Today, Dennis Prager had Lehigh University biology professor Michael Behe on his radio program and discussed his now year-old book, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism . I have read Behe’s books and articles and observed him at lectures and other forums. Behe is a microbiologist explorer and writer on “Intelligent Design.” A few things stood out in my mind relative to the discussion.
First, like Prager who was driven to controlled but admitted anger by the nonsense of a caller’s point that science and medicine, for example, depend on a fully Darwinist account of evolution, I quickly dismiss such dogmatically-inspired foolishness. But, the reason it is important to contain your anger and mildly engage such a supposition is precisely what Behe referred to after the break: Many people, both the secularist scientific clerisy and the often young pop-acolytes that populate and flood the Internet, believe exactly that line of thought. And, they hold it with the ardor similar to that of theists who believe that God has set forth moral standards to which we are accountable. That’s why I referred to a “dogma” and a “clerisy”: they say the authority of "science" dictates that it is so. “Authority” is defined as it is in theological discussion: “those who agree with me” on foundational metaphysical axioms. In this case, the only acceptable metaphysical axiom is, “No metaphysical axiom other than this particular one is valid.”
This is a restatement of an absurdity that analytical philosophy confronted long ago: Positivist empiricists insisted that “Only empirically testable assertions are meaningful,” which is not itself, an empirically testable assertion. Tufts University philosopher Daniel Dennett (Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life and Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon)still fervently embraces the idea. But, he well knows this justification problem. Dennett thinks that appeals to transcendent powers and principle are superfluous for a rational explanation of reality. Obviously, some of us disagree. But, Dennett’s statement that God or any transcendent principle is ontologically gratuitous is just a restatement of his premise: “I don’t believe…” which is hardly a startling revelation. Another caller complained as many do that the supposed design has flaws. But of course, it’s hardly news to most theists that both creation and people are flawed. That is much of what The Bible is about. What is perfect is our free will, which naturalist atheists are exercising perfectly well. What requires refining is not creation but our choices in challenging circumstances.
Another contemporary apostle of atheism is Christopher Hitchens (God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything). Hitchens is very historically and literarily well trained. But, he is admittedly thin on scientific scholarship. I believe I read and would not be surprised that he has some awareness of historical philosophy. But, his philosophical standards would be considerably less complete, though similar in kind to Dennett’s, in that his standards are selective according to his a priori postulates.
I am also very familiar with Hitchens. And what is rarely discussed but very striking about Hitchens’ contention is that he brazenly appropriates the language of morality and wields it as a cudgel against “religious” beliefs, institutions, and people. This is arresting because it has traditionally been the challenge of naturalist (no transcendent reality) philosophers to justify the validity and compulsion of moral assertions. You might expect and would be correct that usually their efforts have been less-than-convincing to common-sense.
But, Hitchens, assumedly targeting a philosophically untrained audience, blithely hurdles this matter. Quite to the contrary, Hitchens insists that we know right from wrong independent from religious instruction and it is an audacity for the “religious” (I use the quotes because though it reflects ordinary language and understanding today, particularly as a Christian I do not prefer or use that language) to presume otherwise. He is correct that people have an independent sense of right and wrong outside of tutoring. But in fact, The Bible teaches exactly that: that men are naturally endowed with certain basics of knowledge.
For us, that awareness is the endowment of their creator; of God. At first brush with Hitchens’ polemic, the thoughtful person will ask, “With no God, how does he justify his moral talk?” Well, we can go back to a reference from Behe, here. Behe’s first book, in 1996, was called Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution . A black box is a coarsely or inadequately defined element of an account or explanation of some process. Coming from the perspective of a microbiologist, Behe identifies Darwin’s black box as the cell, the basic component of biological structures. Behe points out that in Darwin’s time, he understood the cell to be a sort of basic piece of protoplasm which combined in different arrangements to form the varieties of living things.
However in the context of contemporary biology, we now know that the cell is not simple at all. It is infinitely complex, with a veritable factory of entities and interdependent functions for each particular biological element in the millions of varied biological species. So complex are cells and their interactions that Behe describes then as “irreducibly complex.” In other words, there is too much diversity to have evolved step by step through random and undirected mutations AND the interrelated functions are so interdependent that they could not have arisen and persisted independently of one another. His simple analogy is of a mousetrap: without any single vital element of the mousetrap, the entire contraption does not operate. And needless to say, such a dysfunctional biological organism would not survive, let alone reproduce. So, the black box of “evolution” is precisely a fill-in word for an unexplained or inexplicable process.
Now, in his later book, “The Edge of Evolution” (above), Behe describes his assent to the Darwinian notion of “common descent.” Like Francis Collins who directed the human genome project (but also, incidentally, confesses a faith in God: The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief and Coming to Peace With Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology) Behe sees the similarity in DNA sequences and acknowledges an appearance of biological relationship. But, he rejects the idea that this process is unplanned and undirected. Myself, I don’t feel compelled to accept common descent. I’m not prepared to make an argument against it, but the matter is not so vital as to merit intense investigation. Whatever I might conclude, it would minimally affect the conduct of my life. To me it is plainly designed, one way or the other. I’m much more concerned about the relative efficacy of taxation proposals than the question of common descent.
But, much is made over the commonality of DNA. Without it being an obsessive question for me, I will say that prima facie that says little to me. It’s like saying all buildings have blueprints with walls and plumbing and electricity, etc. Yes, so what? All biological organisms are living, ingest, excrete, breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. They say that the DNA of humans and chimpanzees are highly similar. Let’s see: two eyes, two ears, two legs, two lungs, etc. If the DNA is the software code to direct development and function, pray, how might it be other than very similar? It’s like saying a Rolls Royce and a Volkswagen are very similar because the blueprints both have four wheels, a horn, headlights, an internal combustion engine…
A few things are different in humans and chimpanzees. But, those few things are a BIIIG deal! Try getting a chimpanzee to appreciate art or literature. See what its favorite ethnic food or style of music is. Take it on a date. Or have a philosophical discussion. How similar are we, now?
Anyway, the astonishing thing about Hitchens is that when he is asked about how morals came about, he says that morality “has evolved.” Forget all of the historical moral obstacles of naturalism. He has stowed away moral imperatives on Darwin’s black box of “evolution.” Surely, he will go for all the gusto and put aesthetics on the ship, too. Why not? It worked for getting God out of biology, which is the prized objective. Perhaps he can appreciate that chimpanzees practice NO religion.
I note that supposedly thoughtful men such as these or Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris have declined even to engage someone like David Berlinski who has raised simply rational questions about their rash assertions. Heck, Berlinski’s book, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions is not even a year old. Going back a few more years, the longtime atheist philosopher Antony Flew of Britain, who is in terms of both history and reasoning is a relative giant next to Dawkins (even Dennett, who wrote some thoughtful and engaging books before mounting his zealous crusade) has concluded in his age that the evidence indicates that there must be a designer of creation, after all: “There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind”
Noting that Flew had been influenced by the evidence presented by people like Behe, Dawkins sniffed that he obviously was no longer credible and may be under the influence of senility’ a shame for a once-great thinker. YouTube video of Dawkins For future reference, you might do well to suspect that there are limits to one’s rational case when one quickly resorts challenges of moral or intellectual defect. Dennett, Hitchens, Sam Harris and others do this readily. It’s a dietary staple. And alas for Dawkins, this seems near to all that he has on the platter.
Showing posts with label Dawkins. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dawkins. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Dennis Prager - Michael Behe Flawed Creation, and The Evolution Black Box
Today, Dennis Prager had Lehigh University biology professor Michael Behe on his radio program and discussed his now year-old book, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism . I have read Behe’s books and articles and observed him at lectures and other forums. Behe is a microbiologist explorer and writer on “Intelligent Design.” A few things stood out in my mind relative to the discussion.
First, like Prager who was driven to controlled but admitted anger by the nonsense of a caller’s point that science and medicine, for example, depend on a fully Darwinist account of evolution, I quickly dismiss such dogmatically-inspired foolishness. But, the reason it is important to contain your anger and mildly engage such a supposition is precisely what Behe referred to after the break: Many people, both the secularist scientific clerisy and the often young pop-acolytes that populate and flood the Internet, believe exactly that line of thought. And, they hold it with the ardor similar to that of theists who believe that God has set forth moral standards to which we are accountable. That’s why I referred to a “dogma” and a “clerisy”: they say the authority of "science" dictates that it is so. “Authority” is defined as it is in theological discussion: “those who agree with me” on foundational metaphysical axioms. In this case, the only acceptable metaphysical axiom is, “No metaphysical axiom other than this particular one is valid.”
This is a restatement of an absurdity that analytical philosophy confronted long ago: Positivist empiricists insisted that “Only empirically testable assertions are meaningful,” which is not itself, an empirically testable assertion. Tufts University philosopher Daniel Dennett (Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life and Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon)still fervently embraces the idea. But, he well knows this justification problem. Dennett thinks that appeals to transcendent powers and principle are superfluous for a rational explanation of reality. Obviously, some of us disagree. But, Dennett’s statement that God or any transcendent principle is ontologically gratuitous is just a restatement of his premise: “I don’t believe…” which is hardly a startling revelation. Another caller complained as many do that the supposed design has flaws. But of course, it’s hardly news to most theists that both creation and people are flawed. That is much of what The Bible is about. What is perfect is our free will, which naturalist atheists are exercising perfectly well. What requires refining is not creation but our choices in challenging circumstances.
Another contemporary apostle of atheism is Christopher Hitchens (God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything). Hitchens is very historically and literarily well trained. But, he is admittedly thin on scientific scholarship. I believe I read and would not be surprised that he has some awareness of historical philosophy. But, his philosophical standards would be considerably less complete, though similar in kind to Dennett’s, in that his standards are selective according to his a priori postulates.
I am also very familiar with Hitchens. And what is rarely discussed but very striking about Hitchens’ contention is that he brazenly appropriates the language of morality and wields it as a cudgel against “religious” beliefs, institutions, and people. This is arresting because it has traditionally been the challenge of naturalist (no transcendent reality) philosophers to justify the validity and compulsion of moral assertions. You might expect and would be correct that usually their efforts have been less-than-convincing to common-sense.
But, Hitchens, assumedly targeting a philosophically untrained audience, blithely hurdles this matter. Quite to the contrary, Hitchens insists that we know right from wrong independent from religious instruction and it is an audacity for the “religious” (I use the quotes because though it reflects ordinary language and understanding today, particularly as a Christian I do not prefer or use that language) to presume otherwise. He is correct that people have an independent sense of right and wrong outside of tutoring. But in fact, The Bible teaches exactly that: that men are naturally endowed with certain basics of knowledge.
For us, that awareness is the endowment of their creator; of God. At first brush with Hitchens’ polemic, the thoughtful person will ask, “With no God, how does he justify his moral talk?” Well, we can go back to a reference from Behe, here. Behe’s first book, in 1996, was called Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution . A black box is a coarsely or inadequately defined element of an account or explanation of some process. Coming from the perspective of a microbiologist, Behe identifies Darwin’s black box as the cell, the basic component of biological structures. Behe points out that in Darwin’s time, he understood the cell to be a sort of basic piece of protoplasm which combined in different arrangements to form the varieties of living things.
However in the context of contemporary biology, we now know that the cell is not simple at all. It is infinitely complex, with a veritable factory of entities and interdependent functions for each particular biological element in the millions of varied biological species. So complex are cells and their interactions that Behe describes then as “irreducibly complex.” In other words, there is too much diversity to have evolved step by step through random and undirected mutations AND the interrelated functions are so interdependent that they could not have arisen and persisted independently of one another. His simple analogy is of a mousetrap: without any single vital element of the mousetrap, the entire contraption does not operate. And needless to say, such a dysfunctional biological organism would not survive, let alone reproduce. So, the black box of “evolution” is precisely a fill-in word for an unexplained or inexplicable process.
Now, in his later book, “The Edge of Evolution” (above), Behe describes his assent to the Darwinian notion of “common descent.” Like Francis Collins who directed the human genome project (but also, incidentally, confesses a faith in God: The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief and Coming to Peace With Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology) Behe sees the similarity in DNA sequences and acknowledges an appearance of biological relationship. But, he rejects the idea that this process is unplanned and undirected. Myself, I don’t feel compelled to accept common descent. I’m not prepared to make an argument against it, but the matter is not so vital as to merit intense investigation. Whatever I might conclude, it would minimally affect the conduct of my life. To me it is plainly designed, one way or the other. I’m much more concerned about the relative efficacy of taxation proposals than the question of common descent.
But, much is made over the commonality of DNA. Without it being an obsessive question for me, I will say that prima facie that says little to me. It’s like saying all buildings have blueprints with walls and plumbing and electricity, etc. Yes, so what? All biological organisms are living, ingest, excrete, breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. They say that the DNA of humans and chimpanzees are highly similar. Let’s see: two eyes, two ears, two legs, two lungs, etc. If the DNA is the software code to direct development and function, pray, how might it be other than very similar? It’s like saying a Rolls Royce and a Volkswagen are very similar because the blueprints both have four wheels, a horn, headlights, an internal combustion engine…
A few things are different in humans and chimpanzees. But, those few things are a BIIIG deal! Try getting a chimpanzee to appreciate art or literature. See what its favorite ethnic food or style of music is. Take it on a date. Or have a philosophical discussion. How similar are we, now?
Anyway, the astonishing thing about Hitchens is that when he is asked about how morals came about, he says that morality “has evolved.” Forget all of the historical moral obstacles of naturalism. He has stowed away moral imperatives on Darwin’s black box of “evolution.” Surely, he will go for all the gusto and put aesthetics on the ship, too. Why not? It worked for getting God out of biology, which is the prized objective. Perhaps he can appreciate that chimpanzees practice NO religion.
I note that supposedly thoughtful men such as these or Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris have declined even to engage someone like David Berlinski who has raised simply rational questions about their rash assertions. Heck, Berlinski’s book, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions is not even a year old. Going back a few more years, the longtime atheist philosopher Antony Flew of Britain, who is in terms of both history and reasoning is a relative giant next to Dawkins (even Dennett, who wrote some thoughtful and engaging books before mounting his zealous crusade) has concluded in his age that the evidence indicates that there must be a designer of creation, after all: “There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind”
Noting that Flew had been influenced by the evidence presented by people like Behe, Dawkins sniffed that he obviously was no longer credible and may be under the influence of senility’ a shame for a once-great thinker. YouTube video of Dawkins For future reference, you might do well to suspect that there are limits to one’s rational case when one quickly resorts challenges of moral or intellectual defect. Dennett, Hitchens, Sam Harris and others do this readily. It’s a dietary staple. And alas for Dawkins, this seems near to all that he has on the platter.
First, like Prager who was driven to controlled but admitted anger by the nonsense of a caller’s point that science and medicine, for example, depend on a fully Darwinist account of evolution, I quickly dismiss such dogmatically-inspired foolishness. But, the reason it is important to contain your anger and mildly engage such a supposition is precisely what Behe referred to after the break: Many people, both the secularist scientific clerisy and the often young pop-acolytes that populate and flood the Internet, believe exactly that line of thought. And, they hold it with the ardor similar to that of theists who believe that God has set forth moral standards to which we are accountable. That’s why I referred to a “dogma” and a “clerisy”: they say the authority of "science" dictates that it is so. “Authority” is defined as it is in theological discussion: “those who agree with me” on foundational metaphysical axioms. In this case, the only acceptable metaphysical axiom is, “No metaphysical axiom other than this particular one is valid.”
This is a restatement of an absurdity that analytical philosophy confronted long ago: Positivist empiricists insisted that “Only empirically testable assertions are meaningful,” which is not itself, an empirically testable assertion. Tufts University philosopher Daniel Dennett (Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life and Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon)still fervently embraces the idea. But, he well knows this justification problem. Dennett thinks that appeals to transcendent powers and principle are superfluous for a rational explanation of reality. Obviously, some of us disagree. But, Dennett’s statement that God or any transcendent principle is ontologically gratuitous is just a restatement of his premise: “I don’t believe…” which is hardly a startling revelation. Another caller complained as many do that the supposed design has flaws. But of course, it’s hardly news to most theists that both creation and people are flawed. That is much of what The Bible is about. What is perfect is our free will, which naturalist atheists are exercising perfectly well. What requires refining is not creation but our choices in challenging circumstances.
Another contemporary apostle of atheism is Christopher Hitchens (God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything). Hitchens is very historically and literarily well trained. But, he is admittedly thin on scientific scholarship. I believe I read and would not be surprised that he has some awareness of historical philosophy. But, his philosophical standards would be considerably less complete, though similar in kind to Dennett’s, in that his standards are selective according to his a priori postulates.
I am also very familiar with Hitchens. And what is rarely discussed but very striking about Hitchens’ contention is that he brazenly appropriates the language of morality and wields it as a cudgel against “religious” beliefs, institutions, and people. This is arresting because it has traditionally been the challenge of naturalist (no transcendent reality) philosophers to justify the validity and compulsion of moral assertions. You might expect and would be correct that usually their efforts have been less-than-convincing to common-sense.
But, Hitchens, assumedly targeting a philosophically untrained audience, blithely hurdles this matter. Quite to the contrary, Hitchens insists that we know right from wrong independent from religious instruction and it is an audacity for the “religious” (I use the quotes because though it reflects ordinary language and understanding today, particularly as a Christian I do not prefer or use that language) to presume otherwise. He is correct that people have an independent sense of right and wrong outside of tutoring. But in fact, The Bible teaches exactly that: that men are naturally endowed with certain basics of knowledge.
For us, that awareness is the endowment of their creator; of God. At first brush with Hitchens’ polemic, the thoughtful person will ask, “With no God, how does he justify his moral talk?” Well, we can go back to a reference from Behe, here. Behe’s first book, in 1996, was called Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution . A black box is a coarsely or inadequately defined element of an account or explanation of some process. Coming from the perspective of a microbiologist, Behe identifies Darwin’s black box as the cell, the basic component of biological structures. Behe points out that in Darwin’s time, he understood the cell to be a sort of basic piece of protoplasm which combined in different arrangements to form the varieties of living things.
However in the context of contemporary biology, we now know that the cell is not simple at all. It is infinitely complex, with a veritable factory of entities and interdependent functions for each particular biological element in the millions of varied biological species. So complex are cells and their interactions that Behe describes then as “irreducibly complex.” In other words, there is too much diversity to have evolved step by step through random and undirected mutations AND the interrelated functions are so interdependent that they could not have arisen and persisted independently of one another. His simple analogy is of a mousetrap: without any single vital element of the mousetrap, the entire contraption does not operate. And needless to say, such a dysfunctional biological organism would not survive, let alone reproduce. So, the black box of “evolution” is precisely a fill-in word for an unexplained or inexplicable process.
Now, in his later book, “The Edge of Evolution” (above), Behe describes his assent to the Darwinian notion of “common descent.” Like Francis Collins who directed the human genome project (but also, incidentally, confesses a faith in God: The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief and Coming to Peace With Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology) Behe sees the similarity in DNA sequences and acknowledges an appearance of biological relationship. But, he rejects the idea that this process is unplanned and undirected. Myself, I don’t feel compelled to accept common descent. I’m not prepared to make an argument against it, but the matter is not so vital as to merit intense investigation. Whatever I might conclude, it would minimally affect the conduct of my life. To me it is plainly designed, one way or the other. I’m much more concerned about the relative efficacy of taxation proposals than the question of common descent.
But, much is made over the commonality of DNA. Without it being an obsessive question for me, I will say that prima facie that says little to me. It’s like saying all buildings have blueprints with walls and plumbing and electricity, etc. Yes, so what? All biological organisms are living, ingest, excrete, breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. They say that the DNA of humans and chimpanzees are highly similar. Let’s see: two eyes, two ears, two legs, two lungs, etc. If the DNA is the software code to direct development and function, pray, how might it be other than very similar? It’s like saying a Rolls Royce and a Volkswagen are very similar because the blueprints both have four wheels, a horn, headlights, an internal combustion engine…
A few things are different in humans and chimpanzees. But, those few things are a BIIIG deal! Try getting a chimpanzee to appreciate art or literature. See what its favorite ethnic food or style of music is. Take it on a date. Or have a philosophical discussion. How similar are we, now?
Anyway, the astonishing thing about Hitchens is that when he is asked about how morals came about, he says that morality “has evolved.” Forget all of the historical moral obstacles of naturalism. He has stowed away moral imperatives on Darwin’s black box of “evolution.” Surely, he will go for all the gusto and put aesthetics on the ship, too. Why not? It worked for getting God out of biology, which is the prized objective. Perhaps he can appreciate that chimpanzees practice NO religion.
I note that supposedly thoughtful men such as these or Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris have declined even to engage someone like David Berlinski who has raised simply rational questions about their rash assertions. Heck, Berlinski’s book, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions is not even a year old. Going back a few more years, the longtime atheist philosopher Antony Flew of Britain, who is in terms of both history and reasoning is a relative giant next to Dawkins (even Dennett, who wrote some thoughtful and engaging books before mounting his zealous crusade) has concluded in his age that the evidence indicates that there must be a designer of creation, after all: “There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind”
Noting that Flew had been influenced by the evidence presented by people like Behe, Dawkins sniffed that he obviously was no longer credible and may be under the influence of senility’ a shame for a once-great thinker. YouTube video of Dawkins For future reference, you might do well to suspect that there are limits to one’s rational case when one quickly resorts challenges of moral or intellectual defect. Dennett, Hitchens, Sam Harris and others do this readily. It’s a dietary staple. And alas for Dawkins, this seems near to all that he has on the platter.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Reviews of David Berlinski's "The Devil's Delusion"
This is a response to Kevin Currie's review of David Berlinski's, "The Devil's Delusion."
I have read Berlinski's book and followed his argument in other forums as well. I do acknowledge that some of his sarcasm seemed a bit tendentious or gratuitous. But, we can also acknowledge that his is a spirited response to the annoyingly presumptuous assertions of the evangelical atheists which you have also noted.
But, do you suppose that this Princeton educated Ph.D. in Philosophy and self-developed mathematician and science commentator (I have known such natural polymaths) is really spouting indefensible arguments? If you watch Berlinski's personal appearances, he is perfectly willing to acknowledge his own uncertainties and sensitivities to criticism. I think his is a message that desperately merited delivering, and I have watched for responses from the celebrated atheist evangelists. If we were speaking strictly in terms of speech, we could say that thus far, the silence has been deafening, especially from those who make nearly a full-time diversion of the sort of cynicism and ridicule that Berlinski has frankly not approached.
Myself, I make no pretense of the sort of uncertainty that Berlinski confesses. I am a Christian who is persuaded down to my boots, and I did study philosophy and the multiplied manifestations of hyper-skepticism of relatively recent times.
I don't accept Christian teaching merely on unreflective assent to a book. As I have said, rather than confessing truths "because they are in The Bible," I believe that they are in The Bible because they are true. And, the difference is anything but trivial.
In a debate viewable on the Internet, Oxford atheist scientist-cum-Christian theologian Alister McGrath in a debate with Christopher Hitchens (I also read his "god is not great...") refers to an observation of C.S. Lewis that his conversion was something like the sunrise in that not only had he glimpsed the sun, but that by it he saw everything else. To experience God is to see through a different lens a qualitatively different and infinitely richer image. Therefore I do not ridicule folks like Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett, et. al. for what they cannot see. Rather, I pity them.
I have read Berlinski's book and followed his argument in other forums as well. I do acknowledge that some of his sarcasm seemed a bit tendentious or gratuitous. But, we can also acknowledge that his is a spirited response to the annoyingly presumptuous assertions of the evangelical atheists which you have also noted.
But, do you suppose that this Princeton educated Ph.D. in Philosophy and self-developed mathematician and science commentator (I have known such natural polymaths) is really spouting indefensible arguments? If you watch Berlinski's personal appearances, he is perfectly willing to acknowledge his own uncertainties and sensitivities to criticism. I think his is a message that desperately merited delivering, and I have watched for responses from the celebrated atheist evangelists. If we were speaking strictly in terms of speech, we could say that thus far, the silence has been deafening, especially from those who make nearly a full-time diversion of the sort of cynicism and ridicule that Berlinski has frankly not approached.
Myself, I make no pretense of the sort of uncertainty that Berlinski confesses. I am a Christian who is persuaded down to my boots, and I did study philosophy and the multiplied manifestations of hyper-skepticism of relatively recent times.
I don't accept Christian teaching merely on unreflective assent to a book. As I have said, rather than confessing truths "because they are in The Bible," I believe that they are in The Bible because they are true. And, the difference is anything but trivial.
In a debate viewable on the Internet, Oxford atheist scientist-cum-Christian theologian Alister McGrath in a debate with Christopher Hitchens (I also read his "god is not great...") refers to an observation of C.S. Lewis that his conversion was something like the sunrise in that not only had he glimpsed the sun, but that by it he saw everything else. To experience God is to see through a different lens a qualitatively different and infinitely richer image. Therefore I do not ridicule folks like Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett, et. al. for what they cannot see. Rather, I pity them.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Dr. David Berlinski and Dennis Prager Interview
This is Tuesday's easy to listen to interview by Dennis Prager of Dr. David Berlinski, whom Ben Stein spoke with in the movie, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.”
Tuesday April 22, 2008
H3: Ultimate Issues Hour: Atheism and Science With Dennis Prager
Prager H3: Dennis talks to David Berlinski, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle and a former fellow at the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques in Paris, France. His new book is The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions.
Length: 00:34:14
Dr. David Berlinski is the scholar that Ben Stein visited in Paris in the movie.
Something about him intrigued me. I checked him out and I found out why.
In the late 1950's, a stronghold of positivist empiricism in academic philosophy that had held sway for 50 years was debunked by Harvard philosopher Willard Van Orman Quine. Quine was a mathematician-logician who was not pressing a transcendent reality. He agreed with the status quo academic standard that the empirical data was all that there was to begin our investigation with (I don't agree with that, BTW-I'm a Christian).
However, applying cold logic, he demonstrated that empirical data alone cannot establish and justify a belief system: we must apply certain aesthetic standards and objectives. Dr. David Berlinski is a secular agnostic Jew. But, he is a mathematician and logician. He watched the publication and celebration of authors like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens and felt compelled to speak out against the outrageous presumption that science has debunked important non-scientific “disproved” religious claims. We make and live by many assumed truths that science cannot prove or disprove, including most of the important matters of our life. As with the empiricist philosophers, these have noisily overstated the implications and the capacity of science. These contemporary “science” advocates (their metaphysical claims and curses have nothing to do with real science) are a tardy and relatively vulgar manifestation of an error long ago put to rest. I just love it when a neutral party demonstrates the audacious presumption of a false dogma.
In addition to this a much less turgid interview with radio talk-show host Dennis Prager, I will post links to his discussion on C-SPAN's Book TV, and and a reference to Berlinski's new book, "The Devil's Delusion,".
At C-SPAN’s Book TV page:
Author: David Berlinski – The Devil’s Delusion
About the Program
David Berlinski, teacher and author of books on mathematics, challenges the fields of science and atheist thought by arguing that science has not been able to prove the inexistence of a God nor explain the start of the universe. This event was hosted by the Discovery Institute in Washington, D.C.
About the Author
David Berlinski is the author of several books, including "A Tour of Calculus," and "Newton's Gift." A former fellow at the Institute for Applied System Analysis, Mr. Berlinksi is currently a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.
Go to this page and click on "Watch."
The Devil's Delusion
Militant atheism is on the rise. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens have dominated bestseller lists with books denigrating religious belief as dangerous foolishness. And these authors are merely the leading edge of a far larger movement--one that now includes much of the scientific community. "The attack on traditional religious thought," writes David Berlinski in The Devil's Delusion, "marks the consolidation in our time of science as the single system of belief in which rational men and women might place their faith, and if not their faith, then certainly their devotion." A secular Jew, Berlinski nonetheless delivers a biting defense of religious thought. An acclaimed author who has spent his career writing about mathematics and the sciences, he turns the scientific community's cherished skepticism back on itself, daring to ask and answer some rather embarrassing questions: Has anyone provided a proof of God's nonexistence? Not even close. Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close. Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close. Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough. Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even ballpark. Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on. Berlinski does not dismiss the achievements of western science. The great physical theories, he observes, are among the treasures of the human race. But they do nothing to answer the questions that religion asks, and they fail to offer a coherent description of the cosmos or the methods by which it might be investigated. This brilliant, incisive, and funny book explores the limits of science and the pretensions of those who insist it can be--indeed must be--the ultimate touchstone for understanding our world and ourselves.
Tuesday April 22, 2008
H3: Ultimate Issues Hour: Atheism and Science With Dennis Prager
Prager H3: Dennis talks to David Berlinski, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle and a former fellow at the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques in Paris, France. His new book is The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions.
Length: 00:34:14
Dr. David Berlinski is the scholar that Ben Stein visited in Paris in the movie.
Something about him intrigued me. I checked him out and I found out why.
In the late 1950's, a stronghold of positivist empiricism in academic philosophy that had held sway for 50 years was debunked by Harvard philosopher Willard Van Orman Quine. Quine was a mathematician-logician who was not pressing a transcendent reality. He agreed with the status quo academic standard that the empirical data was all that there was to begin our investigation with (I don't agree with that, BTW-I'm a Christian).
However, applying cold logic, he demonstrated that empirical data alone cannot establish and justify a belief system: we must apply certain aesthetic standards and objectives. Dr. David Berlinski is a secular agnostic Jew. But, he is a mathematician and logician. He watched the publication and celebration of authors like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens and felt compelled to speak out against the outrageous presumption that science has debunked important non-scientific “disproved” religious claims. We make and live by many assumed truths that science cannot prove or disprove, including most of the important matters of our life. As with the empiricist philosophers, these have noisily overstated the implications and the capacity of science. These contemporary “science” advocates (their metaphysical claims and curses have nothing to do with real science) are a tardy and relatively vulgar manifestation of an error long ago put to rest. I just love it when a neutral party demonstrates the audacious presumption of a false dogma.
In addition to this a much less turgid interview with radio talk-show host Dennis Prager, I will post links to his discussion on C-SPAN's Book TV, and and a reference to Berlinski's new book, "The Devil's Delusion,".
At C-SPAN’s Book TV page:
Author: David Berlinski – The Devil’s Delusion
About the Program
David Berlinski, teacher and author of books on mathematics, challenges the fields of science and atheist thought by arguing that science has not been able to prove the inexistence of a God nor explain the start of the universe. This event was hosted by the Discovery Institute in Washington, D.C.
About the Author
David Berlinski is the author of several books, including "A Tour of Calculus," and "Newton's Gift." A former fellow at the Institute for Applied System Analysis, Mr. Berlinksi is currently a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.
Go to this page and click on "Watch."
The Devil's Delusion
Militant atheism is on the rise. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens have dominated bestseller lists with books denigrating religious belief as dangerous foolishness. And these authors are merely the leading edge of a far larger movement--one that now includes much of the scientific community. "The attack on traditional religious thought," writes David Berlinski in The Devil's Delusion, "marks the consolidation in our time of science as the single system of belief in which rational men and women might place their faith, and if not their faith, then certainly their devotion." A secular Jew, Berlinski nonetheless delivers a biting defense of religious thought. An acclaimed author who has spent his career writing about mathematics and the sciences, he turns the scientific community's cherished skepticism back on itself, daring to ask and answer some rather embarrassing questions: Has anyone provided a proof of God's nonexistence? Not even close. Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close. Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close. Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough. Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even ballpark. Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on. Berlinski does not dismiss the achievements of western science. The great physical theories, he observes, are among the treasures of the human race. But they do nothing to answer the questions that religion asks, and they fail to offer a coherent description of the cosmos or the methods by which it might be investigated. This brilliant, incisive, and funny book explores the limits of science and the pretensions of those who insist it can be--indeed must be--the ultimate touchstone for understanding our world and ourselves.
Monday, April 21, 2008
If Nothing Else," Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" Should Tell You Something, Just In Case You Haven't Noticed
I got out Friday night, to see “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” I had made arrangements to possibly see it with a few more people, in the next few days, and I happily will, and have opportunity to discuss it. But, after seeing the film and reading reviews online, one thing stands out particularly starkly to me.
I watched comment on the film leading up to its release and the reviews of those who saw it early. There is enough positive comment to read on the web. Here are a few at a good ones at: PipeLine News.org, http://www.pipelinenews.org/index.cfm?page=expelled4.19.08.htm , and The American Thinker, http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/04/post_83.html . But, everything in what are considered major, usually traditional news outlets, totally and pretty abruptly trashed the movie, calling it ignorant, or dishonest propaganda.
Consider two things about that:
1) Without going to a specifically theistic source, before the popularity of the Internet, you could have read NOTHING positive about the film. That’s the world that I was raised in, born in the late 50’s and a young man in the 70’s.
2) And 2 (and this is what stood out so starkly) Stein’s movie discusses how a academic and science organizations are closed to the mere suggestion that an intelligent author might be responsible for the design of systems more complex and capable than anything human beings have ever created. And, they are hostile to the point that those who even dare to draw their fundamentalist naturalist dogma into question suffer sanction socially and/or professionally. Many whom Stein interviewed would not even appear on camera, for fear of reprisal. But these established news sources are so similarly insulated that they can scarcely deliver up a report that does not endorse and defend this and other aspects of the pop-culture status quo.
These people would like the public to think that they are the real, objective source of news. But, the population of these establishment news sources is a) a fraction of one percent of the American population. And b) regardless, is philosophically restricted.
Do I think that this is an intentional distortion of the news? No, I don’t. In fact, I’m certain it is not. To make such a charge would be like their charges that Ben Stein is involved in dishonest propaganda. They are entirely genuine. They just don’t know any better. These days, the information of the fossil record and the complex systems is so extensive that it could hardly be more obvious that the differences are not over the data, but over predispositions in interpreting the data. The systems look to be of design if you do not foreclose the idea from the very beginning. And, if you do, the complexity of the system only display the wonders that evolution can perform, regardless of the lack of fossil evidence and the lack of explanation of how such a process began and continued to reproduce through stages of development. Other options are off the table.
This is how the establishment scientists arrive at their conclusion: they have nowhere else to go. Lack of evidence is just that; the evidence is incomplete and we will supposedly know eventually. But, that’s the point of Stein’s movie: that other options may not even be entertained. Stein is not asking, as some caricature the whole notion of intelligent design that a Biblical or any other account of creation be taught in public schools. The only argument is that scientists shouldn’t be shut off from discussing what they see as the evidence of design in the system. Anyway, they aren’t trying to deceive us. THEY REALLY BELIEVE that someone like me is impenetrably stupid.
They say that God cannot be studied by science. Obviously, the author of nature cannot be tested by nature. It’s a bogus argument, anyway. Not only can God not be empirically tested, but any theoretical empirical evidence would be of something less than what ordinary language means by the term, God. But, the critical journalists are annoying. The Pipeline News article cites a good example at Time Magazine http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html : a writer who has no idea what he’s talking about is presuming to pronounce both scientific and moral judgment on Stein and the film, when he seems to have little more than a freshman pop-biology foundation of authority to stand on. This is really simple stuff: plainly, these persecuted scientists are vastly more scientifically aware. No matter: they parrot the establishment, however feebly.
Stein speaks with scientists who contend that there should be openness in interpretation of the data, but have either seen or experienced suppression of the mere mention of heresy from the establishment Darwinist confession, not about change due to natural selection (which is an uncontroversial fact), but about any consideration of the evidence that complexities in nature suggest intelligent design and/or that Darwinism offers no explanation for the origin of life. The notorious evolutionist and ant-religionist Dr. Richard Dawkins *author of the God delusion finally admits a possibility that life on earth might be the product of an intelligent designer. But, such a designer would have to have been a highly evolved species of an alien civilization who planted life on our planet. In other words, intelligent design may be considered as a possibility…just not by God.
The supposition of God or an alien author are alike metaphysical (extra-empirical) ideas. But one needn’t feel obligated by supposing the existence of space aliens. God on the other hand, might have the temerity to hold standards for His creation…a most beastly idea. One scholar in the movie makes the clear statement that the dispute is not scientific, but a metaphysical one. And, it is plain to me that once that insolent anti-God metaphysical posture is established in a systematic mind metaphysical, they almost inevitably become supercilious and scornful of infidels: just the sort of religious adjudication that they ostensibly oppose. And all of the hyper-Darwinist scholars in Stein’s movie evidence this tendency.
The movie was good. Stein is just trying to leverage the question to consciousness via the pop-culture medium of film. At bottom, the issue is not at all scientific evidence. The issue is freedom of speech. And, speech is being restrained not by scientific evidence, but by the typical human anxieties of power, money, and fear. And, as with any entrenched interest, when they can’t respond to questions with answers, they respond with moral judgments and/or intellectual ridicule: “You’re evil! You’re stupid!” It’s a contemporary Inquisition. And these of the pop-science establishment are the dogma-pounding fundamentalists. I’ve seening the film twice
Ben Stein is visibly amused by the selective disdain of different metaphysical postures, and troubled by some of the historical logical ramifications of Darwinism. America will decide what path it follows. If we move wrongly as a society, it will get dark...here, as it has in Europe. But, Christians needn't despair. In what were thought more darkened parts of the world, when I was young' in Asia and Africa and South America, Christianity is burgeoning. Even if Europe and America progress toward cultural self-immolation, these parts of the world will thrive. The New Testament foresees that "the last will be first." And, a culture that stews in self-worship, will achieve what it has earned.
I watched comment on the film leading up to its release and the reviews of those who saw it early. There is enough positive comment to read on the web. Here are a few at a good ones at: PipeLine News.org, http://www.pipelinenews.org/index.cfm?page=expelled4.19.08.htm , and The American Thinker, http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/04/post_83.html . But, everything in what are considered major, usually traditional news outlets, totally and pretty abruptly trashed the movie, calling it ignorant, or dishonest propaganda.
Consider two things about that:
1) Without going to a specifically theistic source, before the popularity of the Internet, you could have read NOTHING positive about the film. That’s the world that I was raised in, born in the late 50’s and a young man in the 70’s.
2) And 2 (and this is what stood out so starkly) Stein’s movie discusses how a academic and science organizations are closed to the mere suggestion that an intelligent author might be responsible for the design of systems more complex and capable than anything human beings have ever created. And, they are hostile to the point that those who even dare to draw their fundamentalist naturalist dogma into question suffer sanction socially and/or professionally. Many whom Stein interviewed would not even appear on camera, for fear of reprisal. But these established news sources are so similarly insulated that they can scarcely deliver up a report that does not endorse and defend this and other aspects of the pop-culture status quo.
These people would like the public to think that they are the real, objective source of news. But, the population of these establishment news sources is a) a fraction of one percent of the American population. And b) regardless, is philosophically restricted.
Do I think that this is an intentional distortion of the news? No, I don’t. In fact, I’m certain it is not. To make such a charge would be like their charges that Ben Stein is involved in dishonest propaganda. They are entirely genuine. They just don’t know any better. These days, the information of the fossil record and the complex systems is so extensive that it could hardly be more obvious that the differences are not over the data, but over predispositions in interpreting the data. The systems look to be of design if you do not foreclose the idea from the very beginning. And, if you do, the complexity of the system only display the wonders that evolution can perform, regardless of the lack of fossil evidence and the lack of explanation of how such a process began and continued to reproduce through stages of development. Other options are off the table.
This is how the establishment scientists arrive at their conclusion: they have nowhere else to go. Lack of evidence is just that; the evidence is incomplete and we will supposedly know eventually. But, that’s the point of Stein’s movie: that other options may not even be entertained. Stein is not asking, as some caricature the whole notion of intelligent design that a Biblical or any other account of creation be taught in public schools. The only argument is that scientists shouldn’t be shut off from discussing what they see as the evidence of design in the system. Anyway, they aren’t trying to deceive us. THEY REALLY BELIEVE that someone like me is impenetrably stupid.
They say that God cannot be studied by science. Obviously, the author of nature cannot be tested by nature. It’s a bogus argument, anyway. Not only can God not be empirically tested, but any theoretical empirical evidence would be of something less than what ordinary language means by the term, God. But, the critical journalists are annoying. The Pipeline News article cites a good example at Time Magazine http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html : a writer who has no idea what he’s talking about is presuming to pronounce both scientific and moral judgment on Stein and the film, when he seems to have little more than a freshman pop-biology foundation of authority to stand on. This is really simple stuff: plainly, these persecuted scientists are vastly more scientifically aware. No matter: they parrot the establishment, however feebly.
Stein speaks with scientists who contend that there should be openness in interpretation of the data, but have either seen or experienced suppression of the mere mention of heresy from the establishment Darwinist confession, not about change due to natural selection (which is an uncontroversial fact), but about any consideration of the evidence that complexities in nature suggest intelligent design and/or that Darwinism offers no explanation for the origin of life. The notorious evolutionist and ant-religionist Dr. Richard Dawkins *author of the God delusion finally admits a possibility that life on earth might be the product of an intelligent designer. But, such a designer would have to have been a highly evolved species of an alien civilization who planted life on our planet. In other words, intelligent design may be considered as a possibility…just not by God.
The supposition of God or an alien author are alike metaphysical (extra-empirical) ideas. But one needn’t feel obligated by supposing the existence of space aliens. God on the other hand, might have the temerity to hold standards for His creation…a most beastly idea. One scholar in the movie makes the clear statement that the dispute is not scientific, but a metaphysical one. And, it is plain to me that once that insolent anti-God metaphysical posture is established in a systematic mind metaphysical, they almost inevitably become supercilious and scornful of infidels: just the sort of religious adjudication that they ostensibly oppose. And all of the hyper-Darwinist scholars in Stein’s movie evidence this tendency.
The movie was good. Stein is just trying to leverage the question to consciousness via the pop-culture medium of film. At bottom, the issue is not at all scientific evidence. The issue is freedom of speech. And, speech is being restrained not by scientific evidence, but by the typical human anxieties of power, money, and fear. And, as with any entrenched interest, when they can’t respond to questions with answers, they respond with moral judgments and/or intellectual ridicule: “You’re evil! You’re stupid!” It’s a contemporary Inquisition. And these of the pop-science establishment are the dogma-pounding fundamentalists. I’ve seening the film twice
Ben Stein is visibly amused by the selective disdain of different metaphysical postures, and troubled by some of the historical logical ramifications of Darwinism. America will decide what path it follows. If we move wrongly as a society, it will get dark...here, as it has in Europe. But, Christians needn't despair. In what were thought more darkened parts of the world, when I was young' in Asia and Africa and South America, Christianity is burgeoning. Even if Europe and America progress toward cultural self-immolation, these parts of the world will thrive. The New Testament foresees that "the last will be first." And, a culture that stews in self-worship, will achieve what it has earned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)