still a scientific issue. Scientists may struggle to answer this question in practice but that does not mean that it is not a scientific issue in principle. I do not accept Gould's NOMA because I do not think science and religion are complimentary.
You talk about oxygen and potassium in the body and ask why people don't combust. But is this an issue for religion? No. Certainly this is a physical phenomena, and again, is in the realm of science. Imagine just a few decades ago when we had natural phenomena that were considered by some to be paranormal or miraculous. Dawkins gives the example of how bats find their way around in the dark. But this was not a supernatural phenomena nor was it a miracle. Scientists just didn't know what echolocation was. But they do now and it is understood entirely within physical terms. Carl Sagan gives the example of how a sunflower follows the sun in its course across the sky. Not too long ago, people did not understand how this worked. Was this a miracle? Was there some supernatural being making this happen? No. People just had yet to understand about phototropism and plant hormones. (This is from his Demon-Haunted World. If you haven't read this yet, I highly recommend it. I'll try sending it to you as an attachment.) The lesson here should be clear. Just because something is not understood in natural terms does not mean that we should just wave our hands and say that it is a miracle. There is no reason to accept that something we don't understand today will not be understood in the future. Now I wasn't familiar with this case that you give but I would like to assure you that it is not a miracle. If this this case is not fully understood in scientific terms at the moment, why should we believe that it never will be understood? If you're saying that this is a miracle then you are saying that this could never be understood in natural terms. Science is the study of nature. And a miracle, in the traditional sense, is the violation of the law of nature. Imagine if we are to argue that this were a miracle, how must we go about doing this? Well we would need to adopt the scientific method where we assume that miracles do not occur. Then we need to show that science is unable to account for this phenomena.
"as far as your reference to 'in the bible where it talks about the spread of the heavens. Now I have heard claims that this is to be taken as a prediction about the expanding universe' I am unfamiliar with that, let me know if you find it, I'm curious."
I heard some guy arguing this at a creation/evolution debate at Ohio State. It was in a response to the request to show that creationism actually makes predictions about the world. Maybe I just thought it was worth sharing with you because of how ridiculous it was. I don't know.
Now back to the celestial teapot and the dragon analogies. Of course you don't believe in the celestial teapot or the dragon. It would be ridiculous for anyone to believe in these. But this is the power of the analogy. To the skeptic it seems as if these things-- the teapot and the dragon-- do not exist. They are invisible, incorporeal, etc. But God is also invisible, incorporeal, and so forth.
"Theists believe that existence itself owes its existence to a creator. This has nothing to do with outlandish claims about teapots and dragons"
OK so what if we were to expand on this analogy? Let's see if this helps. This dragon in the garage-- not only is it an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire but it is also eternal, free, able to do anything, knows everything, is perfectly good, is the proper object of human worship and obedience, and the creator and sustainer of the universe.
"If the universe is not eternal then it had a beginning, science can only take us to, for example, the Big Bang"
Precisely!! Science is the study of the natural world. If the world started with the big bang, then this is as far back as science will take us.
"evolution in itself is not and cannot be the beginning. Why? Because what started evolution?"
Be careful here. Evolution only deals with life-- not with the formation of the solar system, etc. And we have theories about how life started-- primordial soup or whatever from which we obtained life from inanimate matter.
"What came first, the chicken or the egg?"
The egg.
"Evolution is good, I never said it wasn't, but I don't think it replaces or supersedes creationism."
They are not complementary. They make differing and contradictory claims as to how and when life was formed.
"Atheists like Dawkins think computers have just a good of a chance of popping up out of nowhere--uncaused"
Are you serious here or are you just being sarcastic? If you are serious then we should discuss this because this is not the case at all. If we are dealing with evolution, then first of all, we are talking about living things and not about Toshibas. Second of all, in evolution, stuff doesn't just pop out of nowhere (chance as in the bank vault's combination lock in Dawkin's anology--remember this? The God Delusion p. 122).
But anyway here is a related issue. Perhaps you would find it interesting. It deals with how the concept of evolution can be applied to the engineering and aerodynamic wing design. (Discussion starts at around minute 33)
Now I don't really get your last concern. Dawkins does deal with contemporary religious thinkers. Here is an article of a Dawkins/Collins debate:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-1,00.html
He has debated with others and deals with other people's views as well. So I'm not really sure about what your issue is here. But again, take Dawkins' work at what it is. It is a scientist trying to reach out to the lay audience.
And here, you might want to check this out as well. Dawkins explains why he refuses to debate creationists.
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/amun_ra
Take Care
Lotz:
Ok, maybe I am not clarifying my position enough or you aren't reading it right, maybe it's an "both/and". Either way I will take ownership and make this short, our emails are getting long and that might be leading to any and all miscommunication. Here are my positions.
1. SCIENCE and GOD-
I believe science has a lot to say about the existence of God. Science can be used to demonstrate what I mean theologically (i.e. the O2/K comparison with miracles as intervention--a metaphor!!). Science has given us the evolutionary theory, but you said it yourself (I think)--evolution does not mean cosmology. This is precisely where I and Flew agree that metaphysics must take over the conversation....unless you have a better theory, I'd love to hear it. You may not agree that science and God are complimentary and that's fine, but there are scientists who are Theists who disagree, just as there are scientists who are Atheists who agree with you. The whole question here is: Where does the evidence lead you?
2. TEAPOTS and DRAGONS and COMPUTERS
Yes, I was being sarcastic--but with a point. I believe the universe was caused. Teapots between Mars and Earth and Invisible Dragons in Sagan's garage all but avoid the real issue. I am making a claim about reality when I claim that a god started it all. We can see and think about our existence. We may come up with cold-hard answers and we will also come up w ith theories based on educated guesses using all of the methods available to us. I don't believe in God because I think it's a good idea or I feel I have to; using methods of deduction I have come to the conclusion that there is a Creator. This is a commentary about our reality, this can be tested to an extent--this has NOTHING to do with outlandish claims about teapots or dragons. I understand that they are meant to speak to the burden of proof upon Theists, but they are shitty examples and totally ignore what it is that Theists are claiming about our existence. If this Dragon Theory is expanded (as you have done) then we will need to discuss it. How do we know it's a dragon? Is there revelation? Is it a guess or a joke like the Spaghetti Monster?? Should we all be Pastafarians?? Mike, I am very aware of your point, I will say it again, whether it is an incorporeal being or a dragon, fine, call it what you will, that's the point of this discussion. My point about the cpu was intended as sarcastic and to point out that you aren't arguing that cpu's pop up naturally and I am not arguing about anything that can't be discussed and reached with logic.
3. RESPONSES
"Science is the study of nature. And a miracle, in the traditional sense, is the violation of the law of nature.Well we would need to adopt the scientific method where we assume that miracles do not occur. Then we need to show that science is unable to account for this phenomena."
Yes, but not really. Virgins don't typically give birth, dead people don't normally resurrect, and wine doesn't normally come straight from water, but if you really look at what is being claimed, all use natural elements in and of the world(for instance, adding a Y chromosome would make a male child--something the Author of life probably wouldn't have any trouble doing). True, miracles cannot be reproduced but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. For instance, Slash, the former guitarist for Guns 'n' Roses wrote an autobiography which he put on the cover: "It seems excessive, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen." And this is my point (please excuse the source), miracles may fall out of the realm of scientific experimentation, but there are a lot of things/recoveries/healings that happen in the medical field that doctors say would be considered miraculous (though maybe not from a religious POV but that all comes down to your original worldview). I think a discussion on miracles might be nice, let me know if that interests you.
"Be careful here. Evolution only deals with life-- not with the formation of the solar system, etc. And we have theories about how life started-- primordial soup or whatever from which we obtained life from inanimate matter. "
Ok, but what about cosmology? How did the universe begin? Subatomic particles? Ok, where did those come from? This is why I do not argue science over against creation, science takes us back to that pivotal moment, philosophy attempts to go before that. Can they go hand in hand, maybe to an extent, and I'll agree with you only partially, but science deals with the complexities of "us" and theologists like myself look at the (alleged)design of those complexities. I hope that makes sense, let me know if you need that explained better.
I read that TIME article before and I'll have to have time to sit and watch that video, thanks for the links.
I want to make clear that my intention has not been to "convert" you, my personal stake in this is learning more about the Atheist position, and you have rep'd your peeps well. So let's keep this going, if that's ok with you.
I guess it is up to you where we go from here.
Hope life is good, my man. When are you coming out here??
Rosenberg:
Hey sorry for my delay. i have been trying to get settled in here. But from now on I will try to have a response for you every week.
On Science
Science and Religion come into conflict. I think this is pretty obvious. Just look at the history of the Church. Take the incident with Galileo for instance. His work horrified the Church and they forbade the teaching of the Copernican system. The Church also was opposed to advances in medicine-- dissection, discovery of the circulatory system, vaccinations, anesthetics. And teaching of evolution, this is an issue that is still in conflict with religion.
It is obvious that the two are in conflict but what is not so obvious is whether this conflict is necessary. Dawkins thinks that this a fundamental conflict. I am not sure about this. Of course there are good scientists who are religious.
Religion has consistently needed to retreat and back away given advances in the sciences. I find this to be very puzzling since faith is supposed to be eternal and of divine origin. Faith is the "once and for all delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3).
Science aims at answering the question of what happened. It has nothing to do with the question of who made it happen. The problem is that religion tries to give answers to the former question as well as the latter. The bible gives a story about how the universe was created. It was created in six days. God created the earth covered with water, the sun, moon, and stars on day four. If this is true, then the big bang is wrong. If the big bang is true, then the bible got it wrong. We have conflict. You can reject this bible story as being true, surely. But then you are embracing a strand of theology that has retracted its claims in the light of science. As I mention above, I find this to be puzzling. And if you do reject this bible story, then tell me in what way does the bible hold authority at all? Are you not just picking and choosing? The religious smorgasbord, as they say.
There is also the issue of scientific realism vs. instrumentalism. The instrumentalists take scientific theories as being "true" insofar as they are able to make predictions about the future. The realists claim that scientific theories actually say something about how the world is. So if science does not make a claim about reality then it is not in conflict with religion and therefore the instrumentalist can avoid the science/religion conflict. There are reasons to accept this instrumental view and perhaps we should discuss this position in more detail if you want. I am not sure if I accept this position but let me know if this interests you.
"Ok, but what about cosmology? How did the universe begin?"
Well I'm not going to try to give an answer to how the earth began. This is because I don't know. But understand that the question of cosmology is a scientific one nonetheless and is worthy of study. Your demands are simply too high. There are things that we don't understand. We have to be humble. Science has been making progress towards answering these difficult questions. Remember, telescopes weren't even invented until the 17th century. It wasn't until the later half of the 19th century that scientists were able to determine the composition of the stars. Einstein's theory of special relativity wasn't published until 1905. And the use of nuclear physics in trying to explain the origins didn't really begin until the 1940s.
But you can't take this question of origin away from science and give it to religion. That answers nothing. That would be ignorant hand waving, I would say. This is at least worthy of scientific study.
On Dragons on Teapots
Remember that these people actually believe in dragons or teapots. It is not just some idea to them but they full heartedly accept these to be true about the world.
I think you understand this now. You said it yourself:
"How do we know it's a dragon?"
Yes!! That is the point we are trying to make.
"I think a discussion on miracles might be nice, let me know if that interests you."
Yes. You tell me when.
Some more links for you:
Here is the banana video. We know God exists because the banana is perfect for human consumption. Priceless.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2A
And here are the links to the Dawkins video. You said you haven't seen it.
Part 1:
Part 2:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7619161192220036050&q=source%3A016768399772957506620&hl=en
