Science: A New Religion?

The Devil's Advocate has written an excellent blog post on the new dogmatism of Science. Instead of being a tool it's much more like a religion, even though it rejects religion and philosophy (another problem DA points out in his post). He wrote, "Science, corrupted by mankind's hubris, is as dangerous as any other dogmatic doctrine that tells us what we *must* accept as valid and *must* reject as heresy.  This is an event horizon that science is rapidly approaching - and the time to realize that and find a better middle ground is now, before it is too late."

Read more here.

Panel debate on the existence of the Christian God and if it matters

This panel debate is on the existence of the God of the bible and if His existence matters to the world. This panel style conversation involves Christopher Hitchens, William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel, Douglas Wilson, and Jim Denison. I think this panel discussion is one of the best for any person who is new to arguments for and against theism because the listener is hearing the best of the best from both sides. The only negative point of this debate is that the moderator involves himself too heavily in this discussion, which is really, really, really, annoying.

Enjoy!

Common misunderstandings of cosmological argument

I don't write on the cosmological argument very much, mostly because I think I need to understand it MUCH better before I try to explain the details of it to others. I have a basic understanding of the argument so I could give the rundown of it to someone in person, but to thoroughly explain it, well I leave that to those who understand the argument in the finest of detail. 

Wintery Knight shared the post, "Ed Fiser explains common misunderstandings of the cosmological argument" and it's an excellent post explaining why certain objections to the argument fail and aren't really objections to begin with, but rather are better understood as misunderstandings. 

You can read the post by clicking here. 

Here are the misunderstandings Fiser lists:

1. The argument does NOT rest on the premise that “Everything has a cause.”
2. “What caused God?” is not a serious objection to the argument.
3. “Why assume that the universe had a beginning?” is not a serious objection to the argument.
4. “No one has given any reason to think that the First Cause is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, etc.” is not a serious objection to the argument.
5. “The argument doesn’t prove that Christianity is true” is not a serious objection to the argument.
6. Science has shown such-and-such” is not a serious objection to (most versions of) the argument.
7. The argument is not a “God of the gaps” argument.
8. Hume and Kant did not have the last word on the argument.  Neither has anyone else.
9. What “most philosophers” think about the argument is irrelevant.

Be sure to read the post in full at WK's blog.

Five bad arguments against theism

*Don't forget to also read the accompanying post titled, Five Bad Arguments for Theism. 

In this post I'm going to list the top five worst arguments against theism; arguments I've heard in debates (professional and lay-level) that I think are simply not reasonable enough to not hold theism. What I want to make clear here in the beginning is I don't think a person is stupid for using these arguments. I'm not intending for this post to read like an insult to anyone that uses the arguments. I'm simply voicing why I find the arguments to be the worst of the bunch. I'm also going to write a post about the worst arguments against atheism; so atheists, skeptics, etc. don't think I'm not fair.

1. Hating God. 

The argument goes something like this 1) I hate god 2) therefore, god does not exist. Come on. Not liking something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. This is not a valid reason for disbelief; either God exists or He doesn't, it's not up to whether we believe it or not. Plus, how can you hate something that doesn't exist? This argument violates the law of non-contradiction. 

2. Hypocritical Christianity 

This isn't an argument that professional debating atheists will use (I haven't heard any use it anyway), but atheists "on the street" use. Christians are hypocritical so God cannot exist. This argument is bad because 1) it doesn't follow that God doesn't exist because some Christians are hypocritical and 2) you can't base something's existence, character, etc. on the character of it's followers. Even if all of the Christians in the world and in history were hypocritical, didn't follow God's commands, do you really think that would make God non-existent? God's existence isn't dependent on the actions of His children. 

This argument is contradictory like the argument "Hating God." You must acknowledge the existence of God to use the argument. Let me explain. If you say Christians are hypocritical, therefore God does not exist; where are you getting the standard for how Christians should act? Are you not acknowledging God's standard for living in the process of judging the character of His children? If you are acknowledging God's standard then you must acknowledge His existence I would think. Either way, the person that uses this is simply finding a reason to not believe in something he or she doesn't like, which doesn't disprove the existence of the thing not liked. All this argument is good for is for not attending church, which can be understandable. However, not all churches are hypocritical. 

3. Euthyphro's Dilemma

This "dilemma" has been answered time and again, yet it still resurfaces (kind of like Pascal's wager, not sure why theists use that anymore) like a bad case of ants. You think the ants are gone then BAM you see one again. This is a bad argument because it's not a dilemma at all. There aren't only two answers to the dilemma there are actually more. Many atheists stand behind this argument, I cannot imagine why when the dilemma is not a true dilemma. 

See my posts on Euthyphro's Dilemma and the answers to it by clicking here.

4. Problem of evil 

Atheists stand behind this argument very proudly too. The problem of evil argument is stated something like this 1) If God was really good, He would want to get rid of all evil. 2) If God was really powerful, He would be capable of getting rid of all evil. 3)Since we do have evil, either your God is not good or He is not powerful, either of which sends the knockout punch to the one professing the existence of God. My quick response is that this has nothing to do with God's goodness, power, or existence. This argument doesn't destroy God or Christianity. Like Greg Koukl says, "It wasn't a problem of power that there is evil. And it wasn't a problem of goodness, that there is evil. And in fact, goodness requires evil and power doesn't have anything to do with getting rid of it." 

There is a four-step process (thanks Koukl) for answering the problem of evil. 1) People ought to be allowed to choose between moral alternatives. 2) It's a good thing that we have the freedom to make moral choices. 3) It's part of the nature of moral freedom to be able to choose between good and evil. 4) Raw power cannot make it possible for a morally free being to only choose good. Having genuine moral freedom means you might choose evil and having moral freedom is a good thing. 

More on this four step response by clicking here to read Greg Koukl's article Sixty Second Theodicy.  

5. Multiple Religions 

The argument is that since there are multiple religions then God, or at least the Christian God, cannot exist because of the varieties of gods created by man. It doesn't follow that God doesn't exist because there are multiple religions. There are multiple hypotheses on the mechanisms for evolution. Does that mean evolution isn't fact? Of course not. There are multiple views on aesthetics, yet that doesn't mean there is no art. You see where I'm going with this. Since there are many religions, does that mean God doesn't exist? Not at all. 

These arguments raised against theism I find wanting. I don't mean at all that these are stupid or irrelevant claims raised against theism. What I mean is that these objections do not go very far when analyzed. Many people think some of these are end-all arguments and that's simply not true. When thought over, one can see that these objections fail.

Check out my post about five bad arguments for theism. 

The courage of Nietzsche

I've wrote on Nietzsche's philosophy in the past and I think it's time to write about him again, especially after reading and listening to a recent question given to Richard Dawkins. His (Dawkins') response to the question was weak and sophomoric, which is very unsurprising given Dawkins' history in these events. Now, I don't want to bash Dawkins here because he is excellent in his field (Biology), so I will certainly give him credit for that, but I don't think he should be engaging in debates given his poor argumentation. Consider philosopher of science Michael Ruse's comments on Dawkins' book The God Delusion:

"It is not that the atheists are having a field day because of the brilliance and novelty of their thinking. Frankly - and I speak here as a nonbeliever myself, pretty atheistic about Christianity and skeptical about all theological claims - the material being churned out is second rate. And that is a euphemism for "downright awful." [. . .] It is simply that it (and the other works, some of which I have gone after elsewhere) is not very good. For a start, Dawkins is brazen in his ignorance of philosophy and theology (not to mention the history of science). [. . .] Dawkins misunderstands the place of the proofs, but this is nothing to his treatment of the proofs themselves. This is a man truly out of his depth." 

He later says that the God Delusion makes him embarrassed to be an atheist. Can you blame him? Dawkins is not alone in the new atheist method of argumentation. The method (wrapped in different ways) is simply to remove God and Christianity, but to keep the morality that comes from God. How can you do this? When following atheism and all of the flavors of it (naturalism, nihilism, etc.) to its logical conclusions, you don't get objective moral values. What do you get? Nietzsche realized that when you take God out of the picture, all you have is meaninglessness. That is the natural conclusion. What does Dawkins do with his naturalism? 

"Dawkins:….What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don’t feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do. None of us ever actually as a matter of fact says, “Oh well he couldn’t help doing it, he was determined by his molecules.” Maybe we should… I sometimes… Um… You probably remember many of you would have seen Fawlty Towers. The episode where Basil where his car won’t start and he gives it fair warning, counts up to three, and then gets out of the car and picks up a tree branch and thrashes it within an edge of his life. Maybe that’s what we all ought to… Maybe the way we laugh at Basil Fawlty, we ought to laugh in the same way at people who blame humans. I mean when we punish people for doing the most horrible murders, maybe the attitude we should take is “Oh they were just determined by their molecules.” It’s stupid to punish them. What we should do is say “This unit has a faulty motherboard which needs to be replaced.” I can’t bring myself to do that. I actually do respond in an emotional way and I blame people, I give people credit, or I might be more charitable and say this individual who has committed murders or child abuse of whatever it is was really abused in his own childhood. ….

Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views?

       Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable. But it has nothing to do with my views on religion it is an entirely separate issue."

That's not courage. That is not being consistent with your argument. Maybe Dawkins doesn't really believe the evidence? Or maybe our moral values and duties are not products of naturalistic determinism? Either way, Dawkins, like many of the new atheists, is not following his arguments to their logical conclusions. 

Looking at Nietzsche, we see a man that was truly revolutionary for his time. To go against the moral establishment of his day took courage. Not only did he make a case against Judeo-Christian morals, but also against utilitarianism and kantianism; looking to bring a more naturalistic source to life itself. Nietzsche observed the master and slave moralities as being in opposition to each other and thus, creating tension on people. The slave morality called for people to suppress their inner urges for "selfish gains" and concentrate on helping others, even though such persons could be supermen if allowed to pursue their "will-to-power." Nietzsche felt that morality is good for the masses, but exceptional people should be left follow their "inner-law." 

The statement "God is dead" is made in several of Nietzsche's works leaving many to label him as an atheist, but the more important question to this statement is, "What now?" If God is dead, what happens now? Nietzsche believed that the death of God would lead to utter nihilism, i.e., universal meaning and objective truth would no longer exist; life would be meaninglessness. The result would be that each person would have his own perspective, but there wouldn't be any real truth, hence no morality. Even though Nietzsche knew the conclusion to the death of God, he did offer a solution to the nihilistic fate of man: Ubermensch. 

What is most important here though is that Nietzsche realized that if you kill God, then there is nothing more than nihilism. You no longer have moral values and duties. Rape, murder, slander, etc., would no longer be evil; such acts would just be unfashionable. Nietzsche didn't try and retain objective moral values in his philosophy. The Ubermensch didn't act as an objective value giver, because it is free from the "failings" of truth and essence. Nietzsche was attempting to create a new world, one of Supermen. A way to visualize this concept is to look at Hitler and the Nazi regime, while it's not a true concept of Nietzsche's philosophy (he was against antisemitism and German nationalism) you can see that Hitler read Nietzsche's work (though not too clearly). 

Do I follow Nietzsche's philosophy? No, I believe the Christian worldview is the best explanation for our questions. However, I do respect his honesty in following the evidence where it leads. His work is also interesting and did shed light on issues. People should enjoy their life here on earth because life is short. Some theologians during Nietzsche's time were encouraging self-mutilation, reminiscent of eastern religions, which is not at all what God wants us to do with our time on Earth. Yes, Christians look forward to life after death, but the Christian is not to hate this life and to view it as evil. Heaven and Earth are not in opposition like good and evil. So, I think Nietzsche made good observations in that some religions do encourage hatred of this life and that is wrong to place such a heavy burden on the backs of people like that. Therefore, there are two things important to this blog post that I want to make clear:

1. Be consistent in your thinking and honest with the conclusion(s). If you don't like the conclusion(s), then change your position. 

2. Love life. There are moral values and duties to follow, yes, however they are not so binding on us that we cannot enjoy life. 

Further reading:

Why Objective Morality Fails on Scientific Naturalism

Friedrich Nietzsche's Ubermensch 

Michael Ruse on Richard Dawkins

Paul Copan challenges Richard Dawkins on determinism and rationality 

Do Objective Moral Values and Duties Exist? 

Nietzsche's Skepticism

Since I wrote up two posts on Friedrich Nietzsche, I thought I would share this great post by Hendrik van der Breggen (at APOLOGIA) on Nietzsche's skepticism. He summarizes Nietzsche's views on truth and knowledge and then gives his critique of those views. Hendrik teaches philosophy at Providence College in Otterburne, Manitoba, Canada.

An excerpt of Breggen's post:

"Also, when Nietzsche says God is dead and not relevant, Nietzsche presumes that these non-existence and non-relevance claims are true—so Nietzsche’s claim about God indirectly refutes his denial of truth. Moreover, when Nietzsche sets out his will-to-power theory, he is presuming a truth position about this theory/interpretation actually being either simply true or pragmatically justified, which again indirectly refutes his denial of truth. Furthermore, when Nietzsche claims that there are only interpretations and no facts, he presupposes this claim to be in fact true, once again indirectly refuting his denial of truth.

Nietzsche’s perspectivism is similarly problematic. On the one hand, if there is no truth, then perspectivism isn’t true. On the other hand, if there are only perspectives (interpretations), then the thesis that there are only perspectives is a perspective too—one among many. So why go with it?

In other words, as philosopher Paul Copan points out, perspectivism faces a dilemma: “The perspectivalist either (A) says something trivial and thus not worth paying attention to (‘it’s all perspective, but that’s just my own individual perspective’), or (B) contradicts himself (‘it’s all perspective—and I’m speaking for all perspectives—so if you disagree, you’re wrong’).” Either way, perspectivism falters.

But perhaps Nietzsche (or a present-day postmodern disciple of Nietzsche) might reply that there is a missing option: (C) it’s all perspective, but it’s pragmatic for us all to accept perspectivism, for the sake of life. It turns out that this option is problematic too.

First, if C is set out as a truth and not merely a useful claim, then C self-refutes. That is, C would be set out as a non-perspectival truth claim about the usefulness of perspectivism, a claim that transcends perspectives, which C precludes (because, according to C, it’s all perspective).

Second, if C is not set out as a perspective-transcending truth, then the result is a debilitating infinite regress. That is, for us to accept C, C too must presume a perspective that makes it pragmatic for us all to accept it; but, then, that perspective must presume another perspective which makes it pragmatic for us to accept the perspective about perspectives; but, then, that other perspective…and so on. In other words, there is an infinite regress that makes C unintelligible.

So, if option C is the case, then either there is a self-refutation or an infinite regress. Either way, C falters too.

In other words, Nietzsche’s claim that it’s all perspective, all interpretation, doesn’t hold.

Therefore, Nietzsche’s perspectivism does not block our knowledge of the world. As a matter of fact, the obvious remains: there are truths, there are facts, and many of these can be known (albeit fallibly and non-exhaustively).

Significantly, these known truths and facts serve as the ground for interpretation to occur in the first place, and this allows us to do science, history, natural theology, etc.—and apologetics."


Read the full post by clicking here.