“When you analyze all of the most current affirmative evidence from cosmology, physics, astronomy, biology, and so forth–well, I think you’ll discover that the positive case for an intelligent designer becomes absolutely compelling.” – Johnathan Wells, Ph.D., Ph.D., who received a doctorate in molecular and cell biology from Berkeley, and a doctorate in religious studies from Yale.
“While there will always be points of tension or unresolved conflict, the major developments in science in the past five decades have been running strongly in a theistic direction… You can invoke neither time nor space nor matter nor energy nor the laws of nature to explain the origin of the universe. General relativity points to the need for a cause that transcends those domains. And theism affirms the existence of such an entity–namely, God.” – Stephen C. Meyer, Ph.D., who received his doctorate from Cambridge, focusing on the history of molecular biology, the history of physics, and evolutionary theory.
After years of searching, in an attempt to look at the objective, scientific evidence in an attempt to disprove God, Viggo Olsen, M.S., M.D., Litt.D, D.H., F.A.C.S., F.I.C.S., and D.T.M.&H., (I kid you not, that is the proper way to address that single man) claimed, “The evidence was no longer obstructed. All we [him and his wife] had learned came together into a wonderful, magnificent, fabulous picture of Jesus… I know it’s true. I do believe.”
The Bible contains nothing contrary to scientific thought. It is also coherent and logical. This is why the discipline of Christian theology is so prevalent among the church, as the coherence of Scripture not only has face value but much depth to it as well. Read into actual scientific data, and look deep into it. Materialism is the dominant philosophy in our culture, and it holds more weight than the actual science supporting it should allow for.
Having read “The God Delusion,” I can safely say that it is some of the poorest scientific literature I have ever seen. Agreeing with me is Alister McGrath, with a Ph.D. in molecular biophysics from Oxford, with a who is an associate of Richard Dawkins. McGrath and Dawkins both are professors at Oxford. McGrath’s book, “The Dawkins Delusion?” opens with an introduction praising Dawkins for his scientific achievements, “Since the publication of The Selfish Gene (1976), Richard Dawkins has established himself as one of the most successful and skillfull scientific popularizers. Along with his American colleague Stephen Jay Gould, he has managed to make evolutionary biology accessible and interesting to a new generation of readers. I and other admirers of his popular scientific works have long envied their clarity, their beautiful use of helpful analogies, and their entertaining style.
Yet his latest book marks a significant departure… When I read The God Delusion I was both saddened and troubled. How, I wondered, could such a gifted popularizer of the natural sciences, who once had such a passionate concern for the objective analysis of evidence, turn into such an aggressive antireligious propagandist with an apparent disregard for evidence that was not favorable to his case? Religion to Dawkins is like a red flag to a bull–evoking not merely an aggressive response but one that throws normal scholarly conventions about scrupulous accuracy and fairness to the winds.”
If you haven’t ever heard anything like this, I recommend going and picking up that book, “The Dawkins Delusion?” It’s a great read, and it will certainly open your mind and remove those huge shutters that are in front of your eyes, known as a materialist philosophy and culture, rather than truth.
Edit: If you want my direct sources, I used “The Case For a Creator” By Lee Strobel and “The Dawkins Delusion?” By Alister McGrath (and his wife who I’m spacing on her name)
I am going to point out all the logical fallacies in your post. If you do not accept this, then you are not able to argue logically for your point, and if that is the case, then there is no point in arguing with you.
Argumentum ad verecundiam - argument from authority. Because someone has a Ph.D. and a basis for authority it does not logically imply that what he is saying is correct.
Non sequitur - it does not follow. It does not logically follow that the “positive case for an intelligent designer” is a result of “analyzing all of the most current affirmative evidence.”
Again, Argumentum ad verecundiam - argument from authority. Because person A has a Ph.D. and thus educational authority it does not imply that he is correct.
Again, Non sequitur - it does not follow from “General relativity” that "[it] points to the need for a cause that transcends those domains.
And yet again, you make an Argumentum ad verecundiam.
Base rate fallacy - You say that “the Bible contains nothing contrary to scientific thought, it is also coherent and logical.” What evidence do you have of this?
Argumentum ad populum - argument from popular belief. Because “Christian theology is so prevalent” does not mean that it is correct.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc - correlation does not imply causation. Even if the premise “it is also coherent and logical” was correct (which it isn’t, see above), “Christian theology is so prevalent” would not necessarily follow.
Appeal to emotion - “actual science supporting it should allow for.” What evidence do you have of this?
Argumentum ad verecundiam, yet again - argument from authority. Ph.D’s do not imply a logical basis for correctness.
A red herring! Ignoratio elenchi - distraction from the argument - in this case you are addressing how Dawkins was such a good scientist before, and now he has become bad because he has presented arguments for something that you do not agree with. You/McGrath are not addressing his arguments, but himself instead - a form of Argumentum ad hominem - argument from the man.
Provide evidence saying that the materialist philosophy is untrue.
Oh dear… Well, to be honest, I am glad that you at least took a high school logic course. Unfortunately, it appears you didn’t do too well in it. Give me until tonight when I can get on my laptop rather than my phone, and I will show you the error in your correcting my logical fallacies (to begin, I was making about as much of an “argument” as you were in your first post–both were not statements to be taken as fact and both were lacking on evidence), as well as logical fallacies used by yourself, and plenty of actual evidence to support my claims.
By the way, I’m only going to actually make that reply to humor you; if you knew much about logic, you’d know that the burden of proof rests on you, as you made the first polemic claims (without any evidence whatsoever, I might add).
Post hoc ergo propter hoc - just because I know logical fallacies does not mean I took a high school logic course. Which I didn’t.
Argumentum ad hominem - you attack me, my performance in this non-existant course I took instead of discussing my arguments.
Okay, burden of proof of what? What is it that I must provide evidence for?
If you are referring to my first post, I clearly stated directly afterhand that I was not supposed to be taken seriously. The next following statements are also logically valid. So far, I have not made any logical fallacies. I would, however, be more than happy to listen to what fallacies I have made which you can correctly point out.
Just unearthed an article I wrote on the topic many moons ago:
[spoiler]I was half-way through the God Delusion when my brother lent me his copy of Catcher in the Rye. Needless to say Richard Dawkins’ dry and often insulting attempt to disprove God has been put aside, for now. Nonetheless, I’ve been meaning to write about his so called proof against God. It’s just that, like reading his book, talking about his book is pretty tiresome. I will however give it a go. I’m not planning to review the book or go into detail about his many tangents and theories and what not. Sure, Richard Dawkins is grumpy about religion and religious people, but that’s not my concern. All I really want to address here is the question of God’s existence.
So far as I can ascertain Dawkins’ argument goes something like this:
The world and the universe and everything that exists is/are exceedingly complex. For God to have created it all he would have to be even more complex than the entirety of His creation. The more complex something is the more improbable it is, therefore the existence of God is highly improbable.
In opposition to this is the idea that scientific hypotheses offer simple explanations for complex problems. For example Darwin’s theory of evolution is a relatively simple theory that encompasses a multitude of incredibly complex genetic mutations and permutations.
Essentially it is the difference between a sky-hook and a crane (whatever that means).
I think my problem stems from the automatic assumption that God is complex. I think that to us God must seem very complex because of everything He is capable of. At several points in his book Dawkins specifically argues for God’s complexity on the basis of His awesome powers. But ultimately I agree with the philosophers Dawkins decries, God is simply perfect and perfectly simple. Every aspect of God’s power stems from some very simple concepts about God. He is capable of hearing every thought and prayer because He is omniscient. He is capable of creating, maintaining and ultimately ending the universe because He is omnipotent. Simply put, He is the sovereign ruler of all.
I also disagree with the assertion that God cannot be both omniscient and omnipotent. Dawkins argues that for God to look forward into the future and see His own actions leaves Him in an awkward position. Either He can’t change His actions, in which case He isn’t truly omnipotent, or He can change His actions, in which case He isn’t truly omniscient. To me this belies a wilful misunderstanding of the nature of God on par with the persistent question of God’s ability to make rocks that he can’t pick up. According to my limited understanding God is perfect and unchanging and exists outside of time. The question of His changing His mind is as irrelevant as the idea of Him looking forwards or backwards in time.
Maybe a small part of my problem stems from the absurdity of measuring the probability of a supernatural being. I believe that the presence of God is ultimately a matter of faith. Equally the absence of God is a matter of faith. There is no proof against God, only your belief that he doesn’t exist. That is a wholly unsatisfying argument for Dawkins, I know because he said as much in his book, but it’s hard to argue against.[/spoiler]
Again, argumentum ad hominem - rather than addressing Richard Dawkin’s arguments directly, you attack him personally by calling him “Richard Dorkins”.
Secundum quid - hasty generalization. You generalize all the arguments he writes about in his book to something that is very inaccurate. In addition, reductio ad ridiculum: You present Dawkin’s arguments with the phrase “What a joke” in a ridiculing fashion, as to divert from the content of the actual content of the argument, resulting in a straw man argument.
Appeal to flattery - in order to illogically emphasize your otherwise fallacious argument, you praise other authors as to make Dawkin’s writing stand out as especially poor, when it is not necessarily so.
And these are…?
I hardly find it insightful to paste a conclusion without having us even sample the facts that laid the groundwork for it. The above is a conclusion, a fully-formed opinion, not a fact. That the speaker has a Ph.D doesn’t automatically make the above a fact.
A Cambridge doctorate, far from lending weight to the above quote, just affirms for me how a study of science doesn’t necessarily make one scientific. I’ve heard of placeholders like “dark matter” for scientific theories, but the way I understand the scientific process is that you build on what isn’t broken down-- it’s a series of inching steps, and “God made it.” is quite a leap from “spacetime, energy-matter transcendent”.
You would know that “God made it” is making a claim, not questioning. “So what could be spacetime, energy-matter transcendent? Could it be pure information? Could it be a non-spacetime dimension that’s very thin but infinitely long? Could it be something unavailable to our experience and mathematics, let’s just call it sloop while we figure out how to figure it out?” Considering many options and exploring them as the next step. The nature of God (in the likeness of a human being, omnipresent, male, genderless, a single “force”, a triple “force”,) strikes me as far too debatable to be a solid enough next step. I could see how this very ambient nature could have God squeeze itself into any placeholder-- but my layman self wouldn’t really consider that science because it seems to be working backwards from the answer.
In Leviticus 11, it calls a bat a kind of bird. That’s quite contrary to modern taxonomy, and no wonder-- the Bible was written long, long before scientific standards could be properly formed. Why is the inevitable gap between them so difficult to accept?
I would rather argue that the Bible is contrary to scientific thought precisely because it’s more advanced than scientific thought and philosophy, a transcendental truth that, if seeming contrary to science, it is the fault of science becoming increasingly contrary to the ultimate truth. Not a fault of the Bible’s cultural outdatedness, its dealing more with personal histories than hard data, or the fallibility of its writers.
At this, I agree that science has a philosophical bias. Greek logos, which suggests removing a subject from its context in order to see what about that object is true. Eastern philosophy accepts that the truth of a subject relies on context and accepts seeming contracitions-- if this philosophy had been in the groundwork of science, maybe the double-slit experiment wouldn’t have been leapt on by paranormalists for The Importance Of An Observer, if it were already taken for granted that this is how the world works.
There was a time where it shunned experiment and worked on a basis of Platonian idealism alone. Science progresses and changes. It changes its facts, and I can see it changing its own biased system so it will be something else in the far future. Alethics, maybe (study of truth, rather than study of knowledge) or Ascience (knowing nothing-- the true philosophy of the skeptikoi.)
Why on earth would you want to mix your religion with something so changeable and transient? I don’t see them mixing. At all. I think you and Dawkins both epically FAIL trying to explain one by (or against) the rules of the other.
That’s very presumptuous. You can never be certain what removes anyone’s shutters. Or even if they have them-- maybe there’s a log in your own eye, have you ever checked?
Yes. There are quite a few non-jokeful statements that are logically incorrect in the book. However, the density of these logically incorrect statements is relatively small when compared to the density of logically incorrect statements in this thread, for example, or to the most highlighted response to Dawkin’s book, The Dawkin’s Delusion?.
In its current state, I do not think the logically incorrect statements prevent the book from being a useful and interesting read.
@EllyEve: Be careful, telling someone that they “epically FAIL” at presenting arguments counts as argumentum ad hominem. Instead, you should attack the arguments in question.
I appreciate that you layman’s terms-translated some of the latin/english expressions I used. Oh, and “Ceci n’est pas un pomme.”
The portion in bold seems to be far from helpful. I’ll admit that I haven’t read Dawkins’ book, but this bit seems to be praising Dawkins and taking a jab at your opposition’s intelligence (potentially, anyway; I’m not accusing you of writing it with the intent of insulting people, but I can see how some would take offense) while not really supplying us with any useful information or arguments to back up this claim.
I agree entirely, though, I would guess, not for the same reasons. I feel that any intellectual work, whether its conclusions are correct or incorrect, is worthy of study. Either way, there’s perspective to be had, and knowledge to be gained, by studying it.
On a personal note, from what I’ve seen of him and his work (which is a limited exposure, granted), I don’t think much of Richard Dawkins as a scholar; I find him to be very much biased (and even insulting, at times), and I don’t feel like he has adequately supported many of his assertions about God’s non-existence.
Now, that being said, it’s purely my OPINION, and it is based upon my current knowledge of the situation. You can peg it as a hasty generalization because I haven’t fully explained every single objection that I have against his arguments, but it’s late in my time zone, I have school in the morning, and I really don’t feel like typing it out right now. If you feel like I need to explain more, please PM me and ask!
And I see that, rather than directly addressing my claims that the God Delusion is poorly written and offensive, you have focused on my cunningly witty put-down.
Sure, there are other things discussed in the book, like the state of religion in America or a theoretical basis for the evolution of religion. But the only argument against the existence of God that I remember from his book is based on complexity and probability. I will however admit that my memory is not infallible.
The claims that Dawkins makes in the God Delusion are far greater (and the ramifications farther reaching) than the claims I’m making on this messageboard (simply that he doesn’t have a good enough case to make the claims he has). I never said the book wasn’t interesting, just that it isn’t the best example of its genre. As to its usefulness, I can imagine a situation where it may come in handy… Need fuel for a fire? Paper for the lavatory? Is that too hyperbolic for you?
God. What a word. What a topic. Been there, done that… but would love to do it again. In my vast studies, debates, and research I have found God to the be the anthropomorphized intelligence behind our universe. Personified as a Omniscient Male Father figure. Based on man’s role in old-society. God answers why, and science answers HOW God did it. The two do not disagree they coincide. Belong together, counter opposites, both necessary for a whole. Probability and chance are best summed up by Professor Albert Einstein, “God does not play dice.”
If you did not design the tree? A beaver, or a bee? Much less you or me? Then who did. Do not say randomness, or a Big Bang. Your inner ignorance will peak it’s ugly head.
As far as the Bible. It’s a METAPHOR. All metaphors. Adam & Eve, a story of lost innocence. Which sounds a lot like growing up. Jesus, a faithful son of perfection. sacrificed to the world. Kind of like having a child, raising him in a fallen world- Hoping to teach him right from wrong sufficiently.
LIfe is a test. There is something keeping score, keeping accounts, records… 'for without purpose existence would cease to existence. We would be a woodpecker beating our heads against a tree without a signifying purpose to separate man from beast.
God is real people. Your perception of the concept maybe not.
I had to check your age to confirm my suspicions before laughing at this…
In what way is the faithful perfect son of God being sacrificed for the world like raising a child and teaching him right from wrong? That does not seem like a particularly useful or cogent metaphor to me…
If this the metaphor you got from the bible then I have to say, “You’re doing it wrong.” Fair enough if that’s your belief, but while the bible may not be clear on every topic, I firmly believe it is clear on some and salvation is one of them.
Stuff came up, I did not get to access my laptop in time to properly address this topic. I have over 2 pages of text saved to Microsoft Word, and I will continue working on it to post the final work tomorrow.
Topic-frequenters, please disregard that one faulty translation. I only meant to emote my personal view of the incompatibility of both paradigms, and should have kept in mind that emoting is more often the downfall of good argument presentation than the spice.
“You don’t tell God what to do with His dice.” – Neils Bohr
I thought you said God deals with the Whys and not the Hows? Design sounds suspiciously like a How. The way I understood it, the tree designs itself. We design ourselves to an extent, with every choice we make, do we not? Perhaps evolution is free will made solid.
We still need to work with the design of our parents, all the while blueprinting the design of our descendants, and then there’s the world we interact with that encourages the survival of some designs and discourages the existence of others. I wouldn’t say “randomness” even if you didn’t forbid me. I say: complexity.
If I may backtrack…
Isn’t it more willfully ignorant, to outright ban a concept from mere mention?
Even countering the quote with Stephen C. Meyer suggesting that God was the spacetime, energy-matter transcendent source of all that scientists were looking for, I didn’t say, “Oh, puh-lease, ‘God’? You’re so ignorant.” I considered the nature of God, the nature of scientific research, (as I understood them,) found them incompatible, and explained why I found it so. Maybe there’s a flaw in my method, maybe someone has figured out how it all actually fits and can articulate it.
But for you to go, Don’t even … well… that struck me as a very closed-minded thing to say.
No rush. The point of contention will probably still be here in 100 years, whatever we post at each other at present.