Tse on Harris

Peter Ulrich Tse is a neuroscientist (PhD, Harvard) as well as an atheist (naturalism). Tse writes the following about Sam Harris:

Eddy, I just read your incisive review of Harris' book. I agree 100%. Please do not take Harris to be speaking for neuroscience or neuroscientists. As far as I can tell he does not lead a lab and is not a tenured or tenure-track professor of neuroscience at any university, although he did get a PhD in Neuroscience from UCLA after getting a BA in philosophy, according to wikipedia, and has a couple of scientific papers using MRI to look at religious belief in the brain. He seems to primarily be a writer of provocative books who has some background in neuroscience. But judging from the way he writes about brain events in his pugilistic pamphlet 'Free Will,' it is not a very nuanced view of the astounding complexity of causation among neurons. I think most people in the neuroscience trenches running experiments day in and day out would have assumed he was more of a philosopher or public debater than a professor of neuroscience.

Considering the New Atheism

https://soundcloud.com/user-743479271/sets/dr-andy-bannister-considering-the-new-atheism

Why did new atheism fail so miserably?

New Atheism has lost its battle for the cultural high ground. r/atheism will shamble on as some sort of undead abomination, chanting “BRAAAAAAIIINSSSS…are what fundies don’t have” as the living run away shrieking. But everyone else has long since passed them by.

A charitable reading: New Atheists weren’t reaching their intellectual opponents. They were coming into educated urban liberal spaces, saying things that educated urban liberals already believed, and demanding social credit for it. Even though 46% of America is creationist, zero percent of my hundred-or-so friends are. If New Atheists were preaching evolution in social circles like mine, they were wasting their time.

While the atheists were going around saying there was no God, the environmentalists were going around saying climate change was real. The feminists were going around saying sexism was bad. And the Democrats were going around saying Donald Trump was an awful person. All of these statements might be controversial somewhere, but meet basically zero resistance in educated urban liberal spaces. All get repeated day-in and day-out by groups of people who make entire careers out of repeating them. And all get said in the same condescending way, a sort of society-wide plague of Voxsplaining.

This is 90% of popular intellectual culture these days: progressives regurgitating progressivism to other progressives for nothing but the warm glow of being told “Yup, that was some good progressiving there”. Conservatives make fun of this incessantly, and they are right to do so. But for some reason, in the case of New Atheism and only in the case of New Atheism, Progressivism itself suddenly turned and said “Hey, you’re just repeating our own platitudes back to us!” And New Atheism, caught flat-footed, mouth open wide: “But…but..we thought we were supposed to…we thought…”.

Think of one of those corrupt kleptocracies where the dictator takes bribes, all his ministers take bribes, all their assistants take bribes, the anti-corruption task force takes bribes, etc. Then one day some shmuck manages to get on the dictator’s bad side and – bam – the secret police nab him for taking bribes. The look on his face the moment before the firing squad shoots – that’s how I imagine New Atheists feeling too.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/24/how-did-new-atheism-fail-so-miserably/

What about people who self-identify as Christian?

On the one hand, LGBT activists lobby to outlaw Christian counseling for underage teenagers who suffer from gender dysphoria. If a teenager self-identifies as transgender, we should respect their self-identification.

Indeed, LGBT activists lobby to ban therapy for adults who consent to counseling for homosexuality or gender dysphoria. 

On the other hand, here's a prominent atheist who believes people who self-identify as Christian should be involuntarily committed to undergo psychiatric treatment: 

There is perhaps no greater contribution one could make to contain and perhaps even cure faith than removing the exemption that prohibits classifying religious delusions as mental illness. The removal of religious exemptions from the DSM would enable academicians and clinicians to bring considerable resources to bear on the problem of treating faith, as well as on the ethical issues surrounding faith-based interventions. In the long term, once these treatments and this body of research is refined, results could then be used to inform public health policies designed to contain and ultimately eradicate faith. Peter Boghossian A Manual for Creating Atheists (Kindle Locations 3551-3555).

Atheism and its discontents

I don't necessarily agree with everything said, but Christian blogger rockingwithhawking has a post interacting with atheists here.

Topics covered include: atheism and the grounds of morality; modern evolutionary theory; comparative genomics and complexity; history and the (non)existence of Jesus; and genetics and behavior.

Atomic muddle

"Victor Stenger's Atomic Muddle" by M. Anthony Mills.

CSL vs the New Atheists

(See here for more info.)

The rage of unbelief

"The Rage of Unbelief" by Robin Schumacher.

Scientists are from Vulcan, humans are from Earth

Daniel Dennett writes:

In other words, whereas religions may serve a benign purpose by letting many people feel comfortable with the level of morality they themselves can attain, no religion holds its members to the high standards of moral responsibility that the secular world of science and medicine does! And I'm not just talking about the standards 'at the top' - among the surgeons and doctors who make life or death decisions every day. I'm talking about the standards of conscientiousness endorsed by the lab technicians and meal preparers, too. This tradition puts its faith in the unlimited application of reason and empirical inquiry, checking and re-checking, and getting in the habit of asking 'What if I'm wrong?' Appeals to faith or membership are never tolerated. Imagine the reception a scientist would get if he tried to suggest that others couldn't replicate his results because they just didn't share the faith of the people in his lab! And, to return to my main point, it is the goodness of this tradition of reason and open inquiry that I thank for my being alive today.

1. I don't agree with Dennett's characterization of the morality of Christians. The Bible doesn't unqualifiedly let people "feel comfortable with the level of morality they themselves attain." Dennett has obviously never seriously taken the time to try and understand the Bible.

2. Dennett sets up a false dichotomy. There are many devout Christians serving in science and medicine. There are many Christian nurses, doctors, lab technicians, scientists, meal preparers, etc.

3. Moral standards in the world of science and medicine aren't always as universally rigorous as Dennett makes them out to be. Does Dennett think all mainland Chinese scientists and physicians and lab technicians and meal preparers have the same moral standards as all Western scientists and physicians and lab technicians and meal preparers? (With regard to "meal preparers," Dennett could Google something like "Chinese food scandals" for starters.) For that matter, does Dennett think all Western scientists and physicians have the same moral standards when it comes to research or patient care?

4. There could be conformity due to mandated obedience rather than because the person genuinely believes it's the right thing to do.

5. Dennett is inordinately praising if not outright idolizing scientific and medical research "standards of conscientiousness" and "the unlimited application of reason and empirical inquiry." It's as if he believes scientific and medical research is ubiquitously far more motivated by an inner sense of duty and conviction to adhere to the rational pursuit of knowledge such as expressed in the scientific method and the free exchange of ideas than by personal rivalries, petty ambitions and passions, pride, self-centeredness, fear, anger, hatred, bitterness, a sense of honor, perceived slights or dishonors, jealousies, revenge, and (shall we say) the baser elements of human nature. Dennett has a sterilized, whitewashed image of the lab. I guess Dennett must think scientists and doctors and lab technicians and meal preparers hail from Vulcan rather than Earth.

Dennett should disabuse himself of his airy fairy notions by reading a book like James Watson's The Double Helix. Or by following the day to day activities and work of scientists, physicians, lab techs, and meal preparers. If he's honest, he can find multiple instances of personal rivalries, petty ambitions and passions, pride, and many of the other vices I previously listed. Not to mention their incarnations in such behavior as gossip, trash talk, reluctance to admit mistakes or poor results, and so forth. And let's not forget recent scandals involving people like Andrew Wakefield, Jan Hendrik Schön, or Hwang Woo-suk, whom many other scientists and physicians originally were perfectly fine with in how they conducted their research. At this point Dennett might do well to exchange his rose-tinted glasses for chicken goggles!

6. Dennett asserts "Appeals to faith or membership are never tolerated." On the contrary, my experience has been there are lots of appeals for others to have faith in the prinicipal investigator or research group leader because he or she has membership to this or that prestigious organization or because they won a fancy award or have such and such a degree from this or that Ivy League institution or something along those lines.

Also, check out what Feynman has to say as well:

7. In any case, where's the obligation to behave morally responsibly given Dennett's atheistic, evolutionary, secular worldview?

A confident believer in an age of cranky atheists

James Anderson reviews A Shot of Faith: Be a Confident Believer in an Age of Cranky Atheists by Mitch Stokes.

It takes faith to have a child

"Religious civilisations survive. Secular civilisations die. Atheists might reflect on this before they too go the way of the dinosaurs."

Sinking compass

When I was a boy, back in the Sixties, A Charlie Brown Christmas used to air during the Christmas season. But this year TV stations are running The Golden Compass. Does this now represent the seasonal anti-Christmas classic?

From what I’ve read, The Golden Compass is the first-installment in Pullman’s anti-Narnian trilogy. On the plus side, the film is stuffed with classy actors.

And the film is handsome to look at. Retro modernism in sunset illumination. The technology is quaint and decorative, like the futuristic visions of Jules Verne and H. G. Wells.

However, Pulliam doesn’t have a coherent picture. We’re treated to a pastiche of jarring period pieces and architectural styles. By turns Gothic, Byzantine, Baroque, or Bauhaus. Then we tumble into a Joan Crawford vehicle for a fashionable matinée with Mrs. Coulter.

Lyra Belacqua is the anti-Lucy. She’s played by a fine child actress with a glorious shock of curly red hair.

However, the character isn’t nearly as sympathetic as Lucy. Lyra is suspicious and resentful.

For a militant atheist who is writing the godless alternative to The Chronicles of Narnia, one is puzzled by Pullman’s lazy recourse to New Age/fairy tale paraphernalia like flying witches, pixie dust, “subtle knives,” alethiometric Ouija boards, and shape-shifting animal spirit-guides.

Then there’s the plot. Or perhaps I should say, where is the plot? A climactic battle between two talking polar bears? Is that the best he can do?

I guess the basic problem is the Pullman is a reactionary. His only ambition is to negate Lewis. He has no constructive, inspired alternative.

But maybe the book is better than the movie (although it could also be worse.)

This represents a painful setback for atheism. If Hitchens and Dawkins were the prophets of the new atheism, then Pullman was the poet laureate. Riding on the crest of the new atheism, this was the one-time opportunity to give their nugatory creed a mythopoetic appeal and recruit the next generation to the cause. But the momentum is gone.

Believe it or not

David Hart:

I think I am very close to concluding that this whole “New Atheism” movement is only a passing fad—not the cultural watershed its purveyors imagine it to be, but simply one of those occasional and inexplicable marketing vogues that inevitably go the way of pet rocks, disco, prime-time soaps, and The Bridges of Madison County. (keep reading).

"We are all atheists"

Here’s one-liner that Richard Dawkins is fond of using: “We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”

This, of course, is just a paraphrase of Stephen Robert’s famous one-liner: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

It’s striking that so many atheists seem to think that’s a compelling reason to be an atheist. After all, they pride themselves on their rational superiority. So why are they impressed by such a lame argument?

1. If I reject every explanation but one, is it more logical to reject every explanation whatsoever?

Suppose I feel ill. I go to the doctor. Before he can cure me, he must diagnose me. He asks me to describe my symptoms. He runs a battery of tests. He is attempting, by process of elimination, to narrow the possible candidates down to one culprit. After having excluded all of the other things that aren’t wrong with me, would it be logical for him to take the extra step and conclude that nothing is wrong with me?

Suppose a widely-hated man is murdered. This leaves the homicide detective with a large pool of potential suspects to weed out. They all had the motive, yet some had the means without the opportunity while others had the opportunity without the means. After running through the list, only one suspect had the means, motive, and opportunity. But would it be more logical for the detective to take the extra step and conclude that no one murdered the victim? He just happened to die from a gunshot wound to the back of the head?

Suppose an airplane crashes. Investigators sift through the wreckage. Listen to conversations between the pilot and the control tower. Examine the flight-data recorder. Was it mechanical failure? Pilot error? Sabotage? If mechanical failure, what type of mechanical failure?

But would it be more logical for investigators to take the extra step and conclude that nothing caused the plane to crash?

2. On another note, how does knowing why I reject Mormonism (to take one example) mean that I know why you reject Mormonism? How does one entail the other?

You can’t simple combine one man’s reason for rejecting something with another man’s reason for rejecting something, for they may have different reasons.

Several voters may reject the same candidate. Some voters are single-issue voters. For other voters, if a candidate is right on two out of three key issues, they will vote for him.

Two single-issue voters may not have the same issue. Voters for whom two out of three key issues is good enough may not agree on which two out of three issues are key. I can’t extrapolate from why I declined to vote for him to why you declined to vote for him.

An atheist rejects Mormonism because he rejects theism generally, of which Mormonism is a special case. A Christian rejects Mormonism, not because he rejects theism generally, but because he has specific issues with Mormonism.

So understanding why I reject Mormonism doesn’t mean I understand why you reject Mormonism. The inference is blatantly fallacious.

3. Moreover, it’s not true that Christians simply reject all other “gods” save our own. Although we don’t believe in Thor or Zeus or Quetzalcoatl, we do believe in something behind the pagan pantheon. Heathen idolatry isn’t purely a figment of the human imagination. There’s an occult reality which motivates, animates, and empowers paganism. From a Christian standpoint, there is something that roughly corresponds to heathen divinities.

It’s like a shell corporation. Does the corporation really exist? In a sense, no. But there’s something that lies behind and hides behind the shell corporation.

Same thing with a puppet-state. The head-of-state may be a figurehead, but somebody is pulling the strings from behind-the-scenes.

What does it say about “free-thinkers” and “rationalists” when they find a fallacious slogan like this convincing?

Ersatz immorality

Bill Vallicella comments on Christopher Hitchens and death.

"Thank God for Evolution"

Rev. Michael Dowd, controversial author of the bestselling book Thank God for Evolution, is bringing a radical new sermon series to pulpits across America in what may be his boldest message yet to fellow Christians: “The New Atheists are God’s prophets, and believers need to listen up.”

According to Dowd, God is speaking pointedly to Christians today through some very unlikely messengers outside the church—namely New Atheists, such as Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens.

http://inewp.com/?p=4065

Of course, as the New Atheism so vividly illustrates, those who begin by thanking God for evolution easily end up thanking evolution for God.

Atheism Feedback Response 1-6-10

The following response is from a reader from Ottawa Canada named Gerry who responded to my article titled, "Creationist Kooks Offer Debate Challenge", though his response was to the article as it was hosted on my church blog site. Gerry believes that creationists have it all wrong and men like Richard Dawkins have it right since creationism is a faith claim and having faith is contrary to "science". I'll post my response to Gerry as it may prove helpful to some. My comments will be interspersed in black font between his blue.

*********************************************************************************
Hi Gerry,

You said,

I’m sorry folks, but Richard Dawkins and his companions are right. Science is, very simply, based on measurable, verifiable evidence. Religious beliefs are not.

As Christian creationists, we agree that observational science is based upon "measurable, verifiable evidence"; that is one reason why we have rejected neo-Darwinian evolution as a legitimate scientific model for the origin of life. For instance, the Bible, our fundamental source of authority about the history of the universe tells us that God created each individual organism with the ability to reproduce after its kind. That is exactly what we see today and the technical name we give it is "biological variation through natural selection". It goes without saying that selection pressure combined with point mutations in any organism, whether in nature or in the lab, can cause them to exhibit great variation. Creationists expect this much, as it is both Scriptural and scientific. However, the Bible does not teach that we should expect primordial soup to turn into Aunt Polly nor has observational science ever clearly shown one organism turning into a fundamentally different kind of organism, either in nature, the lab, or in the fossil record. As a matter of fact, non-Christian Hubert Yockey made the following telling comment about the "faith" of an evolutionist,

The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual machine is in probability. The extremely small probabilities calculated in this chapter are not discouraging to true believers … [however] A practical person must conclude that life didn’t happen by chance. [Hubert Yockey, Information Theory and Molecular Biology, Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 257. Bolded emphasis mine - DSS]

There is no evidence whatsoever that bacteria turned into baseball players over eons of time. Creationists believe that speciation of organisms occurs through natural selection and point mutations working on the genetic information that is already present in the DNA of an organism and that this gives rise to the great diversity among the kinds of organisms. Creationists expect this much and good scientific investigation always proves this to be the case. Dogs remain dogs and will never turn into non-dogs no matter what selection pressure is placed upon them. This is because the genetic information needed to make them into a "non-dog" isn't in their DNA and never will be because natural selection combined with point mutations never creates the new genetic information necessary for Neo-Darwinian theory to occur in the first place. Dr. Lee Spetner, a highly qualified scientist who taught information theory at Johns Hopkins University said this about point mutations and natural selection adding new genetic information to organisms,

. . . But in all the reading I've done in the life-sciences literature, I've never found a mutation that added information. [Lee Spetner, Not By Chance, (The Judaica Press, Brooklyn, New York, 1997), 131-132.]

All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it. [Ibid, 138]

The NDT [neo-Darwinian theory] is supposed to explain how information of life has been built up by evolution. The essential biological difference between a human and a bacterium is in the information they contain. All other biological differences follow from that. The human genome has much more information than does the bacterial genome. Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it. A business can't make money by losing it a little at a time. [Ibid, p. 143, Bolded emphasis mine - DSS]

Information scientist Dr. Werner Gitt in answering the question "Can new information originate through mutations?" said this,

. . . this idea is central in representations of evolution, but mutations can only cause changes in existing information. There can be no increase in information, and in general the results are injurious. New blueprints for new functions or new organs cannot arise; mutations cannot be the source of new (creative) information. [Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, (Bielefeld, Germany: CLV, 1997), 127.]

He goes on to say,

A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor) . . . . It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required. [Ibid., 64-67.]

There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this. [Ibid., 79.]

. . . there is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter. [Ibid., 107.]

Thus, bacteria still remain bacteria and humans still remain humans. Great variety is possible in the same kind of organism, but to argue that genetic variation proves that all organisms came from goo via a rock and that rock came from a big bang which came from nothing is simply a fairy tale of the highest degree. This is why we believe that it takes great faith to believe in the "faith" of naturalism. However, as said earlier, the Bible tells us that living organisms will bring forth after their kinds and that is exactly what we see in nature. See these articles for specific details:

Is evolution 'scientific'?

Refuting Evolution 1

Refuting Evolution 2

You said,

Religious beliefs are based on faith and faith is whatever individuals wish it to be.

This is the classic "faith vs. reason" fallacy. We do not reason to have faith, we have faith first in order to correctly reason. Everybody does this (see more on this below). It appears that you are assuming that the only way people can know things are through "measurable, verifiable evidence". When you arbitrarily assume that people can only know things through the five senses in order to conclude that this is the basis for all knowledge, then you are committing the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. Your argument goes something like this:

P1 - If we can only know things through empirical means, then creationists are wrong.

P2 - We can only know things through empirical means.

C - Therefore, creationists are wrong.

The problem with you argument is that it is not only subtly circular, but premise two is patently false. As hinted at earlier, everyone begins with a set of beliefs about the world that cannot be empirically "proved" or shown to be true through scientific investigation (i.e., laws of logic, concepts, etc.). Thus everyone, including the atheist, begins with some type of "faith" claim if "faith" is defined by you as an idea that is not based on "measurable, verifiable evidence" gained through the procedural methods of science.

For example, do you know that the proposition "empiricism is the only way we can have knowledge" itself be known through empirical investigation? Can you "measure" and "verify" the existence of the concept of empiricism in a test tube or a petri dish? How about the laws of logic? Can you measure the law of non-contradiction or burn the logical law known as Modus Tollens? Have you ever served up the Law of Identity to your friends in a wine glass? You cannot do any of these things because things like the laws of logic and concepts are abstract, immaterial concepts and laws that are not subject to investigation through the five senses. Christian creation scientists agree that some knowledge can be gained through empirical investigation, but not all knowledge. They agree with God, the immaterial, invisible Creator of all things, that all that exists is not made up of matter; there are material and immaterial things that exist. But if you are an ardent naturalistic materialist, then you have no category for immaterial things like logic or concepts. Here's an example of how the worldview of naturalistic materialism refutes itself by using the very things it denies that exists:

Syllogism One:

1. Concepts are immaterial.
2. But some versions of materialism (like yours) hold that anything that exists is material.
3. Our concepts are not material things.
4. Therefore, concepts do not exist.
5. Our concepts of "logic" are immaterial.
6. Therefore, in some versions of materialism (like yours), "logic" does not exist.

Syllogism Two:

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.

Gerry, if you are a naturalistic materialist, you have no basis for using logical law because your worldview doesn't provide the category needed to have immaterial things like logic, concepts, etc. When you assume the constancy and utility of logic to argue against the Bible your own worldview undermines the very logic you use to attack the Bible. Worse yet, the very laws of logic you are using to argue against creationism are themselves only explainable within the Christian worldview held to by the creationist!

This is why we believe that it takes great faith to believe the religion of naturalism.

The question really should be, "What does the Bible say about this?" and "which 'faith' makes the most sense out of reality as a whole?" It certainly cannot be atheistic, naturalistic materialism; for such a worldview refutes itself as demonstrated above.

All ideas begin with hypotheses and they remain hypothetical until hard, verifiable evidence is presented to prove or disprove them.

This idea itself (empiricism) is not subject to "hard, verifiable evidence"; thus your assertion refutes itself.

Until proven, all ideas, including religious beliefs, remain nothing more than hopes, dreams, and wishful thinking.

If this is applied to your empiricism, then they too can be considered a pipe dream on your own standards since the immaterial, abstract concept of "empiricism" cannot itself by empirically proven. The Christian faith is not based upon wishful thinking or "believing what you know ain't true", but instead is based on the historical testimony of God working in history as recorded in the Bible. Christians do have "faith in faith", but faith in God's self-attesting, infallible testimony as contained in the 66 books of the Bible.

If the Bible was not true, you could not prove anything whatsoever. Thus, the truth of the Bible provides the necessary preconditions for proving anything. This is why intellectually self-conscious Christians accept the Bible as their ultimate presuppositional starting point. Without God's truth, you are left in a spiritual and intellectual quagmire of self-contradictory folly and unbelief. It's no wonder the Apostle Paul said,

So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, ¹⁸ being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart; (Ephesians 4:17-18)

Religious believers fervently want the universe and its contents to have been created and guided by a god and, come what may, it must be so.

This proves nothing and is a mere assertion. This could easily be reversed to say, "Religious unbelievers fervently want the universe and its contents to not have been created and guided by a god and, come what may, it must be so." This certainly sounds like Dawkins to me!

I would correct your assertion to say this, "Christian creationists know that the universe was created because God has testified of His creative power through His creation (Romans 1:19-25), and His written word, the Bible. Since His written word is the highest authority to which mankind can turn to in order to determine man's origin, purpose, and meaning in life and for the meaning to the universe, any rejection of God's word will lead to spiritual and intellectual futility, confusion, and the undermining of science itself because the truth of God's being and God's word provides the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of reality."

Professor Dawkins’ refusal to debate creationists is based on your inability to offer measurable scientific evidence to buttress your arguments.

But this misses the point of my original article. My point was that Dawkins was contradicting himself by refusing to debate PhD level creation scientists. In his own book he heartily affirmed that we need to be "open to debate" religious concepts to show the folly of them. He never said that we shouldn't debate religious concepts because they don't have any evidential value. Again, he affirmed the exact opposite here, "Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn't be." [Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, 20-21. Bold mine for emphasis - DSS]

When your evidence is examined scientifically – as it was in the Dover Area School District trial - it turns out to be nothing more than pseudo-science supported by faith, a property that, itself, can be neither examined nor measured.

Yet when you reject creation for naturalistic materialism you reject the basis for evaluating any evidence whatsoever. We will leave it to our readers to determine whether naturalistic materialism has indeed provided the philosophical "cash value" needed to prove anything in the first place. For more about the Dover Area School District situation, see here.

Gentlemen, merely believing something is true does not make it so.

We agree. That's why it is necessary to hold the claims of Neo-Darwinian theory to scientific scrutiny, especially when it contradicts the plain teaching of the Creator who was there, knows all things, and tells us how He did it and it has no evidence to support it.

Faith, no matter how powerful the conviction or how intense the sensation, is not evidence of truth.

The problem is that when you say things like this, you undermine your own "faith" position. As said above, everybody begins with some type of "faith" (i.e., beliefs that cannot be proven through empirical investigation), the question is, "Which 'faith' comports with reality without contradicting itself or the Bible?"

Evidence is evidence of truth.

Ignoring the fact that this is a tautology, the facts do not speak for themselves. Creation scientists and evolutionary scientists are working with the same evidence. Their conclusions differ greatly because they come to the evidence with different presuppositions that make up their antithetical worldviews. They interpret that evidence through their already presupposed worldview. Thus, evidence must be interpreted and the interpretation of the evidence will be dependent upon the worldview of the interpreter. Again, the questions are, "What does the Bible say about this?" and "Which 'faith' makes the most sense out of reality as a whole without contradicting itself or undermining the basis for 'proof' and 'rationality" to begin with?"

Religious beliefs vary from age to age, from culture to culture, from town to town, and from church to church.

It is irrelevant whether religious beliefs vary under different conditions. What is relevant is whether those views are true or not.

Science remains constant in all places and at all times.

If by "science" you mean that scientific theory never changes then tell that to Copernicus, Louis Pasteur, or Gregor Mendel, all of whom were Christians and creationists. They had the audacity to come up with new scientific theories based upon clear evidence that contradicted the prevailing theories of their time. See also Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

If by "science" you are referring to the laws of nature occurring in a uniform way if conditions remain the same, then I agree. However, I reject the philosophical principle of uniformitarianism for reasons mentioned in this article. See also "The Biblical Roots of Modern Science".

The truth of the word of god depends entirely on where and when you were born.

Not according to the life of Abram, Moses, and thousands of others that were reared in pagan environments (i.e., Genesis 11:31-12:3; Exo. 3:1ff; Eph. 2:1ff). The truth of the word of God getting to me or anybody else depends entirely upon His sovereign, monergistic work of regeneration (cf. John 3).

The constants that define the universe remain the same no matter where in the universe you happen to be.

Again, I agree that the laws of nature remain constant throughout the universe insofar as conditions remain the same, I just want to know why you believe that if there is no God sustaining it (cf. Gen. 8:22)?

What could possibly be more god-like than that?

Only God, the One Who made all things and by Whom all things exist (Romans 11:36; Colossians 1:15-17). We are not pantheists, we do not give worship and adoration to the creation, for such would be idolatry. This is a fundamental spiritual error that all naturalistic materialists commit. Either you will worship the Creator God or you will worship His creation. He told you so:

For they [the unbeliever] exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. (Romans 1:25)

Guys, the gods you believe in really are a delusion.

Gerry, worshiping the universe and rejecting the gospel of Jesus Christ will land you in Hell on the day of judgment. Please repent of your atheism, idolatry, and intellectual autonomy and submit yourself to the Creator and Savior Jesus Christ. It is only in Him that you can avoid committing spiritual and intellectual suicide (Colossians 2:3). Anything other than this is truly a strong delusion (2 Thessalonians 2:11).

Gerry Ottawa, Canada

Dusman Greensboro, NC

"The Morality of the New Atheism"

James Anderson is always worth reading. Here he writes about the morality of the New Atheism and how it is inconsistent with their own principles.

"What the New Atheists Don’t See"

"What the New Atheists Don't See" by Theodore Dalrymple. Dalrymple is a British medical doctor and atheist.

HT: Paul Manata.

The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Fideism and Obfuscation

Posted on behalf of Steve Hays -- blue background indicates Dr. Stenger's comments and quotations, red background indicates Steve Hays'.

Subject: The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason

On Jul 13, 2009, at 8:25 AM, Steve Hays wrote:

Dr. Stenger,

I was looking through the excerpts you've posted of your forthcoming book. I found some of your statements a bit puzzling:

"Science sees no limit in the human capacity to comprehend the universe and ourselves."

Isn't that a rather hyperbolic claim? For example, isn't paleontology limited to whatever trace evidence happens to survive the ravages of time? Likewise, in your own field of specialization, if the ultimate constituents of matter are immeasurable (because they're too small to measure), then doesn't that limit what we can know about the ultimate constituents of matter? We can extrapolate and postulate, but we can't really know, can we?

"God does not exist. Life without God means we are the governors of our own destinies."

That sounds very idealistic in the abstract, but how does it cash out in practice?

Does a baby who's terminated in the 8th month of pregnancy govern his own destiny? Does a senior citizen who's involuntarily euthanized govern his own destiny?

Isn't it the case that some people will always wield power over others? How many North Koreans govern their own destiny?

All of us eventually die of old age. That's our destiny. And it's not a destiny that we govern. We can sometimes do little things to hasten or forestall the outcome, but the outcome is inexorable.

"Taoism also preaches an end to the love of self and its replacement with a love of the world."

First of all, w hy should we care what Taoism preaches?

Secondly, isn't that a false dichotomy? It is still the self that loves the world. Eliminate the self, and you have an object without a subject.

“I like simple answers, and the answer is simple. People are capable of slitting a baby's throat if they are convinced they are following God's orders.”

Peter Singer advocates infanticide. Is he following God's orders?

"The evidence is overwhelming that the happiest, best-adjusted, healthiest societies in the world are those in which the majority has freely abandoned belief."

To judge by comparative rates of suicide around the world, the stats don't seem to bear out your correlation.

http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide_rates/en/

–Steve

Sent: Mon, Jul 13, 2009 12:44 pm

I was looking through the excerpts you've posted of your forthcoming book. I found some of your statements a bit puzzling:

"Science sees no limit in the human capacity to comprehend the universe and ourselves."

We don't have to know every detail to comprehend something.

UNDERSTAND, grasp, take in, see, apprehend, follow, make sense of, fathom, get to the bottom of; unravel, decipher, interpret; informal work out, figure out, make head(s) or tail(s) of, get one's head around, get the drift of, catch on to, get.

"God does not exist. Life without God means we are the governors of our own destinies."

That sounds very idealistic in the abstract, but how does it cash out in practice?

Does a baby who's terminated in the 8th month of pregnancy govern his own destiny? Does a senior citizen who's involuntarily euthanized govern his own destiny?

Isn't it the case that some people will always wield power over others? How many North Koreans govern their own destiny?

All of us eventually die of old age. That's our destiny. And it's not a destiny that we govern. We can sometimes do little things to hasten or forestall the outcome, but the outcome is inexorable.

OK, so maybe we all can't. But at least many can since we don't have God pulling the strings, in which cans none can.

"Taoism also preaches an end to the love of self and its replacement with a love of the world."

First of all, why should we care what Taoism preaches?

Because it may be a good idea.

Secondly, isn't that a false dichotomy? It is still the self that loves the world. Eliminate the self, and you have an object without a subject.

It's not the self that's eliminated, its the love of self.

“I like simple answers, and the answer is simple. People are capable of slitting a baby's throat if they are convinced they are following God's orders.”

Peter Singer advocates infanticide. Is he following God's orders?

I wasn't talking about Peter Singer.

"The evidence is overwhelming that the happiest, best-adjusted, healthiest societies in the world are those in which the majority has freely abandoned belief."

To judge by comparative rates of suicide around the world, the stats don't seem to bear out your correlation.

http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide_rates/en/

Suicides were included in the total statistics on happiness in the survey I reference.

----------------------------------
Victor J. Stenger
Adjunct Professor of Philosophy
University of Colorado at Boulder
Emeritus Professor of Physics and Astronomy
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Author of the 2007 NY Times bestseller
God: The Failed Hypothesis
Soon to be released: The New Atheism
http://www.colorado.philosophy/vstenger/

On Jul 13, 2009, at 1:29 PM, Steve Hays wrote:

Thanks for taking time to reply.

"We don't have to know every detail to comprehend something."

True, but that sounds far more modest than your original claim. Instead of saying "Science sees no limit in the human capacity to comprehend the universe and ourselves," I take it that you now say something like:

"According to science, human beings have a very limited, but genuine, capacity to comprehend something about the universe and something about themselves."

Is that your actual position?

"OK, so maybe we all can't. But at least many can since we don't have God pulling the strings, in which cans none can."

1. That sounds like a rather emotional objection.


2. Moreover, aren't you just exchanging one puppet-master for another? Instead of God pulling the strings, it's genes, hormones, brain chemistry, natural selection, cultural conditioning, &c.


3. Furthermore, on your view, isn't the puppet-master an ultimately blind, mindless puppet-master?


4. Finally, you yourself said "Christianity and Islam are the two most popular religions today for one reason more than any other: the promise of eternal life. Atheism can never compete with this promise."
   
   Isn't a supernatural puppet-master who offers eternal life better than a natural puppet-master who consigns you to oblivion?

"Because it may be a good idea"

Why is it a good idea to replace self-love with altruistic love? From a secular standpoint, why would an atheist recommend self-denial? If this life is all there is, wouldn't it be foolish to deny yourself?

"It's not the self that's eliminated, its the love of self."

Are they really separable? We love what we do because of who we are. We value the things we love in large part for what they mean to us.

"I wasn't talking about Peter Singer."

I know you weren't. And that's the problem. Shouldn't your objection be more even-handed? You said "People are capable of slitting a baby's throat if they are convinced they are following God's orders."

I take this to mean that people wouldn't commit infanticide unless they were convinced that they were following God's orders.

Now Peter Singer is a very articulate and unapologetic proponent of infanticide. Yet he's a secular bioethicist. So where's the religious connection? If there is no intrinsic religious connection, why cite infanticide as an objection to religion?

"Suicides were included in the total statistics on happiness in the survey I reference."

I'm not sure I know what that's supposed to mean. Seems to me that rates of suicide are a fairly obvious barometer of a happy, healthy, well-adjusted society. So what is your point?

Do you still insist on a consistent correlation between lower rates of suicide and higher rates of secularization? Or do you admit that there is no consistent correlation, but say this is offset by other factors which yield a higher sum total of social happiness?

Sent: Mon, Jul 13, 2009 5:47 pm

I do not have time to carry on email dialogues, although you are certainly welcome to send comments that I do look at.

In any case, I am not inclined to carry our discussion further since you have not read the book where these statements that you object too can be found in context and are expanded upon.

If you want to participate in a discussion with other scientists and freethinkers, I invite you to join my discussion list avoid-L@Hawaii.edu. See my home page for details.