Atheism Feedback Response 1-11-10

The following article is my second response to Gerry Porter, a cordial atheist that has interacted with my articles titled "Creationist Kooks Offer Debate Challenge" and "Atheism Feedback Response 1-6-10". Because Gerry's second response is so lengthy, I have decided to respond below in blue font to Gerry's salient points.

***********************************************************************************

Hi Gerry,

Thank you for your cordial response. It is much appreciated. You said,

"Unfortunately, we debate this matter using two sets of ideas that are fundamentally at odds. For proxies, you send in Hubert Yockey, Lee Spetner, Werner Gitt and the bible while I send in Sean Carroll, Stephen Jay Gould, and Richard Dawkins. You believe utterly in your evidence, and I in mine. A stalemate."

This isn't a stalemate at all. If you would carefully re-read my initial response, you will see that I carefully noted that our fundamental presuppositions determine how we interpret any evidence, facts, or data. In other words, the facts do not speak for themselves. My main point is this:

Unless the Bible is true (whether you believe it or not) the concept of "proof", "evidence", and the "scientific method" is impossible in the first place because God is the one who provides the things needed to correctly understand the world.

Atheistic materialism cannot be true because it doesn't provide the very things that you need to first have in place before you can even begin to evaluate evidence and facts (i.e., immaterial, abstract concepts and laws, reliability of memory, reliability of your senses, etc.). These things are called "preconditions of intelligibility" and they are things that all of us take for granted yet we don't even realize that we need them to even do anything. This is why I offered logical syllogisms like this one:

1. Material things are extended in space.
2. Our concepts of "logic" are not extended in space.
3. Therefore, our concepts of "logic" are non-material.
4. Some versions of materialism (like yours) posit that no non-material entities exist.
5. Therefore, assuming some versions of materialism (like yours), concepts of "logic" do not exist.

The God of the Bible accounts for abstract, immaterials such as concepts, laws, etc. and because the God of the Bible exists we can have a general reliability of our senses, our memory, and we can know that there will be a general uniformity to nature based upon God's promises to maintain said uniformity (Genesis 8:22). All of these types of things are necessary preconditions to carry out the procedures of natural science.

For example, the version of atheistic materialism that Dawkins adheres to assumes that the future will operate in the same way it has in the past based upon past instances of the future being like the past. When they do so, they are committing the logical fallacy known as begging the question. This is what is specifically known in philosophy as "The Problem of Induction" and it has never been solved by secular philosophy. As a matter of fact, this very issue pushed David Hume into complete skepticism. Hume said that you couldn't even be sure if the sun would rise tomorrow because to assume such with 100% certainty would be to commit said logical fallacy.

You discount the Bible, yet you offer nothing to take it's place. If you think that you have something better to offer than the truth of the Biblical worldview that will be both be (a) internally consistent with itself and (b) provide the preconditions for doing science in the first place, please do so, we're more than happy to listen to what you have to say. However, I'll advise you beforehand, secular philosophy has been looking for answers to these issues for thousands of years and they have yet to find answers to them. Therefore, my worldview provides the presuppositions needed to account for things like immaterial, abstract laws and concepts whereas yours does not

You go on to say,

"A secondary problem arises from the fact that your Christian Creationist version is just one of several versions used by other religions in pleading much the same case."

The fact that other religions have competing and contradictory truth claims doesn't mean that mine is wrong. All it proves is that those other religions have competing and contradictory truth claims. The issue is not that they contradict each other, the issue is whether they are true or not. However, given atheistic materialism, why should you care about "truth" and how do you account for the immaterial concept thereof? Also, "truth" is relative if the Triune God is not there to ground it (Judges 21:25; Proverbs 21:2). Why should you or any other atheist care what one piece of evolved pondscum "thinks" or "does" to another piece of evolved pondscum? Gerry, I'm not saying that you can't be moral, I'm just saying that you can't ground your morality in anything higher than yourself. Such is the problem with atheism.

"Because religions have their own proprietary versions to demonstrate how and when God did it all, we on the other side of the matter can be forgiven if we remain skeptical of your results."

This is easily reversible to fit the Creationist position: "Because atheists have their own proprietary versions to demonstrate how and when Nature did it all, we on the other side of the matter can be forgiven if we remain skeptical of your results."

You can't ignore the fact that God has created because like it or not; God has hardwired it into every human being (Romans 1:19-25). The only denial of this occurs when people want to deny it to satisfy their own sinful desires to worship created things rather than the Creator.

"In contrast to your uncoordinated methodologies, the fundamental, Darwinian-based biological and medical science being conducted in research laboratories in Russia, China, Egypt, and Israel is the same as the science in Australian, American, German, and Canadian labs."

If you mean that the scientific procedures operating under the same conditions get essentially the same results, then wonderful! That just demonstrates what I've already said; namely, that God upholds the universe in such a way that we can expect repeatability, predication, reliability of our senses, etc, in order to do operational science under the same conditions regardless of the time, place, or people. I don't expect any different. However, given the fact that you cannot know with certainty that the future is going to be like the past because your worldview doesn't provide the needed preconditions to account for such uniformity, why shouldn't I expect you to turn into a green frog the next time you stub your toe in the middle of the night instead of normally feeling the sharp pain associated with such an experience?

"While, as you point out, Christian Creationist studies agree with major components of Darwin’s notion, you and most other theologians refute certain critical aspects. However, the Vatican and many Protestant churches have quietly concluded that Darwin did indeed get it right."

This is irrelevant as to whether Neo-Darwinian theory is true or not.

"Although Vatican experts agree that natural selection works in accordance with Darwin’s ideas, they insist that Man is a ‘special case’. Man, the Catholics claim, may have physically evolved in accordance with Darwinian principles, but God, and God alone, imbued Man’s mind with grace, ethics, and morality. Which is probably in line with your own thinking – which, when you think about it, is a kind of collaboration, isn’t it?"

No, this is not in line with my own thinking. I deny any kind of molecules to man Neo-Darwinian theistic evolution because it contradicts the historical narratives of Genesis 1-2 and it contradicts known scientific fact as pointed out in my first response. As far as the Vatican is concerned, so much more the worse for them. This is one reason (of many) why I reject Roman Catholicism.

"Even Islamic research facilities realize that, in the real world, they cannot do science based on the Koran; it doesn’t work."

That's because the Qu'ran is false and Islam is false. Islam is false because the Qu'ran is internally contradictory since it tells us that we must adhere to the gospel of Jesus, the Psalms of David and portions of the Old Testament yet it contradicts the most basic teachings of the New Testament (i.e., Jesus' death on the cross). There is more to the issue of Islam, but there are other resources that are better at addressing that issue than myself. See: Answering Islam and Answering Muslims

"Real laboratories doing real medical and biological science in the real world rely exclusively on Darwinian science - because it does work. As your arch foe in this matter, Richard Dawkins, often observes, biological science bears out, in every respect, the correctness of Darwin’s notion."

The "real world" is the God-created world. To deny such is to contradict yourself and be reduced to absurdity as shown in my first response to you as well as in this response.

"But religious leaders have another problem besides what to do with their growing population of retired Gods. Each religious leader is genuinely convinced that his path to righteousness and redemption is the only path and all other paths lead to hell or oblivion. Tell me sir, how can every leader be so sure he is right?"

The same way you are so sure that you are right. You said so yourself in the combox of my blog article on 1-5-2010 when you confidently said, "I’m sorry folks, but Richard Dawkins and his companions are right." The reason why every unbeliever thinks they are right can be summed in two words: self-deception. Cf. Romans 1:21-23.

"How can you, when you know full well that thousands of other men and women are, during each hour of every day, making roughly the same claim for other Gods, be so sure?"

Because without the Triune God of Scripture, I can't know anything at all (Col. 2:3).

"And you, with all the impertinence that only the true believer can muster, beg me to ‘repent’ and join one of these rabid organizations."

It is offensive and immoral to call you to repentance for your rebellion against your Maker? Consider this using the "is-ought" fallacy:

1. Some atheists say that because we are moral means that we ought to be moral.

2. But what is the case doesn't tell us what should be the case.

3. Therefore, because people are moral it doesn't follow that they should be moral.

How do I get an "ought" from an "is" in an atheistic materialistic universe? My friend, your worldview cannot ground, account for, and provide the very concepts that you suggest I need to be consistent with in order to make your "ought not" have any grounding. This is a great example of why you need to repent of your sins and put your trust in Jesus Christ alone.

Dear friend, if you remain in your intellectual autonomy, you will die in your sins and have your just punishment in Hell for having rejected the grace of God offered to you through the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross. Christ had to die because of crimes like yours. Crimes against Him; especially your heinous crime of arrogant, intellectual pride; a pride that shakes your fist at the Creator and says, "I'll have it my way" rather than "Thy will be done" is an idolatry of the highest order. As seen in Romans 1:21-23 above, Paul said that you will either worship God or worship an idol. You are worshiping the idol of your intellect and squandering that good thing God gave you for the purpose of worshiping Him and learning about His world for your grand pursuit of denying Him via intellectual autonomy. Please turn from your idolatry to humble faith in Jesus Christ lest you perish forever.

"We love because He first loved us". (1 John 4:19)

Dusman - Shepherd's Fellowship of Greensboro