What Really Matters

_{Cornelius Hunter

January 29, 2013

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I believe there are big problems with evolution. But I could be wrong. Or perhaps I’m right but some form of evolution is nonetheless true. Evolutionists, on the other hand, are much more certain and there is a never-ending drum roll of high truth claims from their camp. These truth claims are unwarranted and it is them, rather than the theory itself, that are the problem. So I’m not so much concerned about the theory itself as I am about the certainty with which it is presented. Read more

Comments

Thanks KF, much food for thought.,,, A couple of points I want to go back over.bornagain77_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT}

Sigh, Rosenberg.kairosfocus_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

Maybe I should clarify -- the Craig- Rosenhouse debate vid is now up here at UD as just linked.kairosfocus_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

BA, thanks, cf. here. KFkairosfocus_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

Youtube link: Is Faith in God Reasonable? FULL DEBATE with William Lane Craig and Alex Rosenberg - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhfkhq-CM84bornagain77_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

The Dr. Craig debate video is finally up: http://open.biola.edu/resources/is-faith-in-god-reasonablebornagain77_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT}

Box: Pardon, but I think that we must realise that there is a sharp difference between ordinary people who are Muslims and the radicalised under various IslamIST ideologies. (For instance, it is moderate Muslims from Algeria who developed the term Islamofascism, to describe what they faced and opposed.) Forgive me if I have not sufficiently made that clear above. (Cf the Declaration, here.) Islam as religion and civilisation is quite varied, but is prone to radicalisation by those who have lost a sense of proportion or common decency to the point where they imagine they do good by doing evil. "Let us do evil that good may come" makes no sense to the ordinary person, but the radicalised are a different matter, as, sadly, we saw at 9/11. This is not unfamiliar from various religious, cultural, intellectual or political traditions, including some fairly close to home. The issue is, that we must all first guard common decency and respect, then we must beware the corrupting influence of power and particularly power without transparency and accountability. My rule of thumb, on a survey of history, is that we must learn that we are finite, fallible morally struggling/fallen, and prone to be ill-willed. So, let us not be caught up in polarisation to the point of losing sight of the people on the other side. Even those who have done grave wrong are still in the same Image as we are, and should be treated as we would wish, were we in their shoes. That does not prevent the carrying out of justice and the defence of the civil peace, but it should temper how we act. Or we will become a mirror image of what we oppose -- as has happened in history more than once. As with a swinging pendulum, extremes provoke opposed extremes but the point of balance is the true opposite to all extremes. But, we also have a duty to learn from the 1930's, and open our eyes to rising threats, lest we find ourselves facing a terrible and horribly bloody challenge that could have been averted if resolute though unpopular measures had been taken only a few years earlier. KFkairosfocus_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

KF (171): But of course, I know any number of ordinary, decent people who are Muslim and do not act like this, they would be disappointed to see such behaviour.
It may be obvious but it has to be said. ‘Decent people who are muslim’ are decent people despite the murderous ideology called islam.Box_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

Box: basically, such declarations mean that he is here to deliver talking points, and does not expect to be challenged or questioned. Sad really. But inadvertently revealing -- a suggested name for the pivotal underlying problem is there, but I do not want to be incendiary; I simply say with Bob Marley, "who de cap fit, let 'im wear it . . ." Unfortunately, this sort of attitude is too often fairly common among the indoctrinated or radicalised in any number of ideologies. But of course, I know any number of ordinary, decent people who are Muslim and do not act like this, they would be disappointed to see such behaviour. I think this has to do with radicalisation and a power-push agenda. KFkairosfocus_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

JoeMorreale1187 (14): “Regarding the Muslim contribution to science and as a result the scientific revolution/Western civilisation I recommend : 1001 Inventions : Muslim Heritage in Our World”.
All taqiyyah. Read for instance this. Is there a name for the following aspect of JoeMorreale1187’s debating technique?
JM1187 (40): So as of now I will not respond to any comparative religious comments even if provoked.

JM1187 (47): I am not going to clear up anymore verses

JM1187 (50): I am not wasting anymore more time with you regarding this subject and I am going to try to resist the temptation to respond to your ignorance, distortions and provocations.

JM1187 (87)This is the very last comment of mine regarding the subject so I will be ignoring your replies .

JM1187 (81):Look I lied that i said it would be my last comment ! Big deal ah ?

JM1187 (88): I will not reply to anyone again regarding the subject.

JM1187 (122): I have decided that I won’t be answering and replying to your comments a anymore

JM1187 (159): I have realised its a waste of time commenting any further on this subject
Box_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

KN @167: Well said. ----- I would further point out:
. . . and how things are with the atoms determine how things are with the molecules, and so on — all the way up to cells, organisms, ecosystems, cultures, economies, political systems . . .
is not true, at least in the sense of atoms "just making up" molecules, molecules making up cells, cells making up organisms, etc. There is an informational aspect that is not limited to the physical and the material and which drives the entire process. That information can be discovered and studied by science and the scientific process, but there is nothing inherent in the matter or in scientific principle that would produce the information. Therefore, the information does not arise from any principle in science, only from (in Rosenberg's view no doubt) random, one-off, accidental particle collisions. There is little that is less scientific than such an assertion, which essentially amounts to "stuff happens."Eric Anderson_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

Mung, re denial of PSR: Yes, I see that. Incredible! And, he tried to use alpha decay to back it up! I think he confuses knowing SUFFICIENT causal conditions with knowing causal conditions. As I have repeatedly pointed out, necessary -- enabling/disabling or on/off switch -- factors are most definitely causal factors, as the fire tetrahedron shows: each and all of heat, fuel, chain reaction and oxidiser must be present for a fire to begin or be sustained. Knock out one and no fire or fire dies out. Just ask a fire fighter or experiment with a match. I submit that, once there are necessary causal factors in play, there are causes in play. In the case of a collection of U atoms, no atoms, no decay. In addition, if there had not been a certain balance of factors between electrostatic repulsion and strong force interactions, there would be no propensity to decay radioactively by alpha emission that moves towards stability by bringing about a balance of attraction and repulsion, in simple terms. After successive decays, we reach lead, and at that point stability sets in. So, in a given U atom we have a metastability and a radically contingent situation where from period to period each U atom has a certain likelihood of decay, a decay constant. The difference between the two atoms discussed is that one decays in the interval while the other has not yet decayed. So, we see where we can profitably discuss known causal factors and a resulting theory of decay chains, and where such end up. Yes, we do not have any reason to identify that U atom j will decay in the interval t1 - t2, and U atom k will not, but that just means we do not know the sufficient factors. We do know several necessary and contributory factors. So, I find talk of causeless events over the top. Then, to jump from this to onward assertions that therefore there is no problem with a whole universe popping into being is a blatant non sequitur. We may also use the necessary factors issue to understand necessary beings. That is, ask what happens if there are no on/off factors. The answer is that a serious candidate -- and spaghetti monsters or pink unicorns are obviously built up at least notionally of parts and are contingent, so not serious -- will either be impossible or will be in all possible worlds including the actual. The truth in 3 + 2 = 5 is a simple case in point. The PSR, in context is about this: if something is, we may ask and seek to answer why. If it begins or may cease it is contingent and caused. If not (and it is not impossible), it would be a necessary being. AR has not shown any reasonable falsification of PSR in a non-strawman form. KFkairosfocus_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

Actually, I should correct my (162) above. I think I actually hated Rosenberg's book more than what I've read of Craig. I think Craig is completely wrong, but his view is basically consistent, so far as I can tell. Rosenberg's view is internally incoherent, and here's why. On the one hand, Rosenberg claims that the sciences alone have any real epistemic significance. And on the other hand, he claims that the physical facts determine all the other facts: how things are with the fermions and bosons determine how things are with the atoms, and how things are with the atoms determine how things are with the molecules, and so on -- all the way up to cells, organisms, ecosystems, cultures, economies, political systems, and the metaphysical doctrines themselves. Now, here's the problem: the claim that the physical facts determine all the other facts is not itself a scientific claim. It is a metaphysical claim, an interpretation of the relevant sciences. But Rosenberg is also committed to the view that only the results of the sciences carry any epistemic significance. In other words, Rosenberg is committed to a criterion of epistemic significance according to which his very own metaphysical doctrine is nonsense. Here's an example: Rosenberg thinks that all meaningful questions are scientific questions. But he thinks that the question, "is biology reducible to physics?" has a perfectly good answer ("yes"). But that question is not itself a scientific question in any intelligible sense of "scientific" that I'm aware of. So he's committed to thinking that reductionism is both true and meaningless. Such is the fate of all attempts to combine Hume's empiricism and Spinoza's naturalism.Kantian Naturalist_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

JM: You are evidently a newbie, you do not know me, just as you patently did not know PJ and just as you do not seem to have any real acquaintance with the sorts of Missionaries I have known and known of, so I will issue one clear warning. I am a man who has risked career, reputation and more on matters of truth and right. Your false accusation of lying is out of order and is a personal attack. It is also clearly beyond the limits of civil discussion. Kindly, cease and desist; immediately. I would suggest that in future you distinguish disagreements, different viewpoints, even errors, and calculated deceit. (And, I put it to you, that it is quite clear above, that you have not fared well on the merits so have resorted to the "you irrationally hate and fear Muslims" talking point that has so often been used in recent years to try to smear and silence questioners and critics. FYI, I don't do intimidation, and I have excellent reason to see those who resort to false accusations as revealing an underlying incivility. You would also be well advised to understand the difference between an ideology and those who may be involved or caught up in it. If you look above, with an objective eye, you will see that I have specifically confined myself to commenting on ideology and rhetorical tactics. The above will further show why I continue to find the ideology and frequent tactics used by Dawah advocates seriously wanting, starting with not being able to soundly address basic and well established facts of history such as the death of Jesus of Nazareth by crucifixion, and the actual teachings of Jewish and Christian theology based on sound reading of the relevant scriptures. At no point have you given either the undersigned nor the astute and attentive onlooker any reason to revise the estimation that these are foundational and fatal errors in the system you wish to promote. The conspiracy theorism that emerged across the thread underscores the problem and points to serious defects in critical thinking and addressing the per-requisites of warrant.) If you have anything of real substance on merits of fact and logic, I would suggest you restrict yourself to such and bring forward a well-reasoned and cogent case; preferably on the main matter in this thread. However, if you have something substantial to say on the behalf of the cause you so obviously are pushing, that too should be brought forth now. Failing that, you are playing the role of a serial false accuser, empty repeater of already cogently answered and corrected talking points, purveyor of conspiracy theorism of a crankish variety, and indulger in general atmosphere poisoning. As, can be substantiated in detail from the thread above, for those who have not been following your track record over the past days. (Remember, you invited my intervention by making false accusations to dismiss another contributor to the thread.) Were I you, I would pause at this point, reflect carefully on what I have done and seek to make amends by making a positive contribution. A word to the wise . . . G'day GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT}

Yes, I know, I read it. It's an extended version of his essay "The Disenchanted Naturalist's Guide to Reality". The comments on that essay are quite interesting. In both the essay and the book, Rosenberg proudly describes himself as "scientistic". I read it because I was fascinated to see a philosopher wear that term as a badge of honor. Rosenberg is severely critical of all attempts to reconcile moral realism with scientific realism. My philosophical 'heroes,' like Dewey and Sellars, are his philosophical opponents. But notice: this makes Rosenberg an interesting kind of object-lesson for theists, and Feser makes this connection explicit in his blog-posts about Rosenberg. This is one of those, "one person's modus tollens is another person's modus ponens" situations. Rosenberg and Feser agree that moral realism and scientific realism are incompatible -- the difference is that Rosenberg then goes on to reject moral realism, whereas Feser mitigates the impact of scientific realism, and saves moral realism, by re-interpreting both of them through Thomistic metaphysics. By contrast, someone who holds to the Dewey/Sellars tradition, like myself, opposes both Rosenberg and Feser because I think that moral realism (properly interpreted) and scientific realism (properly interpreted) are not only compatible, but that we can secure that compatibility without theism. "Moral realism and scientific realism without theistic realism" is as good a slogan for the view as any I've got.Kantian Naturalist_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

KN, Rosenberg said the title was forced on him by his publisher. His claim is that these are not entailments of atheism, but of science itself, that in order to reject these conclusions, we must reject science.Mung_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

JoeMorreale1187 Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that Muhammad misunderstood the doctrine of the Trinitarian God and, therefore, misrepresented it in the Koran. You report that you were once a Christian, but it seems evident that you are unfamiliar with one of its most basic teachings.StephenB_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

I read Rosenberg's The Atheist's Guide to Reality and hated it just as much as anything I've read by William Lane Craig.Kantian Naturalist_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT}

@JoeMorreale1187: To be fair, we shouldn't forget that the USA is the only country which tested the effects of their nuclear WMDs on civilians massacring 200.000 and injuring many more. It is the USA which shouldn't have any WMDs.JWTruthInLove_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His MessengerJoeMorreale1187_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

KF: You are seriously deluded if you think that have corrected anything . You are just a jealous and lying spin doctor who belongs on CNN or the BBC. Anyway amongst my many comments there is more than enough truth for the objective and sincere persons on these threads to see where the truth is . You can thumbsuck in vain all you like about your convenient distortions of the Islamic concept of Taqiyya which a million websites have exposed and refuted . Alternatively you can simply go and ask your local Imam at the Mosque and get educated . I have realised its a waste of time commenting any further on this subject with jealous , malicious and wilfully ignorant individuals so I will conclude : There is no object worthy of worship and Muhammad saws is His last and Final Messenger , with the Quran he received being the LAST TESTAMENT . Good luck.....JoeMorreale1187_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

kf @140: Rosenberg was attacking the 'Principle of Sufficient Reason,' claiming that it is actually false. As a side note, does he even know what it takes to get to uranium from the initial "big bang"?Mung_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

Well, as long as geopolitical questions like 9/11 and Iran are on the table, Joe will not have to answer my theological question about Islam and abrogation.StephenB_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

BA77 @149: And they say Islam is not a danger.Mung_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

Dr. Craig, especially when he made the distinction between metaphysical naturalism and epistemological naturalism, and listed the 8 points crushing Rosenberg’s position, was simply devastating.
Yeah, I loved that segment. Mataphysical naturalism is absurd. Rosenberg's rebuttal? That doesn't mean atheism is absurd.Mung_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

F/N: Having corrected historical errors of a system, and having addressed issues of conspiracy theorism and failure to address basic warrant, I see that I am -- almost predictably -- being accused of irrational, hate-driven fears. Descent into ad hominems, which is of course where I first enetered the issue, when ad hominems were addressed to others, which have never been apologised for or retracted: falsely accusing PJ of fraud, accusing missionaries bearing witness to the gospel by doing good liars and spiritual bribers/seducers of the naive or the like, etc etc. JM, I think you need to do a lot of re-thinking about how you are operating. KFkairosfocus_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

Let's hope it will be embeddable. KFkairosfocus_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

At the site I listed as far as I knowbornagain77_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

BA77: Will that be as a Youtube etc link? KFkairosfocus_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

“Is Faith in God Reasonable?” Brief Debate Review: Alex Rosenberg vs. William Lane Craig Posted by J.W. Wartick ? February 1, 2013 http://jwwartick.com/2013/02/01/rosenberg-craig/ Missed the #GODdebate last night? It will be online for on demand viewing by 2 pm EST at http://www.biola.edu/debate . "Is Faith in God Reasonable?"bornagain77_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply