Sunday, February 14, 2010
Faith and Reason Are Not Enemies
I can remember when I was an atheist in college that I thought faith was diametrically opposed to reason. In particular, I could not STAND it when I or my atheist friends would level some crushing argument against a Christian who was (really) not nearly as intelligent as we were, and then the Christian would just say, "Well I can't explain that apparent paradox, I have faith."
And then, to add insult to injury, sometimes the Christian apologists would say something truly asinine (I thought) such as, "Well we can't prove anything. You have faith that Abraham Lincoln was president during the Civil War. You didn't see that with your own eyes." At this point it was time to stop arguing with irrational Christians and hit the bar.
Well now I am older and call myself a born-again Christian. So what is my current view of the alleged divide between faith and reason?
First of all, I don't say that Christianity is irrational. I would say it is superrational or arational if you want. To put it succinctly, I cannot use my puny mind to logically deduce--or even reasonably infer--the grand truths of the universe. But my mind leads me to say that it is perfectly reasonable to have faith in the promises of Jesus Christ. In particular, I find it implausible that someone could be so wise about human relations, and yet could be nuts or deceitful about the supernatural. (This of course is just the 'Lord, liar, or lunatic' argument.)
Let me give an analogy. Suppose you are interested in physics but you're just an undergrad major in it. You've read a bunch of Feynman's stuff and other pop physics books, but you haven't worked with a supercollidor or done original theoretical research.
Your older brother is wrapping up his PhD in physics at Cal-Tech, and he invites you to the campus to hear a guest lecture from the latest physics Nobel laureate. During the talk you think the laureate made a basic error about how gravity works. After the lecture you ask your brother, and he says, "No when you study quantum theory in a graduate program you will see that that's not a mistake. They actually teach you a dumbed down version in undergrad."
You still don't quite get it, but you trust that your brother isn't lying to you about this, and that the Nobel laureate didn't make a bonehead mistake in front of the Cal-Tech faculy who all missed it. You have faith in all of them that they didn't miss such a dumb thing, which you, a lowly undergrad major, picked up.
This is analogous to me when I read that the God of the Israelites commanded them to take the promised land through force. Some of the stuff in the book of Joshua is pretty hardcore.
And yet, for sure Jesus of Nazareth is a much nicer, moral guy than I am. If Jesus assures me that the God of the Israelites is perfect and just, then I believe Jesus. Even though it doesn't fully make sense, I have faith that Jesus wouldn't lie to me about something that important, and on a topic where Jesus is obviously far superior to me.
It is not irrational to recognize the limits of reason. It is not irrational to trust the claims of particular people who have demonstrated their trustworthiness and competence in particular areas. We do this all the time in everyday life.
There is no conflict between religious faith and reason.
And then, to add insult to injury, sometimes the Christian apologists would say something truly asinine (I thought) such as, "Well we can't prove anything. You have faith that Abraham Lincoln was president during the Civil War. You didn't see that with your own eyes." At this point it was time to stop arguing with irrational Christians and hit the bar.
Well now I am older and call myself a born-again Christian. So what is my current view of the alleged divide between faith and reason?
First of all, I don't say that Christianity is irrational. I would say it is superrational or arational if you want. To put it succinctly, I cannot use my puny mind to logically deduce--or even reasonably infer--the grand truths of the universe. But my mind leads me to say that it is perfectly reasonable to have faith in the promises of Jesus Christ. In particular, I find it implausible that someone could be so wise about human relations, and yet could be nuts or deceitful about the supernatural. (This of course is just the 'Lord, liar, or lunatic' argument.)
Let me give an analogy. Suppose you are interested in physics but you're just an undergrad major in it. You've read a bunch of Feynman's stuff and other pop physics books, but you haven't worked with a supercollidor or done original theoretical research.
Your older brother is wrapping up his PhD in physics at Cal-Tech, and he invites you to the campus to hear a guest lecture from the latest physics Nobel laureate. During the talk you think the laureate made a basic error about how gravity works. After the lecture you ask your brother, and he says, "No when you study quantum theory in a graduate program you will see that that's not a mistake. They actually teach you a dumbed down version in undergrad."
You still don't quite get it, but you trust that your brother isn't lying to you about this, and that the Nobel laureate didn't make a bonehead mistake in front of the Cal-Tech faculy who all missed it. You have faith in all of them that they didn't miss such a dumb thing, which you, a lowly undergrad major, picked up.
This is analogous to me when I read that the God of the Israelites commanded them to take the promised land through force. Some of the stuff in the book of Joshua is pretty hardcore.
And yet, for sure Jesus of Nazareth is a much nicer, moral guy than I am. If Jesus assures me that the God of the Israelites is perfect and just, then I believe Jesus. Even though it doesn't fully make sense, I have faith that Jesus wouldn't lie to me about something that important, and on a topic where Jesus is obviously far superior to me.
It is not irrational to recognize the limits of reason. It is not irrational to trust the claims of particular people who have demonstrated their trustworthiness and competence in particular areas. We do this all the time in everyday life.
There is no conflict between religious faith and reason.
Comments:
Usually your column make sense. This one is total nonsense. Faith and reason are inherently opposed and no amount of casuistry can change that. Believe what you want to believe, but don't claim that a matter which cannot be proven is consistent with reason. A myth is a myth is a myth. A fact is a fact is a fact.
And even if you did see Abraham Lincoln, you'd have to have faith in your senses to relay the truth to you, faith in your mind's ability to understand and interpret correctly what your senses are presenting to you, faith in your reality to be presenting the truth to you in the first place, and faith that the other humans around you are experiencing the same reality you are.
Most reasonists either don't like to think that far down the chain or lack the ability to recognize the faith-based (by which I mean unprovable-assumption-based) nature of their own worldviews.
Most reasonists either don't like to think that far down the chain or lack the ability to recognize the faith-based (by which I mean unprovable-assumption-based) nature of their own worldviews.
# posted by 
: February 14, 2010 at 6:10 PM
: February 14, 2010 at 6:10 PM
Herb:
I think the point here is that reason has limits, at which point faith 'picks up.' The analogy with the physics less on above the U/G physics student's head illustrates this. THere are some things that our mind does not comprehend. At that point, faith fills those gaps.
I talk about similar ideas in my research methods course. We open the course talking about many ways in which people 'know' information (e.g., rationalism, authority, etc.). Each of these have their flaws or limitations. As I point out in the class, science also has its limitations. It can only address empirically testable questions (i.e., observable events). But I would think most people would agree that those are not the only important questions. Science, reason, etc. are good ways of knowing, but there is a limitation to it. At that point, one must look for other methods to 'know.'
Bob: I really appreciate you sharing your faith here. Your openness and honesty about your struggles with the tough issues, but willingness to express your faith is refreshing.
I think the point here is that reason has limits, at which point faith 'picks up.' The analogy with the physics less on above the U/G physics student's head illustrates this. THere are some things that our mind does not comprehend. At that point, faith fills those gaps.
I talk about similar ideas in my research methods course. We open the course talking about many ways in which people 'know' information (e.g., rationalism, authority, etc.). Each of these have their flaws or limitations. As I point out in the class, science also has its limitations. It can only address empirically testable questions (i.e., observable events). But I would think most people would agree that those are not the only important questions. Science, reason, etc. are good ways of knowing, but there is a limitation to it. At that point, one must look for other methods to 'know.'
Bob: I really appreciate you sharing your faith here. Your openness and honesty about your struggles with the tough issues, but willingness to express your faith is refreshing.
Bob:
I'm an atheist. 2 Questions:
1) Why did you revert to Christianity? I've never found any compelling reason to do so.
2) When were you in college? The widespread popular mocking of Christians seems rather recent to me.
On the larger angle of your post, I would believe my brother because enough of what I know corroborates his claim. This is certainly not the case with the Bible.
Herb:
See Rothbard on the term "casuitry".
I'm an atheist. 2 Questions:
1) Why did you revert to Christianity? I've never found any compelling reason to do so.
2) When were you in college? The widespread popular mocking of Christians seems rather recent to me.
On the larger angle of your post, I would believe my brother because enough of what I know corroborates his claim. This is certainly not the case with the Bible.
Herb:
See Rothbard on the term "casuitry".
Bob,
Regarding: " ... Christian who was (really) not nearly as intelligent as we were... "
Did you ever consider that it took you longer to find Truth than the one you claim was less intelligent than you?
"I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." (Mark 10:15)
We are saved by faith alone -- faith like a child, not by a well-constructed, rational argument. So our worldly intelligence and rational arguments are not necessary to enter the Kingdom. And any argument we construct will never be greater than the faith of a child.
Please do not devote your life to proving to the world that you can find the rational argument for God. Nothing good has ever come from such a pursuit.
Note: Simply change the parenthetical "really" to "or so I thought before finding the Lord," and your have a great post.
Regarding: " ... Christian who was (really) not nearly as intelligent as we were... "
Did you ever consider that it took you longer to find Truth than the one you claim was less intelligent than you?
"I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." (Mark 10:15)
We are saved by faith alone -- faith like a child, not by a well-constructed, rational argument. So our worldly intelligence and rational arguments are not necessary to enter the Kingdom. And any argument we construct will never be greater than the faith of a child.
Please do not devote your life to proving to the world that you can find the rational argument for God. Nothing good has ever come from such a pursuit.
Note: Simply change the parenthetical "really" to "or so I thought before finding the Lord," and your have a great post.
Good post.
For some reason, this reminds me a bit of an argument that I believe Aquinas made. He suggested that, if you give someone long enough and they're smart enough, they'll derive the major truths of Christianity just from nature and reason. The problem, of course, is that most people aren't smart enough and don't have enough time. So, divine revelation fills in the gaps for the rest of us.
As a result, the Faith is "reasonable" even if we aren't able trace it back to "pure reason" and experience.
For some reason, this reminds me a bit of an argument that I believe Aquinas made. He suggested that, if you give someone long enough and they're smart enough, they'll derive the major truths of Christianity just from nature and reason. The problem, of course, is that most people aren't smart enough and don't have enough time. So, divine revelation fills in the gaps for the rest of us.
As a result, the Faith is "reasonable" even if we aren't able trace it back to "pure reason" and experience.
Faith is not a method. It's belief without or in spite of evidence. It can only give easy answers that are not grounded in reality. If it were for faith, we would still bubonic plagues are the wrath of god. That would explain though why the LRC crowd hates vaccines so much har har har.
# posted by : February 14, 2010 at 8:14 PM
: February 14, 2010 at 8:14 PM
8:14 --
Speaking for myself, it is a lack of faith that leads me to shy away from the standard vaccination schedule.
Speaking for myself, it is a lack of faith that leads me to shy away from the standard vaccination schedule.
Jim,
Really, my atheist buddy and I were more intelligent than the Christian guy we were arguing with. (There was another Christian guy who was really intelligent too; not sure how he stacked up against us.)
You are right to say that intelligence per se doesn't guarantee wisdom or finding the truth on really important issues. But it seems you are going too far when you want to redefine it and say atheists aren't intelligent. You can be very intelligent and still be a fool, as I consider myself in college.
Herb, are you sure you want to stand behind this statement: "...but don't claim that a matter which cannot be proven is consistent with reason." Forget religion for a minute. That statement is clearly false.
Louis B. I was in college from 1994-98.
Really, my atheist buddy and I were more intelligent than the Christian guy we were arguing with. (There was another Christian guy who was really intelligent too; not sure how he stacked up against us.)
You are right to say that intelligence per se doesn't guarantee wisdom or finding the truth on really important issues. But it seems you are going too far when you want to redefine it and say atheists aren't intelligent. You can be very intelligent and still be a fool, as I consider myself in college.
Herb, are you sure you want to stand behind this statement: "...but don't claim that a matter which cannot be proven is consistent with reason." Forget religion for a minute. That statement is clearly false.
Louis B. I was in college from 1994-98.
Anon,
"Faith is not a method. It's belief without or in spite of evidence. It can only give easy answers that are not grounded in reality."
When modern physicists tell you that they have done the math on the Big Bang, and that it works out, have you /checked that math?/
Have you done genetic testing to verify the relevance of the different types of mutation in the evolutionary process?
When your family members complain of terrible pain, do you hook them up to equipment to verify that they are hurting?
Have you tested whether you are capable of drinking enough alcohol to kill yourself?
If not, you are apparently not engaging in rational behavior. And your conclusions /are not grounded in reality./
Unless, somehow, faith in conjunction with, say, reason and calculation, can serve to simplify life by subordinating the absolute determination of fact to the leveraging of probability?!
"Faith is not a method. It's belief without or in spite of evidence. It can only give easy answers that are not grounded in reality."
When modern physicists tell you that they have done the math on the Big Bang, and that it works out, have you /checked that math?/
Have you done genetic testing to verify the relevance of the different types of mutation in the evolutionary process?
When your family members complain of terrible pain, do you hook them up to equipment to verify that they are hurting?
Have you tested whether you are capable of drinking enough alcohol to kill yourself?
If not, you are apparently not engaging in rational behavior. And your conclusions /are not grounded in reality./
Unless, somehow, faith in conjunction with, say, reason and calculation, can serve to simplify life by subordinating the absolute determination of fact to the leveraging of probability?!
# posted by : February 14, 2010 at 9:41 PM
: February 14, 2010 at 9:41 PM
Bob,
Oh, I would never say that one has to have faith in our Lord to be considered intelligent -- and Mises would be my example.
My point -- buried in there somewhere -- is that you do not need intelligence to be either a Christian or a Christian apologist.
Faith is sufficient. And while the apostles (not just the Twelve) were trained before being sent out, they weren't (based on anything I read) trained in a logical defense of the Bible. The apostles were to present the Word and shake the dust if it was not accepted.
So if (say) Dawkins built a rational argument against God -- an argument that no one could not logically refute, I would simply say that logic and reason are nothing more that flawed constructs of man, incapable of understanding eternal Truth.
Similarly, I say that, while scientific laws can be used to (supposedly) refute the miracles of the Bible, any such refutation proves the limits of science, and not the limits (or Truth) of God's Word.
If an atheist were to debate me on my faith, in the end I will go circular -- I adhere to presuppositional apologetics (I accept the Bible as the ultimate given). Google "logical fallacy" and the results pages is replete with atheist sites -- atheist "know" that reason and logic are not capable of defending eternal Truth.
All that said: If an irrefutable, logical proof led you to Christ, I would love to hear it.
Note: If the unintelligent Christian had presented a stronger argument, would it have turned your heart right then? That question -- a big what-if, of course -- is worth pondering.
Oh, I would never say that one has to have faith in our Lord to be considered intelligent -- and Mises would be my example.
My point -- buried in there somewhere -- is that you do not need intelligence to be either a Christian or a Christian apologist.
Faith is sufficient. And while the apostles (not just the Twelve) were trained before being sent out, they weren't (based on anything I read) trained in a logical defense of the Bible. The apostles were to present the Word and shake the dust if it was not accepted.
So if (say) Dawkins built a rational argument against God -- an argument that no one could not logically refute, I would simply say that logic and reason are nothing more that flawed constructs of man, incapable of understanding eternal Truth.
Similarly, I say that, while scientific laws can be used to (supposedly) refute the miracles of the Bible, any such refutation proves the limits of science, and not the limits (or Truth) of God's Word.
If an atheist were to debate me on my faith, in the end I will go circular -- I adhere to presuppositional apologetics (I accept the Bible as the ultimate given). Google "logical fallacy" and the results pages is replete with atheist sites -- atheist "know" that reason and logic are not capable of defending eternal Truth.
All that said: If an irrefutable, logical proof led you to Christ, I would love to hear it.
Note: If the unintelligent Christian had presented a stronger argument, would it have turned your heart right then? That question -- a big what-if, of course -- is worth pondering.
Jim,
OK, just to clarify: I am not trying to "prove" Christianity. The point of this post is to say that that is impossible. Just like you can't use reason to prove your mom loves you, or that the sun will come up tomorrow. Reason per se can prove very little, even in the field of pure mathematics a la Godel's work.
All I'm trying to show is that Christianity does not violate reason. In other words, I reject the typical atheist claim that you have to choose between reason and faith. I think God gave us our minds to help us figure things out.
No, I didn't discover a logical proof of Christianity. (This is directed at another commenter too.) Some day I will write up my own version of "Surprised by Joy" where I explain my conversion, but it's not something I want to do halfheartedly and I can't do it right now.
Really Jim I think part of my purpose is to show current atheists who are openminded that the standard "blowups" of Christianity actually aren't as airtight as they believe. Since I used to adhere to these 2-step "knockdown" arguments myself, I am in a good position to point out their flaws which now seem obvious to me.
Also, the really sharp Christian guy in college used what we dismissed as an "invisible demon in the corner" argument. I.e. I acknowledged that we couldn't beat him logically, but his position was nonfalsifiable. So I was at least intellectually honest enough to concede that he had escaped our clutches, but we thought he had punted by building an impregnable wall around his beliefs.
OK, just to clarify: I am not trying to "prove" Christianity. The point of this post is to say that that is impossible. Just like you can't use reason to prove your mom loves you, or that the sun will come up tomorrow. Reason per se can prove very little, even in the field of pure mathematics a la Godel's work.
All I'm trying to show is that Christianity does not violate reason. In other words, I reject the typical atheist claim that you have to choose between reason and faith. I think God gave us our minds to help us figure things out.
No, I didn't discover a logical proof of Christianity. (This is directed at another commenter too.) Some day I will write up my own version of "Surprised by Joy" where I explain my conversion, but it's not something I want to do halfheartedly and I can't do it right now.
Really Jim I think part of my purpose is to show current atheists who are openminded that the standard "blowups" of Christianity actually aren't as airtight as they believe. Since I used to adhere to these 2-step "knockdown" arguments myself, I am in a good position to point out their flaws which now seem obvious to me.
Also, the really sharp Christian guy in college used what we dismissed as an "invisible demon in the corner" argument. I.e. I acknowledged that we couldn't beat him logically, but his position was nonfalsifiable. So I was at least intellectually honest enough to concede that he had escaped our clutches, but we thought he had punted by building an impregnable wall around his beliefs.
Bob,
(an improved post to the one I just deleted -- Jim)
Oh, I would never say that one has to have faith in our Lord to be considered intelligent -- and Mises would be my example.
My point -- buried in there somewhere -- is that you do not need intelligence to be either a Christian or a Christian apologist.
Faith is sufficient.
And while the apostles (not just the Twelve) were trained before being sent out, they weren't (based on anything I read) trained in a logical defense of the Bible. The apostles were to present the Word and shake the dust if it was not accepted.
If (say) Dawkins built a rational argument against God -- an argument that no one could not logically refute, I would simply say that logic and reason are nothing more than flawed constructs of man, incapable of understanding eternal Truth.
Similarly, I say that, while scientific laws can be used to (supposedly) refute the miracles of the Bible, any such refutation proves the limits of science, and not the limits (or truth) of God's Word.
If an atheist were to debate me on my faith, in the end I will go circular -- I adhere to presuppositional apologetics (I accept the Bible as the ultimate given).
Google "logical fallacy" and the results pages are replete with atheist sites -- atheist "know" that reason and logic are not capable of defending eternal Truth.
All that said: If an irrefutable, logical proof led you to Christ, I would love to hear it.
PS. If the unintelligent Christian had presented a stronger argument, would it have turned your heart right then? That question -- a big what-if, of course -- is worth pondering.
PSS. Man puts faith in things of this world, with intelligence and money being prominent.
"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:24)
I believe that "intelligent" can be substituted for "rich" and the passage would still be true -- a truthful warning.
(an improved post to the one I just deleted -- Jim)
Oh, I would never say that one has to have faith in our Lord to be considered intelligent -- and Mises would be my example.
My point -- buried in there somewhere -- is that you do not need intelligence to be either a Christian or a Christian apologist.
Faith is sufficient.
And while the apostles (not just the Twelve) were trained before being sent out, they weren't (based on anything I read) trained in a logical defense of the Bible. The apostles were to present the Word and shake the dust if it was not accepted.
If (say) Dawkins built a rational argument against God -- an argument that no one could not logically refute, I would simply say that logic and reason are nothing more than flawed constructs of man, incapable of understanding eternal Truth.
Similarly, I say that, while scientific laws can be used to (supposedly) refute the miracles of the Bible, any such refutation proves the limits of science, and not the limits (or truth) of God's Word.
If an atheist were to debate me on my faith, in the end I will go circular -- I adhere to presuppositional apologetics (I accept the Bible as the ultimate given).
Google "logical fallacy" and the results pages are replete with atheist sites -- atheist "know" that reason and logic are not capable of defending eternal Truth.
All that said: If an irrefutable, logical proof led you to Christ, I would love to hear it.
PS. If the unintelligent Christian had presented a stronger argument, would it have turned your heart right then? That question -- a big what-if, of course -- is worth pondering.
PSS. Man puts faith in things of this world, with intelligence and money being prominent.
"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:24)
I believe that "intelligent" can be substituted for "rich" and the passage would still be true -- a truthful warning.
Bob,
We are now out of order (you posted before I deleted) ;-)
I think I understand your point.
But I am still unsatisfied with this: The Bible cannot be proved (this I accept) yet the intelligent Christian served our Lord better than the unintelligent one.
Neither proved the Bible (no one can) -- they failed to sway the atheists.
Oh, but wait ...
They both served by spreading the Word, though the soil was poor at the time (for you, anyway).
And you serve our Lord by writing your (at least) weekly Christian posts. Reason or not, you are doing God's work.
Thank you.
We are now out of order (you posted before I deleted) ;-)
I think I understand your point.
But I am still unsatisfied with this: The Bible cannot be proved (this I accept) yet the intelligent Christian served our Lord better than the unintelligent one.
Neither proved the Bible (no one can) -- they failed to sway the atheists.
Oh, but wait ...
They both served by spreading the Word, though the soil was poor at the time (for you, anyway).
And you serve our Lord by writing your (at least) weekly Christian posts. Reason or not, you are doing God's work.
Thank you.
The way the atheists use "faith and reason" is a bit of manipulation. I lost my atheism when I read about creation evidences. I've continued to study the subject, and I'm convinced by an immeasurable margin that atheism is impossible.
Later I became a Christian. Remember that the bible says in Romans 1 that the creation testifies of itself, they are without excuse. Faith is not believing that God exists. Faith is believing that He will perform His promises. It is also more than that, but that's a start.
Some say that it's the atheists who have admirable faith, but I'm not sure that's the right word.
Now where did I put that popcorn?
Later I became a Christian. Remember that the bible says in Romans 1 that the creation testifies of itself, they are without excuse. Faith is not believing that God exists. Faith is believing that He will perform His promises. It is also more than that, but that's a start.
Some say that it's the atheists who have admirable faith, but I'm not sure that's the right word.
Now where did I put that popcorn?
# posted by : February 15, 2010 at 12:12 AM
: February 15, 2010 at 12:12 AM
I think your column is enlightning me in two ways.
1) You provide arguments that classical liberalism works well, when it comes to human-to-human interaction.
2) You provide arguments that classical christianity works well, when it comes to God-to-human interaction.
Kudos for doing both!
1) You provide arguments that classical liberalism works well, when it comes to human-to-human interaction.
2) You provide arguments that classical christianity works well, when it comes to God-to-human interaction.
Kudos for doing both!
i like to call myself agnostic.
i like tetris and i like to have things organized.at this point of my life, i have faith in the scientists and i don't NEED a god as a part of my life.but our(at least what scientist tell us)knowledge of the universe today has its limits, like the big bang for exemple.it is not known what was before.there might well be a god.or the implications that come from the string theory(may be also godlike)i don't know but i don't really care.one day we might find out and until then i'm just trying to live my life as good as i can.
some people have faith because of a vision of afterlife and are afraid of death. i believe(or hope),that thanks to technology i may live forever(or at least long enough) to get all the answers.i need answers, i don't need faith.
ps: would you say that my belief in immortality(thanks to science)is silly? because then i could say that your belief in afterlife(if you have one)is silly as well
i like tetris and i like to have things organized.at this point of my life, i have faith in the scientists and i don't NEED a god as a part of my life.but our(at least what scientist tell us)knowledge of the universe today has its limits, like the big bang for exemple.it is not known what was before.there might well be a god.or the implications that come from the string theory(may be also godlike)i don't know but i don't really care.one day we might find out and until then i'm just trying to live my life as good as i can.
some people have faith because of a vision of afterlife and are afraid of death. i believe(or hope),that thanks to technology i may live forever(or at least long enough) to get all the answers.i need answers, i don't need faith.
ps: would you say that my belief in immortality(thanks to science)is silly? because then i could say that your belief in afterlife(if you have one)is silly as well
# posted by : February 15, 2010 at 5:24 AM
: February 15, 2010 at 5:24 AM
Trust Keynes, Bob.
Those wise PhD economists will not ruin the economy.
Have faith in Greenspan, Paulson, Bernanke, and Geithner...
Those wise PhD economists will not ruin the economy.
Have faith in Greenspan, Paulson, Bernanke, and Geithner...
# posted by : February 15, 2010 at 6:12 AM
: February 15, 2010 at 6:12 AM
Seriously, to use a PhD department to try to prove your point that it is okay to have faith in your elders or scholars is ludicrous.
Especially in physics, not to mention by someone that went through a PhD program in economics and nonetheless has studied the austrian school in-depth.
Especially in physics, not to mention by someone that went through a PhD program in economics and nonetheless has studied the austrian school in-depth.
# posted by : February 15, 2010 at 6:19 AM
: February 15, 2010 at 6:19 AM
Is there a DOG?
...
The reason why it's impossible, is because from the very get go - the question doesn't make any GOD damned sense.
"The assertion of an order of natural laws discoverable by reason is, by itself, neither pro- nor anti-religious." - MNR
Let's just leave it at that, shall we?
...
The reason why it's impossible, is because from the very get go - the question doesn't make any GOD damned sense.
"The assertion of an order of natural laws discoverable by reason is, by itself, neither pro- nor anti-religious." - MNR
Let's just leave it at that, shall we?
# posted by : February 15, 2010 at 9:25 AM
: February 15, 2010 at 9:25 AM
Jim: "I lost my atheism when I read about creation evidences."
Interesting. I have read about a Russian scientists who came to Christ through science and studying origins, but few Americans. It's interesting that Russian and Chinese scientists are much less threatened by creationism than are Americans. It's much easier for Russian and Chinese atheists to see the scientific errors in evolution. We have an Inquisition going on in the US that purges everyone in the university who even doubts evolution.
As for the dichotomy of faith and science, faith is irrational by definition today. That's not because faith is irrational in reality; that's just how faith is defined today. As socialists have redefined justice, so society has succeeded in redefining faith. But they had some help. Kierkegaard was the first prominent theologian, as far as I know, to define faith as the irrational "leap in the dark."
"The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World" by Alister McGrath provides a good history of modern atheism. Modern atheism started long before Darwin and clearly had no scientific evidence for it. People simply decided they no longer wanted to believe in God. They didn't try to argue against God, they simply insulted Christians into submission.
Atheists gained an edge with the popularization of evolution through Darwin. The creation had always been the main evidence for the existence of God, although theologians also tried to provide logic for his existence, too.
But the real blow to traditional Christianity came with the redefinition of science and truth. Socialist atheists defined science as natural science and nothing else. And then truth became what natural science discovered and nothing else, a very narrow definition of truth and science. Even in the late 1800's, theology was considered the queen of the sciences because science had a much broader definition at the time.
As Mises fought against the too narrow definition of science, and for methodological dualism, Christianity needs to do the same thing. There is more to truth than merely natural science; logic plays a far greater role in discovering truth than does the scientific method.
As Francis Schaffer demonstrated, you can make a logical case for God and Christ that is far more sound and reasonable than can be made for atheism, but no one can prove anything to anyone because proof is in the eye of the beholder. Some people require little proof, others require impossible proof. I have asked many atheists what they would consider sufficient proof of God and I have yet to get a serious answer. What that says is that atheists would accept no evidence whatsoever.
To return to your post, I think Christians who aren't creationists, or at least followers of intelligent design, have given up the main argument for God.
Interesting. I have read about a Russian scientists who came to Christ through science and studying origins, but few Americans. It's interesting that Russian and Chinese scientists are much less threatened by creationism than are Americans. It's much easier for Russian and Chinese atheists to see the scientific errors in evolution. We have an Inquisition going on in the US that purges everyone in the university who even doubts evolution.
As for the dichotomy of faith and science, faith is irrational by definition today. That's not because faith is irrational in reality; that's just how faith is defined today. As socialists have redefined justice, so society has succeeded in redefining faith. But they had some help. Kierkegaard was the first prominent theologian, as far as I know, to define faith as the irrational "leap in the dark."
"The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World" by Alister McGrath provides a good history of modern atheism. Modern atheism started long before Darwin and clearly had no scientific evidence for it. People simply decided they no longer wanted to believe in God. They didn't try to argue against God, they simply insulted Christians into submission.
Atheists gained an edge with the popularization of evolution through Darwin. The creation had always been the main evidence for the existence of God, although theologians also tried to provide logic for his existence, too.
But the real blow to traditional Christianity came with the redefinition of science and truth. Socialist atheists defined science as natural science and nothing else. And then truth became what natural science discovered and nothing else, a very narrow definition of truth and science. Even in the late 1800's, theology was considered the queen of the sciences because science had a much broader definition at the time.
As Mises fought against the too narrow definition of science, and for methodological dualism, Christianity needs to do the same thing. There is more to truth than merely natural science; logic plays a far greater role in discovering truth than does the scientific method.
As Francis Schaffer demonstrated, you can make a logical case for God and Christ that is far more sound and reasonable than can be made for atheism, but no one can prove anything to anyone because proof is in the eye of the beholder. Some people require little proof, others require impossible proof. I have asked many atheists what they would consider sufficient proof of God and I have yet to get a serious answer. What that says is that atheists would accept no evidence whatsoever.
To return to your post, I think Christians who aren't creationists, or at least followers of intelligent design, have given up the main argument for God.
# posted by : February 15, 2010 at 10:24 AM
: February 15, 2010 at 10:24 AM
I've got in some very interesting discussions with atheists.
One claimed that even if a saint were to appear before him, cure him of a fatal cancer and chronic injury in the name of the Lord he would attribute it to hallucination and psychosomatic healing.
Another claimed that Jesus, the man, never existed and the gospels were complete fabrications from nothing. He makes no such claim about the nonexistence of Buddha or Mohammed.
Both claims require just as much faith, even more irrationally, in my opinion.
One claimed that even if a saint were to appear before him, cure him of a fatal cancer and chronic injury in the name of the Lord he would attribute it to hallucination and psychosomatic healing.
Another claimed that Jesus, the man, never existed and the gospels were complete fabrications from nothing. He makes no such claim about the nonexistence of Buddha or Mohammed.
Both claims require just as much faith, even more irrationally, in my opinion.
# posted by : February 15, 2010 at 10:56 AM
: February 15, 2010 at 10:56 AM
I find the problem is more in the time frame. Most of the time no one can trust someone whom you do not meet. Your example that you would trust your brother so you should trust what Jesus said are two totally different examples. You look at the stories in a book that have been manipulated over generations and ask people to dedicate their lives to it with no evidence to it being true. Even if I trust the person who gave me the book and that person said they believe it without a doubt to be true, to say well I believe it then because you do is to abandon reason. If I wrote in a book on a page that 2+2=5 and gave it to my brother and said this is true, he would throw the book away. He concluded via the proofs that support math that 2+2=4 and so what I stated was irrelevant. Most of the stories cannot be verified, nor contradicted. Saying that reason would mean you could say then they happened is foolish. Reason would conclude you don't know what happened, other than some people wrote some stories about some events which may or may not have happened. Faith could sway you to say well they happened, but reason cannot.
# posted by : February 15, 2010 at 3:25 PM
: February 15, 2010 at 3:25 PM
Anon,
OK I don't expect to convince any atheists with this post that it's reasonable to believe someone walked on water etc. All I'm trying to do is show that some of the standard dichotomies are wrong. E.g. look at Herb's original reaction in the first comment.
Sometimes when people criticize "faith" in the religious context, they use arguments that prove way too much, as I hoped to demonstrate with the physics analogy. All I was doing there was showing that it's totally reasonable for you to trust in someone's character and testimony and believe in something even though it doesn't make sense to you. There's nothing irrational about this practice per se.
So you can concede the principle in the physics analogy, while denying it in belief in the gospel accounts; that's fine and I understand.
OK I don't expect to convince any atheists with this post that it's reasonable to believe someone walked on water etc. All I'm trying to do is show that some of the standard dichotomies are wrong. E.g. look at Herb's original reaction in the first comment.
Sometimes when people criticize "faith" in the religious context, they use arguments that prove way too much, as I hoped to demonstrate with the physics analogy. All I was doing there was showing that it's totally reasonable for you to trust in someone's character and testimony and believe in something even though it doesn't make sense to you. There's nothing irrational about this practice per se.
So you can concede the principle in the physics analogy, while denying it in belief in the gospel accounts; that's fine and I understand.
Anon,
"Faith is not a method. It's belief without or in spite of evidence. It can only give easy answers that are not grounded in reality."
When modern physicists tell you that they have done the math on the Big Bang, and that it works out, have you /checked that math?/
Have you done genetic testing to verify the relevance of the different types of mutation in the evolutionary process?
When your family members complain of terrible pain, do you hook them up to equipment to verify that they are hurting?
Have you tested whether you are capable of drinking enough alcohol to kill yourself?
If not, you are apparently not engaging in rational behavior. And your conclusions /are not grounded in reality./"
How nice of you to attribute conclusions, predicated on false dichotomies, to me. Speaking of which, you left out the option in which moi refrains from formulating a conclusion, since the information I possess is insufficient. Pray tell why have you reduced epistemology to some extreme and superfluous form of empirical verification? I can ascertain whether alcohol can kill me or not through simple deductive reasoning. Really, if you're trying to wriggle in some crap belief in alcohol poisoning = belief in god ( a matter of faith you would say), then get a sense of proportion.
"Faith is not a method. It's belief without or in spite of evidence. It can only give easy answers that are not grounded in reality."
When modern physicists tell you that they have done the math on the Big Bang, and that it works out, have you /checked that math?/
Have you done genetic testing to verify the relevance of the different types of mutation in the evolutionary process?
When your family members complain of terrible pain, do you hook them up to equipment to verify that they are hurting?
Have you tested whether you are capable of drinking enough alcohol to kill yourself?
If not, you are apparently not engaging in rational behavior. And your conclusions /are not grounded in reality./"
How nice of you to attribute conclusions, predicated on false dichotomies, to me. Speaking of which, you left out the option in which moi refrains from formulating a conclusion, since the information I possess is insufficient. Pray tell why have you reduced epistemology to some extreme and superfluous form of empirical verification? I can ascertain whether alcohol can kill me or not through simple deductive reasoning. Really, if you're trying to wriggle in some crap belief in alcohol poisoning = belief in god ( a matter of faith you would say), then get a sense of proportion.
# posted by : February 16, 2010 at 2:37 AM
: February 16, 2010 at 2:37 AM
I have yet to notice an impressive display of scientific acumen on the part of the theists. Creationists still can't get technical with their opponents, let alone traverse past their own banal strawmen. No point in bother I guess. They'll skip the research phase an apologetically reconcile quantum physics with god and their religion. It's time to realize the limit of dogmatic devotion to thought experiments (lousy ones at that), since they sooner or later collide and get ko'd by new scientific discoveries.
# posted by : February 16, 2010 at 3:34 AM
: February 16, 2010 at 3:34 AM
Anon: "Creationists still can't get technical with their opponents, let alone traverse past their own banal strawmen."
You clearly have not read anything by creation scientists. I doubt you will bother, either, because it would be too disturbing to your world view. But if you ever screw up the courage, you might check out creationscience.com or the book "Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome" by John C Sanford, former prof of genetics at Cornell for 20 years.
You clearly have not read anything by creation scientists. I doubt you will bother, either, because it would be too disturbing to your world view. But if you ever screw up the courage, you might check out creationscience.com or the book "Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome" by John C Sanford, former prof of genetics at Cornell for 20 years.
# posted by : February 16, 2010 at 10:48 AM
: February 16, 2010 at 10:48 AM
Showing that Christianity is rational is a lot simpler than proving it to somebody.
In multiple occasions, Jesus claimed that his testimony was supported by 2 or 3 witnesses, John the Baptist, Jesus himself, and God the father through Jesus' miracles, fulfilling the Jewish requirement for legal testimony in a court of law.
Most of the other good arguments follow from human behavior. Given Austrian economists avoidance of requiring analytical proof for economics, I am curious if they might be more sympathetic to these arguments.
In multiple occasions, Jesus claimed that his testimony was supported by 2 or 3 witnesses, John the Baptist, Jesus himself, and God the father through Jesus' miracles, fulfilling the Jewish requirement for legal testimony in a court of law.
Most of the other good arguments follow from human behavior. Given Austrian economists avoidance of requiring analytical proof for economics, I am curious if they might be more sympathetic to these arguments.
Bob,
This is my first post ever and so to start I would like to say I look to you as one of the more prominent figures able to speak or write about economics opposed to the nonsense of Krugman, De Long, and the others. I am quite startled by this blog post for a few reasons.
First, one could use the exact same argument about Jesus as they could Abe Lincoln, and it would have much more of a fact base. There are no legitimate documents that say Jesus existed except of course "The New Testament". All of the stories written about Jesus came decades after his supposed death in a time where people had little to no idea of their surroundings.
Second, if you see the harms of having a centrally planned economy or government for that matter, how can you justify a centrally planned eternity. It would seem a bit unfair to those who do not accept Jesus as their savior to be forced into an eternity of hell.
Third, I do not understand how you can compare a Nobel laureate who had to prove something, to the notion that because God says to murder, it becomes a moral action. Keep in mind that Paul Krugman is also a Nobel laureate.
Are you saying that you think the earth is 6000 years old?
Would you want creation taught in public schools instead of evolution?
These questions may be intrusive but I need clarification on how you can argue against physical science, which all religion contradicts.
This is my first post ever and so to start I would like to say I look to you as one of the more prominent figures able to speak or write about economics opposed to the nonsense of Krugman, De Long, and the others. I am quite startled by this blog post for a few reasons.
First, one could use the exact same argument about Jesus as they could Abe Lincoln, and it would have much more of a fact base. There are no legitimate documents that say Jesus existed except of course "The New Testament". All of the stories written about Jesus came decades after his supposed death in a time where people had little to no idea of their surroundings.
Second, if you see the harms of having a centrally planned economy or government for that matter, how can you justify a centrally planned eternity. It would seem a bit unfair to those who do not accept Jesus as their savior to be forced into an eternity of hell.
Third, I do not understand how you can compare a Nobel laureate who had to prove something, to the notion that because God says to murder, it becomes a moral action. Keep in mind that Paul Krugman is also a Nobel laureate.
Are you saying that you think the earth is 6000 years old?
Would you want creation taught in public schools instead of evolution?
These questions may be intrusive but I need clarification on how you can argue against physical science, which all religion contradicts.
Roger, I don’t know that Bob will have time to respond, so until he does, may I take a shot?
Roger: “There are no legitimate documents that say Jesus existed except of course "The New Testament". All of the stories written about Jesus came decades after his supposed death in a time where people had little to no idea of their surroundings.”
There are some Romans, and of Josephus, who wrote about Jesus. For more check out “The Case for the Real Jesus” by Lee Strobel. The NT was written by eye-witnesses or people very close to eye-witnesses. Museums have copies of NT books written in the first century.
Roger: “if you see the harms of having a centrally planned economy or government for that matter, how can you justify a centrally planned eternity.”
The reason libertarians oppose a centrally planned economy is because of the limitation of knowledge and wisdom that afflict humanity. Central planning by God would not be subject to those limitations.
Roger: “Are you saying that you think the earth is 6000 years old?”
Based on past posts, I would guess that Bob believes that God guided evolution, so the earth is as old as evolutionary science claims it is. On the other hand, I would say the earth is close to 6,000 years old.
Roger: “Would you want creation taught in public schools instead of evolution?”
No. I would want someone competent to teach it. And I think everyone should be knowledgeable in both. I tried to ensure that my kids knew evolution and creation science equally well so they could discuss them intelligently.
Roger: “I need clarification on how you can argue against physical science, which all religion contradicts.”
That’s because they don’t contradict. Creation science contradicts one tiny sliver of science, the theory of evolution, which is totally irrelevant to any other area of science.
Roger: “There are no legitimate documents that say Jesus existed except of course "The New Testament". All of the stories written about Jesus came decades after his supposed death in a time where people had little to no idea of their surroundings.”
There are some Romans, and of Josephus, who wrote about Jesus. For more check out “The Case for the Real Jesus” by Lee Strobel. The NT was written by eye-witnesses or people very close to eye-witnesses. Museums have copies of NT books written in the first century.
Roger: “if you see the harms of having a centrally planned economy or government for that matter, how can you justify a centrally planned eternity.”
The reason libertarians oppose a centrally planned economy is because of the limitation of knowledge and wisdom that afflict humanity. Central planning by God would not be subject to those limitations.
Roger: “Are you saying that you think the earth is 6000 years old?”
Based on past posts, I would guess that Bob believes that God guided evolution, so the earth is as old as evolutionary science claims it is. On the other hand, I would say the earth is close to 6,000 years old.
Roger: “Would you want creation taught in public schools instead of evolution?”
No. I would want someone competent to teach it. And I think everyone should be knowledgeable in both. I tried to ensure that my kids knew evolution and creation science equally well so they could discuss them intelligently.
Roger: “I need clarification on how you can argue against physical science, which all religion contradicts.”
That’s because they don’t contradict. Creation science contradicts one tiny sliver of science, the theory of evolution, which is totally irrelevant to any other area of science.
# posted by : February 17, 2010 at 5:54 PM
: February 17, 2010 at 5:54 PM
Fundamentalist,
I appreciate you clarifying me on some of Bobs positions. I admit I do not like to criticize prior to knowing exactly what someone believes but now I can be sure. I also agree that Bob is probably to busy to respond.
Obviously I don't have enough time to read the suggested book, however the NT was written at least 50 years after Jesus supposedly died. There is no one who can dispute that fact.
I am aware of the reason libertarians oppose a centrally planned government...I am one. If your God exists and is so great why did he create humans with such a limitation. Is that not cruelty? I just find it interesting that anything can be considered moral as long as God said it was ok.
Saying the earth is close to 6,000 years old means that you could not possibly believe in nuclear energy. Check out Radiocarbon dating.
Also it is a common misconception to call "creationism" a science of any kind, as it fails to meet the requirements of a plausible theory. A theory, by definition, needs to be backed up with empirical evidence gathered over time. None of this evidence exists in any other form on the planet except the Bible. Therefore to teach it in any kind of government funded school would violate the division of church and state.
I appreciate you clarifying me on some of Bobs positions. I admit I do not like to criticize prior to knowing exactly what someone believes but now I can be sure. I also agree that Bob is probably to busy to respond.
Obviously I don't have enough time to read the suggested book, however the NT was written at least 50 years after Jesus supposedly died. There is no one who can dispute that fact.
I am aware of the reason libertarians oppose a centrally planned government...I am one. If your God exists and is so great why did he create humans with such a limitation. Is that not cruelty? I just find it interesting that anything can be considered moral as long as God said it was ok.
Saying the earth is close to 6,000 years old means that you could not possibly believe in nuclear energy. Check out Radiocarbon dating.
Also it is a common misconception to call "creationism" a science of any kind, as it fails to meet the requirements of a plausible theory. A theory, by definition, needs to be backed up with empirical evidence gathered over time. None of this evidence exists in any other form on the planet except the Bible. Therefore to teach it in any kind of government funded school would violate the division of church and state.
Roger: "the NT was written at least 50 years after Jesus supposedly died."
Yes, but it was written by eye witnesses and when the books were written there were plenty of people still alive who could contest or verify the history provided.
Roger: "If your God exists and is so great why did he create humans with such a limitation. Is that not cruelty?"
He didn't. He created mankind perfect. But he also gave mankind a free will, which would allow them to rebel of they chose to. That rebellion changed man's nature and gave us the tendency to do evil.
"Check out Radiocarbon dating."
I have. There are many problems with it. I can't give you a dissertation here, but radiocarbon dating methods have dated newly formed rock as billions of years old. Also, when geologists send rock samples to labs, they get dates ranging from a few thousand years old to several billion years. It's far from being science.
"A theory, by definition, needs to be backed up with empirical evidence gathered over time. None of this evidence exists in any other form on the planet except the Bible."
You're only advertising your ignorance of the field of creation science. There are dozens of PhD's from top schools doing research in all fields and providing empirical, verifiable evidence. Whole encyclopedia's have been written on the empirical science alone. A good summary of the science is in the book at the web site creationscience.com.
Yes, but it was written by eye witnesses and when the books were written there were plenty of people still alive who could contest or verify the history provided.
Roger: "If your God exists and is so great why did he create humans with such a limitation. Is that not cruelty?"
He didn't. He created mankind perfect. But he also gave mankind a free will, which would allow them to rebel of they chose to. That rebellion changed man's nature and gave us the tendency to do evil.
"Check out Radiocarbon dating."
I have. There are many problems with it. I can't give you a dissertation here, but radiocarbon dating methods have dated newly formed rock as billions of years old. Also, when geologists send rock samples to labs, they get dates ranging from a few thousand years old to several billion years. It's far from being science.
"A theory, by definition, needs to be backed up with empirical evidence gathered over time. None of this evidence exists in any other form on the planet except the Bible."
You're only advertising your ignorance of the field of creation science. There are dozens of PhD's from top schools doing research in all fields and providing empirical, verifiable evidence. Whole encyclopedia's have been written on the empirical science alone. A good summary of the science is in the book at the web site creationscience.com.
# posted by : February 18, 2010 at 9:48 AM
: February 18, 2010 at 9:48 AM
Fundamentalist,
Yes, I'm sure that the men writing the NT had no ulterior motives on getting people to believe that a man had the power to walk on water and heal people. Surely since they said they were eyewitnesses to all of these magical events it must have been the truth.
Please give me the names of 5 PhDs from top universities who are doing empirical research in the field of creation science.
Also to say that they have dated rocks that are billions of years old is simply untrue. Half lifes a re measured in the tens of thousands,so its an age +/-1 unit half life.
Your claiming that this is not science. If that is the case, I would like for you to explain to me how nuclear reactors work if radioactive carbon dating is random and inaccurate. How can you explain the very precise an predictable reactions we can create.
Yes, I'm sure that the men writing the NT had no ulterior motives on getting people to believe that a man had the power to walk on water and heal people. Surely since they said they were eyewitnesses to all of these magical events it must have been the truth.
Please give me the names of 5 PhDs from top universities who are doing empirical research in the field of creation science.
Also to say that they have dated rocks that are billions of years old is simply untrue. Half lifes a re measured in the tens of thousands,so its an age +/-1 unit half life.
Your claiming that this is not science. If that is the case, I would like for you to explain to me how nuclear reactors work if radioactive carbon dating is random and inaccurate. How can you explain the very precise an predictable reactions we can create.
Fundamentalist,
You should explore the methods of the Princeton theologians Hodge and Warfield. It would open up the world of both theology and science to you. Creation science is not science, it is an embarrassment to intelligent Christians!
Jim Fedako,
Unlike the Princeton theologians, don't cave too soon into presuppositional apologetics. Theism is reasonable, and some modern philosopher-theologians think it can indeed be reasonably argued. Some of the classical arguments (cosmological and ontological) are really quite strong (if tweaked correctly).
You should explore the methods of the Princeton theologians Hodge and Warfield. It would open up the world of both theology and science to you. Creation science is not science, it is an embarrassment to intelligent Christians!
Jim Fedako,
Unlike the Princeton theologians, don't cave too soon into presuppositional apologetics. Theism is reasonable, and some modern philosopher-theologians think it can indeed be reasonably argued. Some of the classical arguments (cosmological and ontological) are really quite strong (if tweaked correctly).
# posted by : February 18, 2010 at 9:56 PM
: February 18, 2010 at 9:56 PM
“Yes, I'm sure that the men writing the NT had no ulterior motives on getting people to believe that a man had the power to walk on water and heal people.”
There are many books on the life of Christ that answer your questions very satisfactorily, but you have to be willing to take the time to read them. But what you claim is that the apostles invented a lie about Jesus in order to what, make sure they were murdered by the Romans? If they knew they were lying, why would they be willing to die for their own lies? They certainly didn’t get any money out of it and they all died horrible deaths, except for John who survived being boiled in oil.
“Please give me the names of 5 PhDs from top universities who are doing empirical research in the field of creation science.”
I can’t do that because of the Inquisition. That was what Ben Stein’s film was all about. Anyone in academia who even lets slip a small doubt about evolution gets canned or their career ruined. But if you want a list of PhD’s who promote creation after they retire, see Walt Brown’s book at creationscience.com.
“Also to say that they have dated rocks that are billions of years old is simply untrue. Half lifes a re measured in the tens of thousands,so its an age +/-1 unit half life.”
It is true, but you refuse to read anything that might endanger your world view. If you’re so afraid of creationists, try an honest evolutionist. Roger Lewin, a devout evolutionist, wrote “Bones of Contention” to provide an honest look at the “science” of evolution. He has a chapter on the junk science of radiocarbon dating methods.
“Your claiming that this is not science. If that is the case, I would like for you to explain to me how nuclear reactors work if radioactive carbon dating is random and inaccurate. How can you explain the very precise an predictable reactions we can create.”
There is a huge difference between radioactive carbon dating methods and the science of nuclear reactors. See Roger Lewin’s book.
There are many books on the life of Christ that answer your questions very satisfactorily, but you have to be willing to take the time to read them. But what you claim is that the apostles invented a lie about Jesus in order to what, make sure they were murdered by the Romans? If they knew they were lying, why would they be willing to die for their own lies? They certainly didn’t get any money out of it and they all died horrible deaths, except for John who survived being boiled in oil.
“Please give me the names of 5 PhDs from top universities who are doing empirical research in the field of creation science.”
I can’t do that because of the Inquisition. That was what Ben Stein’s film was all about. Anyone in academia who even lets slip a small doubt about evolution gets canned or their career ruined. But if you want a list of PhD’s who promote creation after they retire, see Walt Brown’s book at creationscience.com.
“Also to say that they have dated rocks that are billions of years old is simply untrue. Half lifes a re measured in the tens of thousands,so its an age +/-1 unit half life.”
It is true, but you refuse to read anything that might endanger your world view. If you’re so afraid of creationists, try an honest evolutionist. Roger Lewin, a devout evolutionist, wrote “Bones of Contention” to provide an honest look at the “science” of evolution. He has a chapter on the junk science of radiocarbon dating methods.
“Your claiming that this is not science. If that is the case, I would like for you to explain to me how nuclear reactors work if radioactive carbon dating is random and inaccurate. How can you explain the very precise an predictable reactions we can create.”
There is a huge difference between radioactive carbon dating methods and the science of nuclear reactors. See Roger Lewin’s book.
# posted by : February 19, 2010 at 9:40 AM
: February 19, 2010 at 9:40 AM
Ksralla,
I have read Hodge and Warfield. So? Are they infallible?
"Creation science is not science, it is an embarrassment to intelligent Christians!"
Not to those who bother to read the science. Creation science follows the scientific method better than does evolutionary science and escapes all of the logic fallacies such as the enormous amount of circular reasoning found in evolution.
BTW, have you read Dr. Brown's book at creationscience.com?
I have read Hodge and Warfield. So? Are they infallible?
"Creation science is not science, it is an embarrassment to intelligent Christians!"
Not to those who bother to read the science. Creation science follows the scientific method better than does evolutionary science and escapes all of the logic fallacies such as the enormous amount of circular reasoning found in evolution.
BTW, have you read Dr. Brown's book at creationscience.com?
# posted by : February 19, 2010 at 9:44 AM
: February 19, 2010 at 9:44 AM
The best Creation Science researcher I have heard is Joel Klenck:
http://paleorc.com/PaleontologicalResearchCorporation-bio-joelklenck.asp
http://paleorc.com/PaleontologicalResearchCorporation-bio-joelklenck.asp
I looked up all of your authors and could not find any credentials to back up what you are saying. To even think Ben Stein's documentary should even be considered as evidence for anything is to say that Michael Moore's new film is an accurate portrayal of what capitalism is.
The fact that you can't name me one current creation scientist doing empirical research after claiming there are many, seems troubling to me if you think that is a sufficient argument.
Are you aware of the definition of empirical evidence. If there was any such thing on the planet, how could it be kept such a secret...especially in a country where it is predominately Christian.
Saying that radiocarbon dating and nuclear energy have nothing to do with one another is saying that coffee beans don't go into to making coffee. It is the primary ingredient in nuclear power plant reactor cores.
Do you also reject the fact that dinosaurs existed?
The fact that you can't name me one current creation scientist doing empirical research after claiming there are many, seems troubling to me if you think that is a sufficient argument.
Are you aware of the definition of empirical evidence. If there was any such thing on the planet, how could it be kept such a secret...especially in a country where it is predominately Christian.
Saying that radiocarbon dating and nuclear energy have nothing to do with one another is saying that coffee beans don't go into to making coffee. It is the primary ingredient in nuclear power plant reactor cores.
Do you also reject the fact that dinosaurs existed?
In the way of full discretion, I am a professional geologist/geophysicist who for over 20 years has researched the mysteries of Earth in deep time. (theology only in my spare time). Although that will not impress you, may I humbly suggest that you have no clue what you are talking about. Asserting the Earth is 6000 years old in the face of a mountain of physical evidence is an embarrassment analogous to holding that the Earth is the geometric center of the universe. One must willfully choose to remain ignorant of revealed reality in order to continue to hold to such a view. Now saying all of that, I fully affirm my belief in the inerrancy of Holy scripture, and my faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, crucified, and risen from the dead.
Now suppose one were to be transported back 200 million years ago onto the surface of Earth, what would they observe? It seems that they would see the same processes operating on the planet that operate today. Physical reality still operated by the same mechanisms as we see today. Where then is God? He is there, transcendent, yet pervading his creation, molding the very fabric of reality according to his sovereign will and designs.
Now suppose one were to be transported back 200 million years ago onto the surface of Earth, what would they observe? It seems that they would see the same processes operating on the planet that operate today. Physical reality still operated by the same mechanisms as we see today. Where then is God? He is there, transcendent, yet pervading his creation, molding the very fabric of reality according to his sovereign will and designs.
# posted by : February 19, 2010 at 9:07 PM
: February 19, 2010 at 9:07 PM
K Sralla,
It is good to hear some common sense coming from someone who does believe in all that.
Would you at least admit that you are taking a leap of faith and there is no empirical evidence to suggest that Jesus is the son of God and that God actually exists in the way you claim?
It is good to hear some common sense coming from someone who does believe in all that.
Would you at least admit that you are taking a leap of faith and there is no empirical evidence to suggest that Jesus is the son of God and that God actually exists in the way you claim?
Roger,
Thank you for the compliment, and a very good question!
We all believe in some type of Supreme Being. Even the atheistic naturalist believes in a transcendent physical reality that somehow is contemplating its own being. Can you imagine a random clustering of particles having stochastic properties, and that by some random force of nature, this clump of stuff contemplates its own being? That's what the naturalist asserts. - An uncaused reality, transcendent, eternal, contemplative, exerting will to some degree, and ever evolving forever and forever. The naturalist has in effect erected the modern shrine to the unknown God.
Paul in his sermon to the Athenians (approximately 58 AD) addresses this view, and tells the philosophers and general public that he would now make known to them this "unknown God", whom their poets spoke of when they declared "in him we live and breath and have our being". Paul asserts that he saw the resurrected Jesus, who during his lifetime had claimed to be the Messiah, and of equal standing with God the Father. Paul further tells us in his letters that Jesus, the perfect fulfillment of the ancient law and prophets, lived among us, and after his crucifixion was seen of hundreds. Finally, Paul makes the incredible claim that Jesus appeared to him personally, and taught him the Gospel that he proclaimed.
So to answer your question, I have never seen Jesus in the flesh, and cannot use any geophysical technique to demonstrate that the Apostles were correct in their assertions as to his messianic personhood. The thing I assert is that my mind is no longer resistant (as it once was) to the claims of truthfulness of their Gospel, and I now cling only to Jesus Christ for salvation from my sins, and look to him alone as the incarnation of this God whom others know only tangentially through nature and philosophy.
That view does not appear reasonable to the mind of unbelievers. In fact it is foolishness to everyone except those who believe.
Post a Comment
Thank you for the compliment, and a very good question!
We all believe in some type of Supreme Being. Even the atheistic naturalist believes in a transcendent physical reality that somehow is contemplating its own being. Can you imagine a random clustering of particles having stochastic properties, and that by some random force of nature, this clump of stuff contemplates its own being? That's what the naturalist asserts. - An uncaused reality, transcendent, eternal, contemplative, exerting will to some degree, and ever evolving forever and forever. The naturalist has in effect erected the modern shrine to the unknown God.
Paul in his sermon to the Athenians (approximately 58 AD) addresses this view, and tells the philosophers and general public that he would now make known to them this "unknown God", whom their poets spoke of when they declared "in him we live and breath and have our being". Paul asserts that he saw the resurrected Jesus, who during his lifetime had claimed to be the Messiah, and of equal standing with God the Father. Paul further tells us in his letters that Jesus, the perfect fulfillment of the ancient law and prophets, lived among us, and after his crucifixion was seen of hundreds. Finally, Paul makes the incredible claim that Jesus appeared to him personally, and taught him the Gospel that he proclaimed.
So to answer your question, I have never seen Jesus in the flesh, and cannot use any geophysical technique to demonstrate that the Apostles were correct in their assertions as to his messianic personhood. The thing I assert is that my mind is no longer resistant (as it once was) to the claims of truthfulness of their Gospel, and I now cling only to Jesus Christ for salvation from my sins, and look to him alone as the incarnation of this God whom others know only tangentially through nature and philosophy.
That view does not appear reasonable to the mind of unbelievers. In fact it is foolishness to everyone except those who believe.
# posted by : February 20, 2010 at 4:56 PM
: February 20, 2010 at 4:56 PM Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]