Tag Archives: philosophy

Richard Dawkins Exposed

Posted on October 26, 2011 | 5 Comments

So Richard Dawkins has spoken, explaining his refusal to debate Christian philosopher William Lane Craig.

Forgive me if I’m not impressed with his explanation. Given that the debate is supposed to take place tomorrow, and that the event organizers will have an empty chair at the event (in his absence, Craig will deliver a critique of his God Delusion book), seems like an appropriate way to warm up to it.  It’s not like I’ll be able to add anything to the already lengthy conversation–minds much smarter than mine have already said it all–but I can’t resist, so here goes.  I’ll just proceed in point-counter-point style.

Dawkins begins with a bang:

Don’t feel embarrassed if you’ve never heard of William Lane Craig. He parades himself as a philosopher, but none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name either. Perhaps he is a “theologian”. For some years now, Craig has been increasingly importunate in his efforts to cajole, harass or defame me into a debate with him. I have consistently refused, in the spirit, if not the letter, of a famous retort by the then president of the Royal Society: “That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine”.

This is quite a rhetorical backhand. Dawkins has his nose turned way, way up at Craig in this comment. It is typical of him. A close examination of the facts shows it to be flatly false, however.

All fine and good. I simply see no reason to buy that, though. I need an argument, a good one, not just a series of rhetorical jabs and loaded words—which is what he usually offers for this view.

First, before I get to the facts, though, let me address the “theologian” comment. In normal parlance, calling someone a theologian is not an insult, for theology is a body of knowledge and is a discipline of study every bit as legitimate as other academic disciplines. However, when guys like Dawkins says it, it is an insult. To him and his ilk, theology is utterly silly and is such junk that it cannot even come close to being a discipline of study.  In addition, if asking some philosophy professors if they’ve ever heard of WLC before is all he did to investigate who Craig is, he is being seriously negligent in his homework.

On to the main claim: is Craig a small-fry? A look at his credentials weighs in decisively against this. He would have a point if Craig were actually, say, The Pugnacious Irishman. He does not have an obligation to accept any and every challenge that comes his way. If I were to challenge him to a dual to be held at the Kiwanis Club of Cole County, Mo, a refusal would be reasonable. I really am a small-fry.

But in Craig’s case, it is not as if he just runs a puny blog or has just published a few creationist tracts and pamphlets by Tilamook County First Baptist Press. He has not only debated the best contemporary atheism has to offer over the last few decades, but he has published frequently in scholarly publications in a wide variety of topics. He has not only established himself in philosophy, but has shown himself conversant in science, cosmology, and history as well. In other words, he’s the real deal.

Consider just a small sampling of his publications:

  • “On Truth Conditions of Tensed Sentence Types.” Synthese 120 (2000): 265-270.
  • “The Extent of the Present.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 14 (2000): 165-185.
  • “Why Is It Now?” Ratio 18 (2000): 115-122.
  • “Timelessness, Creation, and God’s Real Relation to the World.” Laval théologique et philosphique 56 (2000): 93-112.
  • “Timelessness and Omnitemporality.” Philosophia Christi 2 (2000): 29-33.
  • “Omniscience, Tensed Facts, and Divine Eternity.” Faith and Philosophy 17 (2000): 225-241.
  • “ Relativity and the ‘Elimination’ of Absolute Time.” In Recent Advances in Relativity Theory. 2 Vols. Vol.1: Formal Interpretations, pp. 47-66. Ed. M. C. Duffy and Mogens Wegener. Palm Harbor, Flor.: Hadronic Press, 2000.
  • “Theistic Critiques of Atheism.” In The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, pp. 69-85. Ed. M. Martin. Cambridge Companions to Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 2007.
  • “The Metaphysics of Special Relativity: Three Views.” In Einstein, Relativity, and Absolute Simultaneity, pp. 11-49. Ed. Wm. L. Craig and Quentin Smith. Routledge Studies in Contemporary Philosophy. London: Routledge, 2007.
  • “Creation and Divine Action.” In The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Religion, pp. 318-28. Ed. Chad Meister and Paul Copan. London: Routledge, 2007.
  • “Naturalism and Intelligent Design.” In Intelligent Design, pp. 58-71. Ed. R. Stewart. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007.
  • “The Indispensability of Theological Meta-Ethical Foundations for Morality.” In Ethics, Society, and Religion . Ed. K. Clark, Z. Qingxiong, and X. Yie. Christian Academics 5. Shanghai: Guji Press, 2007.

This is all just a partial list from two years of a publications list that spans over 35 years.  It is all a matter of fact. It is all right there in his credentials.

In sum, Dawkins and co. saying it doesn’t make it so…adding sarcasm and such doesn’t help.

Heck, it’s not like I’m worshipping Craig; a debate with any top Christian scholar will do. Alvin Plantinga; J.P Moreland; Stephen Meyer; Darrell Bock; Paul Copan; Paul Moser. The list goes on and on. All these guys and more are widely recognized scholarly authorities in fields in which Dawkins has often commented, and I’m willing to be they’d be willing to have an exchange or two with him.

Dawkins’ fans have been quick to insist that “rigorous Christian scholar” is an oxymoron. That is a load of Tosh. Such a claim only shows that those who say it have shut themselves in a skeptic ghetto and have not substantively engaged with their opposition. Disagree with them if you must, but calling them “country bumpkins” does not inspire confidence on your behalf.

All this makes Dawkins’ words quite strange, for he has gone after much lesser opponents.

In an epitome of bullying presumption, Craig now proposes to place an empty chair on a stage in Oxford next week to symbolise my absence. The idea of cashing in on another’s name by conniving to share a stage with him is hardly new. But what are we to make of this attempt to turn my non-appearance into a self-promotion stunt? In the interests of transparency, I should point out that it isn’t only Oxford that won’t see me on the night Craig proposes to debate me in absentia: you can also see me not appear in Cambridge, Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow and, if time allows, Bristol.

Normally I would think such an action to be presumptuous, but in this case, given the circumstances, I think it entirely called for. Recall that Dawkins has been eager to engage much lesser opponents. In addition, keep in mind that Dawkins has not merely rested content with academic study, experimenting in his lab and publishing the results in academia. He has gone public, often, brashly so, practically shouting from the rooftops that God “almost certainly” does not exist, and if He did, at least the biblical God would be guilty of crimes against humanity. He has made a career of doing so.

I have no problem with Dawkins proclaiming so. He–and his skeptic friends–have every right to do so and every right to insist that guys like me are actually, objectively wrong. However, the confidence (dare I say cockiness?) with which he does so should be in direct proportion to his willingness to engage the best the opposition has to offer. This is the main reason why I’m making such a big deal of this refusal. A guy who says the sorts of things he says and is as influential as he is deserves a bit of a ribbing if he refuses to do this. Though he has willingly shared a platform with religious folk, he cannot seriously lay claim to the supposition that he has done so with the best. Like I said above, he has plenty to choose from, though Craig is a game choice right in front of him.

I therefore find his list of other places he won’t be quite off, for there is a big difference between the event in Oxford and those other places. At Oxford tomorrow, he has a chance to put all the talk and questions to rest. He has a chance to put his best against the best of his critics, and to do so in front of an international audience. I doubt those other invitations—if they actually represent real invitations—offer that sort of shot.

It’s as if I, as a high school wrestling coach, make a consistent practice of trash talking our cross-town rivals, and when the opposing coach offers me the chance to put my money where my mouth is by dualing his team on a certain day, I reply with, “Bah. Self-promotion! I decline, just like I decline to wrestle Bathgate Elementary school, Newhart Middle School, and Arborland Montessori.”

But Craig is not just a figure of fun. He has a dark side, and that is putting it kindly. Most churchmen these days wisely disown the horrific genocides ordered by the God of the Old Testament.

What follows this is a lengthy tirade against Craig’s defense of God’s actions regarding the Canaanites, concluding with, “Would you shake hands with a man who could write stuff like that? Would you share a platform with him? I wouldn’t, and I won’t. Even if I were not engaged to be in London on the day in question, I would be proud to leave that chair in Oxford eloquently empty.”

A few observations here. First, when he says “most churchmen” disavow the part of the Bible in question, he exaggerates. There are plenty of “churchmen” and plenty of “scholars” who do no such disavowing. But that’s neither here nor there. The main point is that Dawkins’ response is simply an argument by outrage, which is not very rigorous, and the only ones who find it persuasive are ones who already agree with Dawkins, or those who are easily cowed by people who act offended.

What’s more, if Craig really is an “apologist for genocide,” here’s Dawkins’ chance to put him out to pasture. If he were to debate Craig, that does not amount to an endorsement of Craig’s beliefs, afterall. If Craig really is a fiend, he’s an influential one, and Dawkins has stated many a time that it is his life’s goal to wipe this sort of belief from the earth. This is as good a chance as it gets.  Dawkins would be defending the thesis of one of his best selling books.  Seems like a great opportunity for him.  Why so gun shy?

Thirdly, Dawkins can’t be serious. Afterall, elsewhere he has said:

The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.

(“God’s Utility Function,” Scientific American, November, 1995, p. 85)

(HT: Wintery Knight)

Out of one side of his mouth, he denies the reality of evil and wickedness, but out of the other side of his mouth, he calls Craig’s beliefs wicked. He cannot have it both ways. He is either flatly contradicting his own worldview, borrowing capital when it is convenient, or he is merely expressing a personal dislike with Craig’s beliefs, as if saying “ewwww, broccoli.” In any case, he is not inspiring confidence.

What else can be said about all this? Dawkins and co. are quick to insinuate that Craig seems impressive simply because of his command of rhetoric. Craig “bamboozles his faith-head audience,” is how he puts it.

This is just beyond silly. If you ever watch him debate, you’ll see that Craig’s “debate style” is to stick to logical arguments, with premises backed up by historical and scientific evidence, and said premises lead deductively or inductively to a conclusion. He presses his opponents to either refute or rebut with premises more plausible than the ones he offered. He stays focused on the issue and does not rest content with rhetorical jabs and evasions from his opponents. Again, disagree with the arguments if you must, but don’t call this “bamboozling.”

Many who are outside the faithful (of Dawkins’ camp) are recognizing this for what it is. Richard Dawkins is being exposed.

→ 5 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , ,

A Presumption that Should be Questioned

Posted on August 13, 2011 | 2 Comments

When talking about same-sex marriage with an ssm advocate, I’ve found the trickiest thing is that often a host of presumptions and background assertions are silently and subtly stipulated from the get-go.  These presumptions are taken for granted and unquestioned by your conversation partner.  The problem is that they are just that: presumptions.  Presumptions deserve to be brought to the surface and questioned.  Perhaps, in the end, they will be found justified.  But they need to be examined explicitly.  Most presumptions on behalf of the ssm advocate turn out to be ill-founded in the end.

Amy Hall of Stand to Reason has some good points about one of those presumptions:

One common misconception in the same-sex marriage debate is the idea that the traditional legal definition of marriage is a violation of equal rights. Since this is an extremely emotionally charged accusation, it’s difficult to get past it into a real discussion of the issue.

 

Here’s the approach I usually take:

 

1. Nearly everyone who thinks the government ought to issue marriage licenses favors defining marriage in some way. That is, they favor excluding some combinations of people (polygamy, incest, etc.), not individuals, from the definition. Even judges. Even you!

 

2. You can’t consistently argue that by excluding certain combinations of people, traditional marriage violates equal rights—unless you also argue to remove every single boundary from the definition of marriage and say anyone can marry anyone, in whatever combination of numbers they like.

 

3. If you’re not willing to argue this, then you’re for having a definition with boundaries, which puts you on equal footing with the traditional marriage supporters.

 

4. So the question is, which definition should we use? It’s fine for you to argue that your definition of “two people who love each other” is better than my definition of “one man, one woman,” or someone else’s definition of “one man, multiple women,” but we need to start off by understanding that we’re arguing definitions, not rights.

 

It’s not unconstitutional to adopt either my or your definition, as long as it’s applied equally to every individual. Remember that the Constitution doesn’t recognize rights for combinations of people; rights only belong to individuals. So one can’t say that a man and five women have a right to get married; one can only say that each individual man or woman has the right to enter into marriage (no individual is excluded). This right is then acted upon according to the boundaries set by the state’s definition of what marriage is—boundaries which are equally applied to every individual. You would like to equally apply the boundary of “two people who love each other” (excluding some other combinations), and I would like to apply the boundary of “one man, one woman” to each individual equally.

 

But I agree that the boundaries we place on marriage need to be relevant to the institution of marriage in order to be legitimate, so why don’t we sit down and talk about the reasons why we each think the country should use our definition?

 

This definition-vs.-rights issue needs to be clarified. Otherwise, if you’re arguing for the boundaries of traditional marriage, you’ll enter the argument having already been unfairly declared an unconstitutional bigot before any of your reasons are explained (despite the fact that your opponent also favors certain boundaries), and anyone would be unlikely to listen to the reasons why you’re an unconstitutional bigot. We have to get past this first barrier if we want to be given the chance to make our case.

 

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , ,

Brave New World Visited

Posted on August 13, 2011 | 1 Comment

32 years old and until last week, I hadn’t read Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.  I know: can you believe it?

Much ink is spilled over the main themes of the book, such as governmental totalitarianism, the use of technology to control society, a moribund consumer culture, and how pursuit of a thin version of happiness erodes human responsibility, intellect, and dignity.

When it comes to these themes, there are many parallels to modern day society.  We might not have travelled down the spiral enough to emulate the BNW society totally, but there are parallels and they are striking.  In fact, Huxley wrote Brave New World Revisited twenty seven years later, and noted that our slouch towards the BNW society was preceeding much quicker than he thought it would…and just think, that was in 1958!  He was quite wrong on some things (the need for population control), but on the right track on others (effectiveness of propaganda).

I have to admit, though, that those themes above don’t really jar me that much.  A plethora of books have explored the dangers of an all-powerful government, and for all that’s great about technological progress, the sticky situations it can get us into are pretty evident to anyone willing to pause and think.

Allow me to deviate from where I’m going for a moment to dwell on this.  Here’s an example: donor insemination.  In the final analysis, it might be morally permissable.  But even those who staunchly advocate for it must recognize that it has, in key places, created some hairy questions.  For one, the very meaning of fatherhood has been muddied by this advance.  In years past, paternity was much more straightfoward.  But now, what if the donor suddenly decides he wants to parent the fruit of his loins?  Who’s your daddy: the one from whom you biologically come, or the man tied to the mother at the time?

Even if this question can be worked out satisfactorily in the end (not a stretch, but not the focus of this post), you do have to admit the situation donor insemination has created is not straightforward, either philosophically or legally.

But I digress.  Issues like these that the book raised, for some reason, didn’t really draw me that much.  There were other themes that did, though.

Many might recoil from the BNW society because of it’s culturally coercive methods to get rebels to act “in line” with the culture’s values.  Actually, that doesn’t give me much pause: all cultures must have bedrock values that are taken for granted, and those that flaunt them must be outcast.  If someone in our society had valued rape or human slavery, it would be right for us to use just about everything we could to get that individual to fall in line.

What I think is shocking in BNW is not that the society and government used coercive methods to get Bernard and Helmholz to get their act together; its the specific values that the culture took as bedrock and worthy of coercion that’s so shocking.

It is taken for granted that each individual is a commodity to be consumed sexually, rather than a human being with dignity.  It is taken for granted that running away from difficulty, problems, and the truth was the ultimate good (this was the point of Soma).  It is taken for granted that only the present is valuable, and history is bunk.  The list here could get quite long, but you get the point: a society that musters its resources to get rape fans and misogynists to fall in line is entirely appropriate; a society that counts you strange and isolation-worthy simply for preferring not to “have” the pneumatic co-ed in the cubicle next to you on a Wednesday night is another…the BNW’s values violated what Martin Luther King Jr called the “Law above the law,” and our souls intuitively recognize this and recoil from it.

Another thing I think is noteworthy about the citizens of BNW is their utter inability to even begin to understand someone who doesn’t fit their mold.  It’s not that they see the alternative worldview/values of the Savage and Bernard (and I’m not claiming here that both are pristine heroes…Bernard is loathsome and the Savage is extreme), evaluate them, and find them false…it’s that they can’t even begin to make sense of them.  Lenina’s sexual advances toward the Savage are a case in point.  To say she missed where he was coming from would be to painfully state the obvious.

Asking those in the BNW society to evaluate their own worldview would be tantamount to asking the fish what its like to be wet.

Again, while our society isn’t as far gone as the BNW culture, there’s a strong parallel on both fronts.  On the first, witness the rampant hook up culture and sexual mores common at most colleges.  If your high schooler has conservative and/or biblical sexual values now before they hit college, those will be drastically challenged as soon as they hit campus.

Those who don’t adopt the laissez-faire attitude on sexuality popular on campus(those who continue to hold that sex is a sacred act reserved for the boundaries of marriage) are simply seen as beyond strange, and the campus culture’s resources are utilized to change this.  Seemingly everywhere you go, from the main quad to the dorms, from the lecture hall to the Student Health Center, the bent is that these values are oppressive, out dated, and boring, and so not worthy of anyone who wants to be considered “modern.”  And we all crave membership into that exclusive club, right?

There are those out there who will share your conservative and biblical values, and you will find still others that verbalize a certain respect for you, but the overall thrust of the culture is entirely in the direction of extreme sexual license, and even those who profess a respect for your values often unwittingly contribute to the cultural pressure to cave in.

On the second front, witness the utter confusion when trying to get a typical American to evaluate and question relativism. If you are not a relativist and make that known, many will often take your words and principles and reinterpret them to be relativistic, no matter how hard you try to get them to understand your rejection of relativism…so no matter how staunchly you resist and clarify, you always come out looking like a fellow cool-aid-drinker.  I’ve been in that situation too many times to count, and it’s not due to my lack of communication skills.

Those are two themes that your typical Sparknotes page won’t cover, but I think they are prevalent in the novel.  Do you see any others?

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , ,

Relationship, not Religion?

Posted on June 7, 2011 | 2 Comments

“Christianity is a relationship, not a religion.”

If you’ve been around Christian circles for any length of time, you’ve heard that one, no doubt. I myself have said it…lots. That slogan was a main feature of the sermon on Sunday.

I have a tremendous respect for the pastor who said it, and he carries an authenticity, authority (in the sense of “speaking knowledgeably,” not the “power-authority” kind, which is usually perjorative), and conviction that few possess. As a pastor in India, he ministers to the weakest of the weak and the poorest of the poor. He provides for them both spiritually and physically, for the long haul. He unashamedly preaches Christ crucified and risen, the only solution to man’s universal sin problem. He gives hope, real hope–not faux-spiritual vague hopey hope–to tens of thousands of destitute people. He is tireless and rarely rests. His passion is matchless, something I am in awe of.

So when a guy like that says something, you listen.

I can understand why he would say “Christianity is a relationship, not a religion,” and I get what he’s trying to say. Think about the cultural context he comes from. The major religion in India is Hinduism, a hugely oppressive religion that deterministically marginalizes scores of people by labeling them “untouchable,” which is a caste supposedly cosmically assigned and not to be tampered with by do-gooders. It is the poster child of an oppressive system of rules. This guy was trying to distance Christianity from something like that, and for good reason…that’s not Christianity. Christianity is not a system of dead orthodoxy and ritual, performed mindlessly in the hope of impressing a finniky and distant god into letting you slide. At the heart of the Christian faith is not karma, but a person, One who is alive and well today and hence can be known as you and I can be known.

Ok…I’m on board with that message.

But (and you knew a “but” was coming, didn’t you?), I’m afraid that when that gets put into another cultural context–in this case, post-modern, individualistic, Oprah-ish pop -spirituality-drunk America–that the message gets lost in translation.

It really is unfortunate, for Christianity’s relational element is something that most other religions don’t grasp much. However, it is the case that most Americans–churched and unchurched alike–possess some awfully unbiblical thought patterns and categories. We’re pretty biblically illiterate, so that slogan, as sincerely as it is shouted from the rooftops, often gets twisted into something entirely alien to the Gospel.

Oftentimes, when an audience in America hears that phrase, even if the person saying it means it in a biblical way, the audience hears that Christianity is a low commitment, do-it-yourself, just-you-and-Jesus, design-it-yourself spirituality that’s unique to You and devoid of rules. The Christianity of the Bible is anything but those things.

First, there’s that whole “die to yourself and pick up your cross” thing. Then there’s submission to Authority–the Supreme Authority. God is holy, not a hang out buddy. There’s plenty of good old fashioned doctrine to go around, and yup, there are rules too. Now, those rules are not meant to be spiritual resume builders, as if you can get right with God simply by following them. We’re rebels against God, and thus can’t pay for our bad deeds with good deeds. But still, there are rules, and though they have a limited role and aren’t the main point, they have a role and they have a point.

Think of it this way: even every relationship has rules and ritual. Uh, take the rule, “don’t sleep with a woman that is not your wife.” If I break that rule, my relationship to my wife will be harmed. That’s a euphemism if I’ve ever heard one. Then why would we expect it to be any different with a relational God? He’s even said point blank, “if you love me, you’ll obey my teaching.” (John 14:23).

Same thing goes for ritual. My wife and I have a date night. We celebrate birthdays, anniversaries, and such. We have routines that help us nurture our relationship. These are all rituals, after a fashion. Again, they aren’t the point–they are a means to an end–but they have a point. This applies to God too. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Same goes with the label “religion.” I know it sounds pithy and edgy to say Christianity is not a religion and that God hates religion, but really pause to think about this. I just went to the online dictionary and looked it up. Here’s definition numero uno: “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”

Here’s definition numero dos: “a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.”

Pretty standard, as far as definitions of “religion” goes. So how can Christianity be defined apart from that? Yes, Christianity is so much more than that, but Christianity includes that. Am I sounding like a broken record yet?

No matter what kind of Christian you are, whether a stodgy fundamentalist or hipster liberal, you’ve got beliefs about the cause and nature of the universe and ultimate meaning. You’ve got rituals (and admit it, meeting at Starbucks once a week with a buddy to engage in faux spiritual banter might not be high church, but it’s ritual.), you’ve got people that agree with you and join you in practicing, and you’ve got a moral code. For anti-institutionalized religion folks, it comes through loud and clear in the way they bash the church about its failings, both real and imagined.

I therefore find the whole “Christianity is a relationship, not a religion” thing to be a huge false dichotomy. If well meaning folks want to communicate that Christianity is not a rote set of guidelines that’s superficially followed, they should just say that.

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , ,

A Brief Review of Hawking and Mlodinow’s *The Grand Design*

Posted on May 1, 2011 | 18 Comments

Recently, after I heard a non-Christian colleague or two express interest in reading Stephen Hawking’s new book The Grand Design, I proposed a book discussion after work one day.  A few Christian colleagues liked the idea, and we were off.

For those who don’t know, in this book, Hawking and his co-author Mlodinow attempt to explain the origin of the universe in a completely naturalistic way, in other words, without reference to God or any other supernatural explanation.  The non-Christian colleagues who were interested in reading the book noted that very project as the reason why they wanted to read it.

What was curious to me was that once I invited (in a very non-chalant way, I add, so you can’t say my manner or tone put them off) these colleagues to the book discussion, they suddenly became very uninterested.  One of them completely blew me off.  Hmmm…odd.

At any rate, I recently finished reading the book in preparation for the book discussion.  Science really isn’t my forte’, and Hawking is a giant in the field.  I therefore know my limits and can’t really comment on the viability of the science content in the book.   I know very little of Quantum Mechanics, so when Hawking and Mlodinow are speaking about things such as the structure of an atom or the results of experiments with electrons, I’ll obviously defer to him.

Given my inexperience with the subject matter and their expertise, it would be a great act of hubris for me to debate H&M on those matters.

However, there’s a good bit of philosophy in the book.  In fact, the book turns out to be mostly philosophy, not science, which is weird, given the fact that the authors pronounce philosophy “dead” in the second paragraph.  Philosophy is my field, and there are plenty of philosophical mistakes and shoddy justifications to go around in the pages, so I can venture a few comments about that.

To put it most simply, H&M get themselves into very deep philosophical waters several times in the book, and they seem either totally unaware or totally apathetic toward that.  The reason why I say that is that time and time again, they make very controversial assertions on HUGE philosophical questions and topics, and almost every time, they venture very little if any justification for their views, and sometimes they totally miss the point.  These are questions on which very accomplished scholars have written volumes back and forth, and each time, H&M give only a slight attempt at backing up their assertions, and sometimes, there’s no attempt at all.  A few times, the justification that is offered is more strange than the assertion itself.

William Lane Craig has written in depth (again here) about most of these spots in the book, so I find no need to rehash them here, but still let me give an example or two.

**NOTE: to access the links above, use “pugnacious” as the ID and “Irishman” as the password.

Soon after they confidently pronounce philosophy dead, they launch into a few chapters about the realism vs. anti-realism controversy in the philosophy of science.  This is a second-order debate–in other words, a philosophical query about the nature of science, not a scientific question proper–about the status and reality of unobservable entities in scientific theories.  Realists think that, if a scientific theory employing use of unobservable terms (like “electron,” “quark,” and such) is predictively successful, that gives reason for thinking the terms actually refer to something real.  In other words realists believe those unobservables are real in those cases.  Anti-realists tend to stick with just observables when it comes to belief.  If a theory referring to unobservables in explanation is predictively successful, A.R’s do not think that is reason to actually believe in those things.

Since anti-realism goes against the common-sense grain, the temptation might be to write it off, but though I am not an anti-realist for the most part, I admit that there are many scholars–such as Harvard’s  Bas Van Fraasen (formerly at Princeton and Yale, now at San. Fran. St. U)–that employ sophisticated arguments on it’s behalf, and it’s highly unwise to dismiss them or act like they don’t exist.

H&M step into this debate and attempt to sidestep it with what they call “model-dependent realism.”  They say it differs from anti-realism, but it turns out that it is an extreme form of it.  They attempt no justification of it except to say that it “helps solve” a few “problems.”  They describe the view, but this is not the same as justification.

Their comments surrounding one of these problems are some of the most strange in the book.  While pondering what it means for a table in a room to “exist,” they ask how one can be sure the table continues to exist when no one is in the room observing it.  How do we know that it doesn’t disappear when no one is watching, only to reappear when someone re-enters the room?  According to H&M, the model that declares that the table continues to exist is “simpler” and it comports with observing the table upon entering and re-entering the room (a model in which the table disappears when no one is watching agrees with observation too, by the way)…and this is about as much as we can say.  We cannot say, though, that such a model accurately describes reality.

This realism vs. anti-realism is a topic on which volumes have been written, and this is all they can offer?

I am not saying they should interact in depth with every scholarly voice out there on these questions…but is it not too much to ask that they at least interact with some, and that, where they do not, they temper their confident assertions by simply noting that there are legitimate counter arguments out there?

An instance of this is their defense of the “multiverse” explanation of the anthropic principle.  Roger Penrose, a former collaborator with Hawking, has written a critique of the multiverse hypothesis.  Even if responding to the critique in depth is outside the purposes of the book, why didn’t H&M even give a mere mention of the critique? 

Another philosophical sticky spot is their declaration of determinism, another topic on which Craig writes.  They offer a very thin justification of their determinism, but never mind that…more problematic, it gets them into a very gnarly external conceptual problem (a logical problem in other academic disciplines that interact with science): if determinism is true, then what about the words within the pages of the book?  Those must be dertermined too, along with the reader’s assent/dissent of H&M’s arguments.  If determinism is true, H&M were determined by the chemicals to write what they wrote, and the readers are determined by the chemicals to agree or disagree.  Truth and rationality have nothing to do with it.  How can we be confident that their views are true?  They weren’t arrived at via rational thought. 

Craig puts it much better than I can when he says,

I wonder, for example, why they think that anything they’ve said in their book is true, since, on their view, they were determined to write it. Everything they say is the product of blind physical causes, like water’s gushing from a pipe or a tree’s growing a branch. What confidence can they have that anything they have said is true—including their assertion that determinism is true?

Determinism erodes any sort of rationality or justified true belief, yet H&M must write as if rationality is possible, as if it is possible to rationally persuade someone to choose to agree with a view of reality that is true.  Thus their whole project is at odds with their determinism. 

Read the links by Craig to get a sense of the other issues with the book.

There were two main reasons why I ventured into this unfamiliar territory.  First, there’s the element of engagement.  This book has been widely discussed and touted in the media and popular culture.  Hawking is one of the most influential scholars of our time.  Having read this book will hopefully open up many opportunities to engage with non-believing folks on the questions that matter, such as questions of origins and life’s meaning.  Bible friends, when you get a chance to engage with the world about spiritual things on it’s own terms, jump at the opportunity.

Secondly, when you interact with smart people that disagree with you (in this case, none other than Stephen Hawking), if they make good points and employ solid reasoning, that can lead you to question your own views.  On the flip side, if your views and beliefs have the advantage of being backed by logic, reason, and truth, putting them up against the best of the other side will reveal that, and thus confidence in your beliefs will be strengthened.  Either way, you come out ahead.  Since ideas have consequences and the truth matters immensely, whether your philosophical “opponents” are right or you are right, it sure does help to know that.  Pitting your worldview up against the viable alternatives can be a good way of coming to the truth.  It’s a win-win either way, because I want to know the truth no matter who possesses it.

→ 18 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , ,

Humanist Ad Campaigns, Part III

Posted on February 13, 2011 | 1 Comment

See part I here and II here.

Sorry for not posting for so long.  The wrestling season tends to get crazy.  Anyway (where she says “QUOTE,” she is quoting me in order to give context to her words):

Margaret: QUOTE“…yet those ads treat the Bible like it is a collection of isolated sentences.”

I don’t think that is the intention. As you mentioned, an ad has the problem of limited space. Knowing the people who put the ads up, I think the primary goal is to get people to think about what is really in the Bible. Most self-professed Christians haven’t read the Bible, and so seeing those single lines out of it are likely to be surprised. I would hope that it would spark enough curiosity that they’d crack the book open and find out what it really says.

RB: Perhaps…but to that extent, the ads are misleading. Besides, I’ve seen the same kind of treatment several times in humanist/atheist polemics against the Bible.

Margaret: QUOTE “The Bible would be much less confusing to you if you read it like everything else.”

I am fully aware that different parts of the Bible should be read different ways. I consider the Bible to be a valuable book in-of-itself for several different reasons (some literary, some historical), with some parts much better than others. The problem is with people who claim that the Bible the infallible word of God that they supposedly base their ethics and whole worldview on.

QUOTE “No mention of the mutual submission from Ephesians.”

Funny you mention that letter. The majority of Biblical scholars believe the letter to the Ephesians to be written by someone other than Paul. Regardless, Ephesians does not speak of “mutual submission.” It says that wives should submit to their husbands and husbands should love their wives, and the metaphor used for both is that the husband is like Christ and the wife is like the church. How the heck do you get mutual submission from that? Also, you haven’t explained the the correct interpretation of that passage is. Part of my argument is that the Bible is inconsistent and often contradicts itself. So you pointing out that some passages sound mysoginist while others contradict that doesn’t necessarily prove that the mysoginist-sounding passages are in fact pro-woman. You have to explain how and why they are pro-women in their supposed proper context.

RB: What are their reasons for thinking that it wasn’t written by Paul? By no means do I disregard the voice of scholars…its just that the most important thing isn’t the claim “scholars say,” it’s their argument, the “why” behind their claims.

I got mutual submission from the previous verse: Ephesians 5:21—“submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” Your question perfectly demonstrates what I’m talking about: taking the larger context of the passage you had in mind helps hone in on what Paul meant. Submit to one another, then he explains what that means according to gender roles in the home. Wives, respect the husband’s leadership. Husbands, love, protect, and nurture wives like the gems they are. I don’t know why that is so horrible. There are certain things that husbands are suited well for and vice versa. Each is made in the image of God and is therefore equally valuable, and each contributes something to the relationship that the other lacks. By no means are the parts interchangeable. For example, my wife has an 18 inch waist…me, an 18 inch neck (ok, little exaggeration, but you get the point..:) ). If an intruder attacks our home at night, I’m not gonna say, “hey honey, I think it’s your turn to go check out that noise.” Paul isn’t saying that the husband is more valuable than the wife and can do whatever he wants, and he’s not giving the husband carte blanche to order the wife around.

Though some might thrust that meaning upon the text, its just not there…in fact, if you look at it, Paul gives the husbands much more instruction as to what he’s supposed to do than he gives the wife.

as far as the 1 Tim passage goes, let me quote another author’s argument, one that is possible (not a scholar, admittedly, but he makes sense. There are other arguments out there that might suit the passage better. This is just one possible):

“…the word man is aner and the word woman is gune . In the case of the word aner , which occurs something like 150 times in the New Testament, fully 40 times that it occurs, it is translated “husband.” In other words, “husband” is a legitimate translation of the word depending on the context. When you look at the context, virtually every single time that it wasn’t absolutely clear that the woman with the man in the context was his wife, it is almost always translated “husband” and “wife.” So this really is an unusual translation, given the pattern in the rest of the New Testament.

So, I asked myself why would they break with the pattern in this passage? I think they were influenced by tradition, that’s why they translated this passage man and woman and not husband and wife.

What happens if we translate it husband and wife? That strikes me as a legitimate translation. It seems that when you translate it husband and wife, everything falls into place. Let me read it in that way: “Let a wife quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness; but I don’t allow a wife to teach or usurp the authority of her husband, but to remain quiet.”

Is that strained? Not at all. Is that difficult? Not at all. The “quiet” there is in the context of receiving instruction. I think the point is not that she never speaks, but that she is the one who is in the position of being taught as opposed to being in the position of the teacher. The word “teach” here is not in the aorist tense. In other words, an aorist tense means a single point in time action rather than a continuous action. So, it isn’t saying that a woman cannot have a moment where she can tell something to her husband, it’s that the woman should not be the teacher over her husband, but that the woman is actually under the teaching authority of her husband. He is the head of the household, spiritually speaking. That’s really what it amounts to.

Verses 1-8 is in one grouping, verses 9-15 is another. Verse 11 and following is directed at women in the context of their relationship with a man to whom they are supposed to be entirely submissive. That is a marriage relationship.

Finally, no other place in Scripture teaches that all women should be under the authority of all men in the church. If this passage is to be interpreted the traditional way, this makes a new and unusual pattern of submission. However, the New Testament consistently teaches that a wife should be under the authority of her husband. That fits the larger context of the New Testament much better.”

Margaret: QUOTE “If I treated a humanist’s writing like that, I’d probably get skewered as being irrational.”

Again, I invite you to do the same to us as an example. Take a passage from, say, the Humanist Manifesto (or some other Humanist declaration), put it alongside a passage from the Bible, in a manner that makes Humanism look as bad as the Bible is made to look in those ads.

RB: Well, meeting that challenge wasn’t my main point, and I think I’ve given examples enough (Darwin, Einstein) to substantiate my point…but, here you go:

“Human babies are not born self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection that the life of a fetus.”

And

“The life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”

And

“If we can put aside these emotionally moving but strictly irrelevant aspects of the killing of a baby we can see that the grounds for not killing persons do not apply to newborn infants.”

And

“If the killing of the hemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others it would . . . be right to kill him.”

–all by Peter Singer, 2004 Australian Humanist of the Year

Now for the Bible quotes:

“See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.” Matthew 18:10

“Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward.”—Psalm 127: 3

Here’s another one:

‘The universe we observe has … no evil and no good….DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”

Richard Dawkins

“Do not fret because of the wicked; do not be envious of evildoers, for they will soon fade like the grass and wither like the green herb. Trust in the Lord, and do good; so you will live in the land, and enjoy security.” Psalm 37: 1-3.

Margaret: QUOTE “Same for the one about trusting in the Lord…the suggestion is that the Bible is obviously against using the mind to rationally think with logic and evidence. Again, no effort to understand what the proverb might actually be suggesting. If it really did say that and that was the Bible’s message (“logic/evidence/intellect=baaad. Feeelings=goood!”), the history of Christendom most likely wouldn’t include guys like Augustine, Lewis, Aquinas, and Plantinga, and passageas like Romans 12 wouldn’t be in the Bible.”

Again, I argue that the Bible, being written by many different humans (not God-inspired) over a long period of time, it contradicts itself. Can you explain how and why the passage quoted in the ad isn’t actually discouraging rational/logical thinking?

RB: The proverb recommends humility about one’s finitude. Being human, we oftentimes get out of our ken. I find that principle at work frequently in my job. I am a young, inexperienced coach. Oftentimes I get angry at my wrestlers/parents/referees, etc for not responding as I’d like. In times like that, if I operate according to my feelings and what I think is good to do in the moment (aka, “my own understanding”), I often rush into things and make mistakes.

So I’ve gotten in the habit of conferring with one of my assistants, who is much older, wiser, and has “seen it all,” or I confer with other older coaches I know who have a much more circumspect perspective. They often calm me down and give me stuff to think about that I miss. The same is true on a cosmic plane. We are pretty finite, but God has “seen it all” so to speak. Consulting His wisdom through prayer, Scriptures, and the body of believers often yields understanding that is much more solid than our own feelings.

This is pretty far away from eschewing logic, reason, and evidence. In fact, if you were to keep in mind what I’ve been saying about context, you’ll see that there are a great many proverbs Solomon wrote that deal with the value of wisdom and knowledge.

You don’t have to believe that the Bible is the word of God to attribute minimal intelligence to Solomon, and that he probably wouldn’t contradict himself so many times in one book.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , ,

Humanist Ad Campaigns, Part II

Posted on January 16, 2011 | 2 Comments

Read part one here.

After a humanist friend of mine posted a comment on the ads, I responded:

“I found the ads ironic.”

To which she replied:

“You gotta explain the irony, Rich. You want to quote something from a philosophically Humanist publication that is as bad as any of those Biblical quotes? Notice I said “Humanist”, not just “atheist”.”

And we were off.  I’m going to call her “Margaret.”

RB:

A few things…first, humanists I’ve known are often pretty quick to cry foul when Christians engage in black and white thinking. Secondly, they also typically cry foul, often for good reason, when Christians handle opposing beliefs without academic responsibility…anyone can take something out of its context, without regard to the whole system, and make that worldview sound pretty silly.

I could do that to lots of things you say, most likely, and you’d consider yourself ill abused…in fact, I could probably take the very techniques inherent in the ads and make you sound like a crazed fundamentalist Christian.

Bottom line: it is very easy to take some quote, assert its stupid, and therefore assert the whole worldview is stupid.  That kind of treatment of opposing beliefs often gets Christians accused of irrationality (most of the time secular humanists are doing the accusing), and rightly so. But that is what is going on here. 

It is far more difficult to level a critique after taking pains to show what the passage (as opposed to just quoting a one liner and asserting what you think it means as self evident) actually means, understanding historical background, etc.

This is the very thing I try so hard to teach my seniors in the research methods class I have. Some of those ads on the website are laughable in the way they treat the verses.

To be fair, they are ads, not graduate research papers, so perhaps I’m expecting too much. A certain amount of leeway comes w/ the territory I guess. They won’t persuade many who are in the know, however.

Margaret:

Given the details, I disagree. You say “in fact, I could probably take the very techniques inherent in the ads and make you sound like a crazed fundamentalist Christian.” Please do so. And when I say do so, I mean take quotes from Humanist declarations, resolutions, and manifestos (such as the ones quoted in the ads) and put them alongside Biblical quotes in a manner that makes Humanism ethics sound monterous and Biblical ethics sound much more in line with today’s ethical standards. I do not think this can be achieved.

Also, Rich, born again Christians typically claim to follow the Bible to the letter. Having read the Bible and read about the Bible by Biblical scholars, I find such a thing to be impossible because the Bible isn’t internally consistent. However, my point is this: there is not a wide range of interpretation that can be made of Humanist declarations and manifestos. Their meanings are intended to be as clear as possible and they are written in modern language because they are in fact modern.

The Bible is an ancient and highly confusing book. It requires all sorts of apologetics and interpretations by clergy from various sects, theologians, and Biblical scholars often disagree widely about the meaning and context of many passages. This is what has allowed the Bible to be used to both advocate for both the abolition of and defense of slavery in the United States. While Humanist manifestos and declarations specifically apply to modern day issues and say what they mean clearly, the Bible is useless as a foundation for morality.

It’s greatest use in history seems to be by power-hungry charismatic individuals who use its supposed divine authority to push their own agendas.

RB:

People do it with Einstein and Darwin all the time. They take quotes from Einstein out of context (“God doesn’t play dice with the universe” and other quotes) to make him seem like a devoted theist, when most likely he wasn’t expressing devotion to a personal God at all, and given everything else he said/believed, probably wasn’t even a theist.  Dawkins might be right on that one.

 Likewise with Darwin: people isolate things he said to make it seem like he had these grand doubts about his theories.  I doubt it, though.

Martha, what I was talking about is a commonsense approach to understanding anything, written or spoken: communication happens from the whole to the part, yet those ads treat the Bible like it is a collection of isolated sentences.

That, actually, is the locus of much of the confusion you mentioned. The Bible would be much less confusing to you if you read it like everything else. Don’t read poetry like historical narrative. Don’t read historical narrative like doctrinal instruction. Take each type of genre as it was meant to be taken–this is what is meant by “literal,” not “interpret everything the exact same way.” Don’t isolate sentences out of their context, and so forth–if you do any of that, you’ll most likely miss the boat.

Here’s an example: the ad that uses the 1 Tim passage to suggest Paul was an obvious mysogynist and that he oppressed women. If Paul was really arguing what the ad suggests, do you think he would have had women as ministry partners (as is evident in his other letters and from the book of Acts)?

There is no attempt to understand the intent of the passage as a whole and nor is there any attempt to take into account all Paul’s other statements regarding husbands loving, protecting, and providing for their wives. No mention of the mutual submission from Ephesians. It’s all as if he never said any of that. If I treated a humanist’s writing like that, I’d probably get skewered as being irrational.

Same for the one about trusting in the Lord.  The suggestion is that the Bible is obviously against using the mind to rationally think with logic and evidence. Again, no effort to understand what the proverb might actually be suggesting. If it really did say that and that was the Bible’s message (“logic/evidence/intellect=baaad. Feeelings=goood!”), the history of Christendom most likely wouldn’t include guys like Augustine, Lewis, Aquinas, and Plantinga, and passageas like Romans 12 wouldn’t be in the Bible.

And on scholars, theologians etc “disagreeing widely:” you and I both know that there are many reasons people have for holding the beliefs they do, and many times those reasons don’t have much to do with the text itself. Some defend the turf they do because they want to impress a peer group. Others because it allows them to live a certain way they want to live. Still others because they’d give up lots of grant money if they gave up the game, etc etc. The point here is that pointing to the mere fact of disagreement among theologians and others doesn’t get you far. Best just to focus on the text itself, and your case for what you think it means. A solid, well-thought out and rational argument and interpretation will hold water, regardless of others (including “scholars”) that disagree. The mere fact of disagreeing voices does not mean there is no truth of the matter to be found.

By the way, what biblical scholars have you read? Sounds like you have read and consulted quite a few. Can you remember any names? Just curious.

Anything can be abused by power hungry charismatic individuals.  This is not a mark against whatever is being abused. Again, just because I might be able to take take some stuff you say out of context and abuse your words doesn’t mean you yourself are at fault. It’s all about whether the connection is actually there.

Lastly, yes, the Bible is ancient, and yes it is from a different culture, but why is that a bad thing? Are you suggesting we have no wisdom to gain from something ancient and outside of our own modern culture?

Part III coming up!

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , ,