Can all the incredible specified complexity in life be explained by chance? Not a chance! Atheists and theists alike have caculated the probability that life could arise by chance by non-living chemicals. The figures they caculate are astronomically small - virtually zero. Michael Behe has said that the probability of getting one protein molecule (which has 100 amino acids) by chance would be the same as a blindfolded man finding one marked grain of sand in the Sahara Desert three times in a row. And one protein molecule is not life. To get life, you would need about 200 of those protein molecules together.
Even though the probability is virtually zero, we believe the probability is actually zero. Why? Because "chance" is not a cause. Chance is a word we use to describe mathematical possibilities. It has no power on its own. Chance is no thing. Its what rocks dream about.
If someone flips a fair coin, what's the chance it would come up heads? Fifty percent, we say. Yes, but what caused it to come up heads? Is it chance? No, the primary cause is an intelligent being who decided to flip the coin and apply so much force in doing so. Secondary causes, such as the physical forces of wind and gravity, also impact the result of the flip. If we knew all those variables, we could calculate how the flip would turn out beforehand. But since we don't know those variables, we use the word "chance" to cover our ignorance.
We shouldn't allow atheists to cover up their ignorance with the word "chance."
If they don't know a natural mechanism by which the first life could have come into existence, then they should admit they don't know rather than suggesting a powerless word that, of course, really isn't a cause at all. "Chance" is just another example of the bad science practiced by Darwinists.
Saturday, February 23, 2013
Friday, February 22, 2013
Mythology/Paganism
Atop the Greek pantheon or hierarchy of gods sat Zeus, son of Cronus. According to myth, Cronus, who had seized government of the world from his father Uranus, ordinarily devoured his own children as soon as they were born. But the mother of Zeus saved her infant by giving Cronus a stone wrapped in baby blankets to swallow. On reaching adulthood, Zeus overthrew his father and divided the dominion with his two brothers, Poseidon, who ruled the sea, and Hades, who ruled the underworld. Zeus himself ruled the heavens. The gods had access to earth from their capital, Mount Olympus in Greece.
Zeus had to quell occasional rebellions by the gods, who exhibited the human traits of passion and lust, love and jealousy, anger and hate. In fact, the gods excelled human beings only in power, intelligence, and immortality - certainly not in morality. A very popular god was Apollo, son of Zeus and inspirer of poets, seers, and prophets. He played many other roles as well. At Delphi, Greece, a temple of Apollo stood over a cavern, out of which issued vapors thought to be his breath. A priestess seated on a tripod over the opening inhaled the fumes and in a trance muttered words which were written and vaguely interpreted by priests in answer to inquiring worshipers.
Zeus had to quell occasional rebellions by the gods, who exhibited the human traits of passion and lust, love and jealousy, anger and hate. In fact, the gods excelled human beings only in power, intelligence, and immortality - certainly not in morality. A very popular god was Apollo, son of Zeus and inspirer of poets, seers, and prophets. He played many other roles as well. At Delphi, Greece, a temple of Apollo stood over a cavern, out of which issued vapors thought to be his breath. A priestess seated on a tripod over the opening inhaled the fumes and in a trance muttered words which were written and vaguely interpreted by priests in answer to inquiring worshipers.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Which Rationality?
Timothy Keller, in his book The Reason for God writes the following:
"I want to show that there are sufficient reasons for believing Christianity. Priminent disbelievers in Christianity today - Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens - insist that sufficient reasons do not exist for the existence of God. Dawkins, for example, says that the claim of God's existence is a scientific hypothesis that should be open to rational demonstration The God Delusion, p. 31ff. He and his co-skeptics want a logical or empiral argument for God that is airtight and therefore convinces almost everyone. They won't believe in God until they get it.
Is there anything wrong with that? I think so. These authors are evaluating Christian arguments by what some have called "strong rationlism." Its proponents laid down what was called the "verification principle," namely, that no one should believe a proposition unless it can be proved rationally by logic or empircaly by sense experience. What is mean by the word "proved'? Proof, in this view, is an argument so strong that no one person whose logical facutlies are operating properly would have any reason for disbelieving it. Atheists and agnostics ask for this kind of "proof" for God, but are not alone in holding to strong rationalism. Many Christians claim that their arguments for faith are so sotrong that all who reject them are simply closing their minds to the truth out of fear or stubbornness.
Despite all the books calling Christians to provide proofs for their beliefs, you won't see philosphers doing so, not even the most atheistic. The great majority think that strong rationalism is nearly impossible to defend. To begin with, it can't live up to its own standards. How could you empircally prove that no one should believe something without empirical proof? You can't, and that reveals it to be, ultimately, a belief. Strong rationalism also assumes that it is possible to achieve "the view from nowhere," a position of almost complete objectivity, but virtually all philosophers today agree that is impossible. We come to every individual evaluation with all sorts of expierences and background beliefs that strongly influence our thinking and the way our reason works. It is not fair, then, to demand an argument that all rational people would have to bow to.
The philospher Thomas Nagel is an atheist, but in his book The Lat Word he admits that he can't come to the question of God in anything like a detached way. He confesses that he has a "fear of religion," and he doubts that anyone can address this issue without very powerful motives for seeing the arguments go on way or the other.
The philosophical indefensibility of "stron rationalism" is the reason that the books by Dawkins and Dennett have been getting such surprisingly rough treatment in scholarly journals. As just one example, the Marxist scholar Terry Eagleton wrote a scathing review of Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion in the Londong Review of Books. Eagleton attacks both of Dawkins's naive ideas, namely that faith has no rational component, and that reason isn't based to a great degree on faith.
Dawkins considers that all faith is blind faith, and that Christian and Muslim children are brought up to believe unquestioningly. Not even the dim-witted clerics who knocked me about at grammar school thought that. For mainstream Christianity, reason argument, and honest doubt have always played an integral role in belief... Reason, to be sure, doesnt go all the way down for believers, but it doesn't for most sensitive, civilized non-religious types either. Even Richard Dawkins lives more by faith than by reason. We hold many beliefs that have no umimpeachably rational justification, but are nonetheless reasonable to entertain....
If we reject strong rationalism, are we then stuck in relativism - without any way to judge one set of beliefs from another? Not at all. Complete relativism is impossible to maintain. "Critical thinking" assumes that there rare some arguments that many or even most rational people will find convincing, even though there is no argument that will be persuasive to everyone regardless of viewpoint. It assumes that some systems of belief are more reasonable that others, but that all arguments are rationally avoidable in the end. That is, you can always find reason to escape it that is not sheer bias or stubbornness. Nevertheless, this doesn't mean that we can't evaluate beliefs, only that we should not expect conclusive proof, and to demant it is unfair. Not even scietists proceed that way.
Scientists are very reluctant to ever say that a theory is "proved." Even Richard Dawkins admits that Darwin's theory cannot be finally proven, that 'new facts may come to light which will force our successors...to abandon Darwinism or modify it beyond recognition." But that doesn't mean that science cannot test theouries and find some far more empirically verifiable that others. A theory is considered empircially verified if it organizes the evidence and explains phenomena better than any conceivable alternative theory. That is, if, through testing, it leads us to expect with accuracy many and varied events better than any other rival account of the same data, then it is accepted, though not (in the strong rationalist sense) "proved."
"I want to show that there are sufficient reasons for believing Christianity. Priminent disbelievers in Christianity today - Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens - insist that sufficient reasons do not exist for the existence of God. Dawkins, for example, says that the claim of God's existence is a scientific hypothesis that should be open to rational demonstration The God Delusion, p. 31ff. He and his co-skeptics want a logical or empiral argument for God that is airtight and therefore convinces almost everyone. They won't believe in God until they get it.
Is there anything wrong with that? I think so. These authors are evaluating Christian arguments by what some have called "strong rationlism." Its proponents laid down what was called the "verification principle," namely, that no one should believe a proposition unless it can be proved rationally by logic or empircaly by sense experience. What is mean by the word "proved'? Proof, in this view, is an argument so strong that no one person whose logical facutlies are operating properly would have any reason for disbelieving it. Atheists and agnostics ask for this kind of "proof" for God, but are not alone in holding to strong rationalism. Many Christians claim that their arguments for faith are so sotrong that all who reject them are simply closing their minds to the truth out of fear or stubbornness.
Despite all the books calling Christians to provide proofs for their beliefs, you won't see philosphers doing so, not even the most atheistic. The great majority think that strong rationalism is nearly impossible to defend. To begin with, it can't live up to its own standards. How could you empircally prove that no one should believe something without empirical proof? You can't, and that reveals it to be, ultimately, a belief. Strong rationalism also assumes that it is possible to achieve "the view from nowhere," a position of almost complete objectivity, but virtually all philosophers today agree that is impossible. We come to every individual evaluation with all sorts of expierences and background beliefs that strongly influence our thinking and the way our reason works. It is not fair, then, to demand an argument that all rational people would have to bow to.
The philospher Thomas Nagel is an atheist, but in his book The Lat Word he admits that he can't come to the question of God in anything like a detached way. He confesses that he has a "fear of religion," and he doubts that anyone can address this issue without very powerful motives for seeing the arguments go on way or the other.
The philosophical indefensibility of "stron rationalism" is the reason that the books by Dawkins and Dennett have been getting such surprisingly rough treatment in scholarly journals. As just one example, the Marxist scholar Terry Eagleton wrote a scathing review of Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion in the Londong Review of Books. Eagleton attacks both of Dawkins's naive ideas, namely that faith has no rational component, and that reason isn't based to a great degree on faith.
Dawkins considers that all faith is blind faith, and that Christian and Muslim children are brought up to believe unquestioningly. Not even the dim-witted clerics who knocked me about at grammar school thought that. For mainstream Christianity, reason argument, and honest doubt have always played an integral role in belief... Reason, to be sure, doesnt go all the way down for believers, but it doesn't for most sensitive, civilized non-religious types either. Even Richard Dawkins lives more by faith than by reason. We hold many beliefs that have no umimpeachably rational justification, but are nonetheless reasonable to entertain....
If we reject strong rationalism, are we then stuck in relativism - without any way to judge one set of beliefs from another? Not at all. Complete relativism is impossible to maintain. "Critical thinking" assumes that there rare some arguments that many or even most rational people will find convincing, even though there is no argument that will be persuasive to everyone regardless of viewpoint. It assumes that some systems of belief are more reasonable that others, but that all arguments are rationally avoidable in the end. That is, you can always find reason to escape it that is not sheer bias or stubbornness. Nevertheless, this doesn't mean that we can't evaluate beliefs, only that we should not expect conclusive proof, and to demant it is unfair. Not even scietists proceed that way.
Scientists are very reluctant to ever say that a theory is "proved." Even Richard Dawkins admits that Darwin's theory cannot be finally proven, that 'new facts may come to light which will force our successors...to abandon Darwinism or modify it beyond recognition." But that doesn't mean that science cannot test theouries and find some far more empirically verifiable that others. A theory is considered empircially verified if it organizes the evidence and explains phenomena better than any conceivable alternative theory. That is, if, through testing, it leads us to expect with accuracy many and varied events better than any other rival account of the same data, then it is accepted, though not (in the strong rationalist sense) "proved."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)