A BBC report on the amazing growth of Christianity in China.
"There are already more Chinese at church on a Sunday than in the whole of Europe."
Showing posts with label Atheism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Atheism. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Monday, January 10, 2011
Many atheists ignorant of Christianity
"Over the last few years I have encountered more atheists than I can shake a stick at.
Whether they are young atheists at the Auraria campus in downtown Denver or in an interview with a leader in Boulder, they all have one thing in common: ignorance...
...of Christian doctrine and practice."
Whether they are young atheists at the Auraria campus in downtown Denver or in an interview with a leader in Boulder, they all have one thing in common: ignorance...
...of Christian doctrine and practice."
Friday, December 17, 2010
New Atheism as a passing fad?
The principal source of my melancholy, however, is my firm conviction that today’s most obstreperous infidels lack the courage, moral intelligence, and thoughtfulness of their forefathers in faithlessness. What I find chiefly offensive about them is not that they are skeptics or atheists; rather, it is that they are not skeptics at all and have purchased their atheism cheaply, with the sort of boorish arrogance that might make a man believe himself a great strategist because his tanks overwhelmed a town of unarmed peasants, or a great lover because he can afford the price of admission to a brothel. So long as one can choose one’s conquests in advance, taking always the paths of least resistance, one can always imagine oneself a Napoleon or a Casanova (and even better: the one without a Waterloo, the other without the clap).
Insightful article, here.
Insightful article, here.
Friday, March 19, 2010
The Faith of Atheists
Everyone has faith--even atheists.
Naturally, this observation relies on the definition of 'faith'.
There are different meanings and usages of this word. In a cynical sense, faith is but an excuse to do whatever one desires. Sometimes it refers to an innocuous belief about a trivial subject (I believe that to be the case...). Atheists may use the word to describe irrationality--that which has no proof, justification or reason. Or, more humorously, “Faith is believing what you know ain’t so.”
The online Webster dictionary has a range of meanings:
"2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs"
When it is asserted that atheists have faith, point 3 is in mind. Many atheists have a strong conviction about the non-existence of God or believe in the value of the empirical method, etc. At other times atheists are convinced of the integrity of researchers they quote or the methods they use. Another way to write this is to assert that atheists have a belief--a belief in their worldview. Belief is a synonym for faith. Webster's definition of belief is similar to faith:
"3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence."
It is interesting that the definition of faith appends "a system of religious beliefs" and the entry on belief omits this phrase. The use of the word "especially" does not mean "uniquely". In fact, the third definition of faith includes the word 'belief'. And belief should be based on reasonable evidence. (For those more philosophically minded, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an in-depth article on belief--that attitude we have about what we regard as true).
This usage of the word(s) is important because when this claim is made it is not meant to be a vacuous idea. There is substance to the claim. Faith--conviction or trust based upon reasonable evidence--is common to all mankind because of creaturely finitude. It is meant to remind the detractor that the debate between Christians and non-Christians is between competing faiths--worldviews--between different evidences, proofs and justifications and the very philosophy of knowledge and justification itself.
It is unfortunate that too many Christians present faith in antithesis to reason. They are using faith in a way that traditional Protestant leaders and creeds have not. Reason is a tool. And its usage and limits are determined by the framework in which it is used and defined.
Yet it is hoped that atheists and others may realize that many a Christian (leader) do believe there are good and sufficient reasons for Christianity and Christianity's God. Although the faith of a Christian must include trust and rest in Christ, faith as such is not irrational by this definition. When faith is defined as irrational at the outset of a discussion (thus defining out of existence intelligent Christians), it must be vigorously denied.
All men and women believe in truth as they understand it. Atheists have such a faith. And so do Christians. The debate between the two is over which faith is best justified.
Naturally, this observation relies on the definition of 'faith'.
There are different meanings and usages of this word. In a cynical sense, faith is but an excuse to do whatever one desires. Sometimes it refers to an innocuous belief about a trivial subject (I believe that to be the case...). Atheists may use the word to describe irrationality--that which has no proof, justification or reason. Or, more humorously, “Faith is believing what you know ain’t so.”
The online Webster dictionary has a range of meanings:
"2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs"
When it is asserted that atheists have faith, point 3 is in mind. Many atheists have a strong conviction about the non-existence of God or believe in the value of the empirical method, etc. At other times atheists are convinced of the integrity of researchers they quote or the methods they use. Another way to write this is to assert that atheists have a belief--a belief in their worldview. Belief is a synonym for faith. Webster's definition of belief is similar to faith:
"3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence."
It is interesting that the definition of faith appends "a system of religious beliefs" and the entry on belief omits this phrase. The use of the word "especially" does not mean "uniquely". In fact, the third definition of faith includes the word 'belief'. And belief should be based on reasonable evidence. (For those more philosophically minded, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an in-depth article on belief--that attitude we have about what we regard as true).
This usage of the word(s) is important because when this claim is made it is not meant to be a vacuous idea. There is substance to the claim. Faith--conviction or trust based upon reasonable evidence--is common to all mankind because of creaturely finitude. It is meant to remind the detractor that the debate between Christians and non-Christians is between competing faiths--worldviews--between different evidences, proofs and justifications and the very philosophy of knowledge and justification itself.
It is unfortunate that too many Christians present faith in antithesis to reason. They are using faith in a way that traditional Protestant leaders and creeds have not. Reason is a tool. And its usage and limits are determined by the framework in which it is used and defined.
Yet it is hoped that atheists and others may realize that many a Christian (leader) do believe there are good and sufficient reasons for Christianity and Christianity's God. Although the faith of a Christian must include trust and rest in Christ, faith as such is not irrational by this definition. When faith is defined as irrational at the outset of a discussion (thus defining out of existence intelligent Christians), it must be vigorously denied.
All men and women believe in truth as they understand it. Atheists have such a faith. And so do Christians. The debate between the two is over which faith is best justified.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Local atheist talk weak on critique
The Wednesday nigh lecture in downtown Denver, Objectivism vs. Christianity, by Dr. Locke, was one hour long. While strong on rhetoric, it was weak on argumentation.
This weakness was manifested in two different ways. First, the critique of Christianity was almost a series of unjustified assertions of what is wrong with its belief-system. Second, the analysis--the rightful basis of any critique--was almost a cornucopian presentation of how not to present an opposing viewpoint.
The critique of Christianity, at the beginning of the talk, was naturally based upon the assumed referent of Objectivism. Unfortunately, such a viewpoint was not defended clearly at the first. Perhaps the speaker thought the audience would be mostly friendly to his views.
The problem is this: most of the "problems" offered about Christian philosophy were only legitimate critiques assuming the truthfulness of Objectivism. From a Christian worldview, this necessarily becomes one large question-begging enterprise: the very thing in debate between Christians and non-Christians is whether the one worldview or the other has the legitimate standard of right and wrong, reason and non-reason, etc.
For example, when it was asserted that the Bible's view of justice is actually "anti-justice," this assertion is only valid given the truthfulness of Objectivism and its definition of 'justice'. As a Christian (or any non-Objectivists for that matter) I have a different standard of justice and a different definition. To merely assert that my view is wrong based upon the presumed (and unargued) position of Objectivism is to beg the larger question (to argue in a circle).
It would be another thing to demonstrate (prove) that the Christian doctrine of justice was internally inconsistent within its own worldview (philosophy). No such proof was offered.
When debating or talking about the superiority or inferiority of one broad-based philosophy or another, it is incumbent upon the initiator of the discussion to handle the entire worldview, not attack it piecemeal. Any single element in such thorough systems of thought is always dependent upon the rest.
Even so, some of the critiques, in the form of a question, are legitimate questions and I hope to answer them in future postings. The next article will analyze the second weakness of this lecture: the presented "facts" of Christianity.
More Info: For an eye-witness account, here.
This weakness was manifested in two different ways. First, the critique of Christianity was almost a series of unjustified assertions of what is wrong with its belief-system. Second, the analysis--the rightful basis of any critique--was almost a cornucopian presentation of how not to present an opposing viewpoint.
The critique of Christianity, at the beginning of the talk, was naturally based upon the assumed referent of Objectivism. Unfortunately, such a viewpoint was not defended clearly at the first. Perhaps the speaker thought the audience would be mostly friendly to his views.
The problem is this: most of the "problems" offered about Christian philosophy were only legitimate critiques assuming the truthfulness of Objectivism. From a Christian worldview, this necessarily becomes one large question-begging enterprise: the very thing in debate between Christians and non-Christians is whether the one worldview or the other has the legitimate standard of right and wrong, reason and non-reason, etc.
For example, when it was asserted that the Bible's view of justice is actually "anti-justice," this assertion is only valid given the truthfulness of Objectivism and its definition of 'justice'. As a Christian (or any non-Objectivists for that matter) I have a different standard of justice and a different definition. To merely assert that my view is wrong based upon the presumed (and unargued) position of Objectivism is to beg the larger question (to argue in a circle).
It would be another thing to demonstrate (prove) that the Christian doctrine of justice was internally inconsistent within its own worldview (philosophy). No such proof was offered.
When debating or talking about the superiority or inferiority of one broad-based philosophy or another, it is incumbent upon the initiator of the discussion to handle the entire worldview, not attack it piecemeal. Any single element in such thorough systems of thought is always dependent upon the rest.
Even so, some of the critiques, in the form of a question, are legitimate questions and I hope to answer them in future postings. The next article will analyze the second weakness of this lecture: the presented "facts" of Christianity.
More Info: For an eye-witness account, here.
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
God: The Failed Hypothesis, A Review
“We now have considerable empirical data and highly successful scientific models that bear on the question of God’s existence. The time has come to examine what those data and models tell us about the validity of the God hypothesis.”
So claims Colorado professor Stenger.
Introduction
Victor J. Stenger is an adjunct professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado. And he is emeritus professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Hawaii.
Of course, there are many and sundry professors in America with similar training. What makes this book any different than the other new atheist books out there?
First of all, it is a scientifically involved book. Although some science understanding is needed in parts of the book, it is well written and well researched.
Secondly, it is endorsed by Dawkins: "...Stenger drives a pack of energetic ferrets down the last major bolt hole...I learned an enormous amount from this splendid book." This puts it on the national radar.
The chapters cover various examinations of the physical universe that purportedly reinforce the central thesis. But my intention is not to examine each chapter let alone each argument. That would become a book in itself. Rather, I will focus on the foundational elements of the book while highlighting a few other points. If the foundation of this atheistic-scientific house is missing, then the entire superstructure falls.
Building the House
Professor Stenger understands the importance of a proper and solid foundation. Thus, he lays out the ground-work in the beginning of the book, explaining what scientific model he is using and the God he is analyzing. From here the house superstructure is further built in the remaining chapters.
The 'god' he wishes to scientifically analyze is the one in common with the "three monotheisms": "...a supreme, transcendent being--beyond matter, space, and time--and yet the foundation of all that meets our senses...[one who] is a nanosecond-by-nanosecond participant in each event that takes place in every cubic nanometer of the universe...[who] listens to every thought and participates in each action of his very special creation..." (11).
And how will he investigate this 'god'?
“My analysis will be based on the contentions that God should be detectable by scientific means simply by virtue of the fact that he is supposed to play such a central role in the operations of the universe and the lives of humans. Existing scientific models contain no place where God is included as an ingredient in order to describe observations. Thus, if God exists, he must appear somewhere within the gaps or errors of scientific models” (13)
He simply equates the natural and supernatural as material and non-material respectively (14). And the science he uses is the doorway of our senses, our instruments, and generalized models of explanation. Hypothetical test that may reveal a non-material origin are proposed because " [God's] presence would be signaled, beyond a reasonable doubt, by the empirical verification of such a phenomena.” (14)
He acknowledges that a clever theist may retort that his god is still hidden, forever beyond the reach of empirical investigation. History and common sense, he replies, ultimately shows that "absence of evidence became evidence of absence. Generally speaking, when we have no evidence or other reason for believing in some entity, then we can be pretty sure that entity does not exist" (18).
He specifies that he will use a particular criterion in this book, falsificationism--an approach popularized by Sir Karl Popper. In particular, any hypothesis "must be one that contains the seeds of its own destruction...a hypothesis that cannot be falsified is a hypothesis that has no value" (25). In other words, the falsification criterion is the claim that valid scientific models are ones that could conceivably be proven otherwise. Popper rejected inductive reasoning postulating the progress of science in terms of conjecture (hypothesis) and refutation (testing). Instead of seeking out confirmation (evidence) of a theory, falsificationism seeks counter-facts and test to disconfirm a theory.
Analyzing the Foundation
“No consensus exists among philosophers of science on what distinguishes science from pseudoscience or nonscience, although most scientists would say they know pseudoscience when they see it.” (12)
This amazing admission is reworded elsewhere:
"falsification...[was] a means for distinguishing legitimate scientific models from nonscientific conjectures. Since then, however, philosophers of science have found falsification insufficient for this purpose" (26).
If no consensus exists on what criterion differentiates science from nonscience, why write this book?
Professor Stenger attempts to bypass this impasse: 'god' can be so falsified as a hypothesis because such a Being is "supposed to be everywhere..." If everywhere and a participant in all places and actions (of which all places and actions are at bottom material), then, argues the professor, this 'god' ought to be empirically discovered in any given place or action.
This assumes that science is the definitive technique for determining observable truth and that observable truth has no unobservable components—a gratuitous assumption as best. Behind this epistemic assumption lies a corresponding metaphysical assumption: that only the material exists. And further: if their is a non-material realm (of any consequence) then it will interact with the material realm in a testable way (again, therefore, falsifiable by scientific models).
Furthermore, the use of models is a tricky business. The author admits:
"Whether the elements and the processes that make up a successful model are to be taken as intrinsic parts of reality is not a question that can be simply answered…” because the model might be falsified in the distant future. Yet "when a model is falsified, we can reasonably assume that those elements and processes that are unique to the model…are likely not intrinsic parts of reality.” (13)
If each hypothesis is not necessarily an accurate model of reality and able to be falsified and thus replaced in the future, then how can one determine that now is the time to answer this God-question? Upon what (uncriticized) criterion was this decided?
Destroying the Foundation
The first problem is the definition of 'god'. In brief, the classical Protestant (Reformed) doctrine of God, as summarized in the Westminster Confession of Faith, does not present Him as merely participating in all things. Rather, this Triune God does "uphold, direct, dispose and govern" all things while ordering all to "fall out according to the nature of secondary causes..." even as God makes use of means, whilst free to work "without, above, and against them" (WCF 5.1-3). Such a God cannot be reduced to crass materialism, because the material universe is dependent upon Him. Therefore, any and all tests (and observations) are evidences for the existence of such a God.
The problem is that such a God is unacceptable to Stenger. Near the end of the book, he winnows out other 'god' options ('hidden gods') except the "hideous hidden God of Evangelical Christianity". Or more specifically the version given by an Evangelical Christian who admits that God does hide himself (contrary to Romans 1:18ff.). Even so, Stenger's attitude toward this God who "cannot be totally ruled out" is to accuse Him of "cowardice" and of not being "perfectly loving" (239ff.).
What is "perfectly loving" in an all-material universe? Most people believe it to be more than animal coupling. Perhaps it is the combination of bio-chemical and bio-electric reactions in the body? This questions does not even begin to touch the perennial question of what perfection is. This unscientific response is a picture of the entire effort of the book: to bring an Infinite and Transcendent God to the bar of finite human reason.
Given that this review is from the virtuous circle of the worldview of Christianity, what do non-Christians think?
Popper himself acknowledges the limitations of his scientific method. Professor Stenger notes that Popper restricted falsification to empirical statements only: "philosophical theories, or metaphysical theories, will be irrefutable by definition" (26). The God of Christianity in general, and Protestantism in particular, is a metaphysical God, notwithstanding Stenger's attempted reductionism.
On the other hand, the scientific worldview of Popper and others include "metaphysical theories" of what is a fact and what is material. Popper even admitted that "Darwinism is...a metaphysical research programme".
Among the other critiques of falsification as the heart of science, Martin Gardner, at Skeptical Inquirer, (2001, reprinted) explained:
"There are many objections to this startling claim. One is that falsifications are much rarer in science than searches for confirming instances. Astronomers look for signs of water on Mars. They do not think they are making efforts to falsify the conjecture that Mars never had water."
Another detractor summarizes several internal inconsistencies and contradictions. Mr. Dykes's paper, Debunking Popper (here), includes other well-known philosophers who have pointed unconquerable problems with falsification (aka, critical rationalism). One should suffice:
"Blanshard noted that particular propositions such as 'some swans are white' can only be falsified by showing that 'no swans are white.' Since the latter would be self-evidently untrue, 'some swans are white' is a perfectly valid scientific statement which cannot be falsified."
The boundary between science and nonscience is fuzzy indeed. Stenger is correct: "philosophers of science have found falsification insufficient for this purpose."
Conclusion
One cannot simply abstract God out of the interconnected web of beliefs of Christianity. Falsifying a single proposition is not the same as falsifying an entire worldview. Since well-developed worldviews cannot be falsified piecemeal, the new atheists need to use other tools in their quest to demolish Christ's kingdom.
Certainly confirmation and falsification are both useful tools in the domain of science (and even elsewhere). And critical self-evaluation is needed in any endeavor in life. But the hypothesis of falsification is not up to the task of tearing down the foundation of Christianity. Its inbred limitations are admitted even by its major proponent. Instead of disproving the God-hypothesis, falsification itself turned out to be a failed hypothesis.
So claims Colorado professor Stenger.
Introduction
Victor J. Stenger is an adjunct professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado. And he is emeritus professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Hawaii.
Of course, there are many and sundry professors in America with similar training. What makes this book any different than the other new atheist books out there?
First of all, it is a scientifically involved book. Although some science understanding is needed in parts of the book, it is well written and well researched.
Secondly, it is endorsed by Dawkins: "...Stenger drives a pack of energetic ferrets down the last major bolt hole...I learned an enormous amount from this splendid book." This puts it on the national radar.
The chapters cover various examinations of the physical universe that purportedly reinforce the central thesis. But my intention is not to examine each chapter let alone each argument. That would become a book in itself. Rather, I will focus on the foundational elements of the book while highlighting a few other points. If the foundation of this atheistic-scientific house is missing, then the entire superstructure falls.
Building the House
Professor Stenger understands the importance of a proper and solid foundation. Thus, he lays out the ground-work in the beginning of the book, explaining what scientific model he is using and the God he is analyzing. From here the house superstructure is further built in the remaining chapters.
The 'god' he wishes to scientifically analyze is the one in common with the "three monotheisms": "...a supreme, transcendent being--beyond matter, space, and time--and yet the foundation of all that meets our senses...[one who] is a nanosecond-by-nanosecond participant in each event that takes place in every cubic nanometer of the universe...[who] listens to every thought and participates in each action of his very special creation..." (11).
And how will he investigate this 'god'?
“My analysis will be based on the contentions that God should be detectable by scientific means simply by virtue of the fact that he is supposed to play such a central role in the operations of the universe and the lives of humans. Existing scientific models contain no place where God is included as an ingredient in order to describe observations. Thus, if God exists, he must appear somewhere within the gaps or errors of scientific models” (13)
He simply equates the natural and supernatural as material and non-material respectively (14). And the science he uses is the doorway of our senses, our instruments, and generalized models of explanation. Hypothetical test that may reveal a non-material origin are proposed because " [God's] presence would be signaled, beyond a reasonable doubt, by the empirical verification of such a phenomena.” (14)
He acknowledges that a clever theist may retort that his god is still hidden, forever beyond the reach of empirical investigation. History and common sense, he replies, ultimately shows that "absence of evidence became evidence of absence. Generally speaking, when we have no evidence or other reason for believing in some entity, then we can be pretty sure that entity does not exist" (18).
He specifies that he will use a particular criterion in this book, falsificationism--an approach popularized by Sir Karl Popper. In particular, any hypothesis "must be one that contains the seeds of its own destruction...a hypothesis that cannot be falsified is a hypothesis that has no value" (25). In other words, the falsification criterion is the claim that valid scientific models are ones that could conceivably be proven otherwise. Popper rejected inductive reasoning postulating the progress of science in terms of conjecture (hypothesis) and refutation (testing). Instead of seeking out confirmation (evidence) of a theory, falsificationism seeks counter-facts and test to disconfirm a theory.
Analyzing the Foundation
“No consensus exists among philosophers of science on what distinguishes science from pseudoscience or nonscience, although most scientists would say they know pseudoscience when they see it.” (12)
This amazing admission is reworded elsewhere:
"falsification...[was] a means for distinguishing legitimate scientific models from nonscientific conjectures. Since then, however, philosophers of science have found falsification insufficient for this purpose" (26).
If no consensus exists on what criterion differentiates science from nonscience, why write this book?
Professor Stenger attempts to bypass this impasse: 'god' can be so falsified as a hypothesis because such a Being is "supposed to be everywhere..." If everywhere and a participant in all places and actions (of which all places and actions are at bottom material), then, argues the professor, this 'god' ought to be empirically discovered in any given place or action.
This assumes that science is the definitive technique for determining observable truth and that observable truth has no unobservable components—a gratuitous assumption as best. Behind this epistemic assumption lies a corresponding metaphysical assumption: that only the material exists. And further: if their is a non-material realm (of any consequence) then it will interact with the material realm in a testable way (again, therefore, falsifiable by scientific models).
Furthermore, the use of models is a tricky business. The author admits:
"Whether the elements and the processes that make up a successful model are to be taken as intrinsic parts of reality is not a question that can be simply answered…” because the model might be falsified in the distant future. Yet "when a model is falsified, we can reasonably assume that those elements and processes that are unique to the model…are likely not intrinsic parts of reality.” (13)
If each hypothesis is not necessarily an accurate model of reality and able to be falsified and thus replaced in the future, then how can one determine that now is the time to answer this God-question? Upon what (uncriticized) criterion was this decided?
Destroying the Foundation
The first problem is the definition of 'god'. In brief, the classical Protestant (Reformed) doctrine of God, as summarized in the Westminster Confession of Faith, does not present Him as merely participating in all things. Rather, this Triune God does "uphold, direct, dispose and govern" all things while ordering all to "fall out according to the nature of secondary causes..." even as God makes use of means, whilst free to work "without, above, and against them" (WCF 5.1-3). Such a God cannot be reduced to crass materialism, because the material universe is dependent upon Him. Therefore, any and all tests (and observations) are evidences for the existence of such a God.
The problem is that such a God is unacceptable to Stenger. Near the end of the book, he winnows out other 'god' options ('hidden gods') except the "hideous hidden God of Evangelical Christianity". Or more specifically the version given by an Evangelical Christian who admits that God does hide himself (contrary to Romans 1:18ff.). Even so, Stenger's attitude toward this God who "cannot be totally ruled out" is to accuse Him of "cowardice" and of not being "perfectly loving" (239ff.).
What is "perfectly loving" in an all-material universe? Most people believe it to be more than animal coupling. Perhaps it is the combination of bio-chemical and bio-electric reactions in the body? This questions does not even begin to touch the perennial question of what perfection is. This unscientific response is a picture of the entire effort of the book: to bring an Infinite and Transcendent God to the bar of finite human reason.
Given that this review is from the virtuous circle of the worldview of Christianity, what do non-Christians think?
Popper himself acknowledges the limitations of his scientific method. Professor Stenger notes that Popper restricted falsification to empirical statements only: "philosophical theories, or metaphysical theories, will be irrefutable by definition" (26). The God of Christianity in general, and Protestantism in particular, is a metaphysical God, notwithstanding Stenger's attempted reductionism.
On the other hand, the scientific worldview of Popper and others include "metaphysical theories" of what is a fact and what is material. Popper even admitted that "Darwinism is...a metaphysical research programme".
Among the other critiques of falsification as the heart of science, Martin Gardner, at Skeptical Inquirer, (2001, reprinted) explained:
"There are many objections to this startling claim. One is that falsifications are much rarer in science than searches for confirming instances. Astronomers look for signs of water on Mars. They do not think they are making efforts to falsify the conjecture that Mars never had water."
Another detractor summarizes several internal inconsistencies and contradictions. Mr. Dykes's paper, Debunking Popper (here), includes other well-known philosophers who have pointed unconquerable problems with falsification (aka, critical rationalism). One should suffice:
"Blanshard noted that particular propositions such as 'some swans are white' can only be falsified by showing that 'no swans are white.' Since the latter would be self-evidently untrue, 'some swans are white' is a perfectly valid scientific statement which cannot be falsified."
The boundary between science and nonscience is fuzzy indeed. Stenger is correct: "philosophers of science have found falsification insufficient for this purpose."
Conclusion
One cannot simply abstract God out of the interconnected web of beliefs of Christianity. Falsifying a single proposition is not the same as falsifying an entire worldview. Since well-developed worldviews cannot be falsified piecemeal, the new atheists need to use other tools in their quest to demolish Christ's kingdom.
Certainly confirmation and falsification are both useful tools in the domain of science (and even elsewhere). And critical self-evaluation is needed in any endeavor in life. But the hypothesis of falsification is not up to the task of tearing down the foundation of Christianity. Its inbred limitations are admitted even by its major proponent. Instead of disproving the God-hypothesis, falsification itself turned out to be a failed hypothesis.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Latest Atheism Ad as Attack on Childhood
The last of the atheistic ads in London is finally here.
After months of bus ads using snappy, superficial cliches and clever comments, the ads will finally culminate in a billboard waiting to be defaced by logic.
Description
The ad attempts to undercut parental authority by questioning their natural and God-given right to direct the spiritual nurturing of their children. The billboard displays a happy young girl with words to her right (see article): Please don't label me. Let me grow up and choose for myself.
This less overtly negative ad was in response to many supporters. As Guardian writer Sherine noted (approvingly): "Many of you felt strongly that children should be given the freedom to decide which belief system they wanted to belong to, if any, and that they should not have a religion decided for them."
Its not the rank and file atheists asserting this bizarre attitude: "The atheist campaign team shared this point of view." Dawkins supports this campaign. As do other other organizations.
Even so such an ad hides a multitude of attitudes and theories about the relationship between children and parents. At richarddawkins.net and the guardian website a number of irate unbelievers asserted surprising attitudes more Americans need to be aware of:
"Absolutely right, allowing our children to be brainwashed by obviously delusional people is abuse."
"Parents don't own their children"
"To take advantage of the open minds of innocent, unaware children in this cynically oportunistic [sic] way is something that makes me sad and angry at the same time."
The question is: do the new atheist leaders agree with such dangerous sentiments?
Analysis
A myriad of responses are appropriate for this insidious attack upon what remains of Christian civilization. Yet the critiques with more punch are usually from within atheism:
"Do you not see the irony in telling other people how to live their lives and even raise their own children? I don't like faith schools, or the fact that i was baptised, but i would dislike even more someone telling my parents how to (or how not to) raise me." (Garou, Nov. 18)
With biting irony, gillesboy commented: "Bah! And to think of all those years of vegetarianism and humanism. I hate you dad!"
One observant commenter summarized the real underlining issue many people on both sides are hiding from:
"Religious power hierarchies are all about control. Because children's minds are uniquely receptive it is schools that are the prize in the battle to control people and populations...Let children's minds be free!" (LeDingue, Nov. 18)
After months of bus ads using snappy, superficial cliches and clever comments, the ads will finally culminate in a billboard waiting to be defaced by logic.
Description
The ad attempts to undercut parental authority by questioning their natural and God-given right to direct the spiritual nurturing of their children. The billboard displays a happy young girl with words to her right (see article): Please don't label me. Let me grow up and choose for myself.
This less overtly negative ad was in response to many supporters. As Guardian writer Sherine noted (approvingly): "Many of you felt strongly that children should be given the freedom to decide which belief system they wanted to belong to, if any, and that they should not have a religion decided for them."
Its not the rank and file atheists asserting this bizarre attitude: "The atheist campaign team shared this point of view." Dawkins supports this campaign. As do other other organizations.
Even so such an ad hides a multitude of attitudes and theories about the relationship between children and parents. At richarddawkins.net and the guardian website a number of irate unbelievers asserted surprising attitudes more Americans need to be aware of:
"Absolutely right, allowing our children to be brainwashed by obviously delusional people is abuse."
"Parents don't own their children"
"To take advantage of the open minds of innocent, unaware children in this cynically oportunistic [sic] way is something that makes me sad and angry at the same time."
The question is: do the new atheist leaders agree with such dangerous sentiments?
Analysis
A myriad of responses are appropriate for this insidious attack upon what remains of Christian civilization. Yet the critiques with more punch are usually from within atheism:
"Do you not see the irony in telling other people how to live their lives and even raise their own children? I don't like faith schools, or the fact that i was baptised, but i would dislike even more someone telling my parents how to (or how not to) raise me." (Garou, Nov. 18)
With biting irony, gillesboy commented: "Bah! And to think of all those years of vegetarianism and humanism. I hate you dad!"
One observant commenter summarized the real underlining issue many people on both sides are hiding from:
"Religious power hierarchies are all about control. Because children's minds are uniquely receptive it is schools that are the prize in the battle to control people and populations...Let children's minds be free!" (LeDingue, Nov. 18)
Thursday, November 19, 2009
New Book for New Atheists
Professor Stenger has written a new book: The New Atheism.
Author of the New York Times bestseller God: The Failed Hypothesis (reviewed here), Stenger attempts a more positive presentation of modern atheism. And he urges scientists and other non-Christians to resist and challenge anything not justified by reason.
In explaining the new atheism, a few elements stand out in the book: naturalism, denial of God's existence, rejection of Biblical ethics. The likes of Buddhism, Taoism and other Eastern systems are considered superior to "traditional supernatural monotheisms".
As soon as the book comes in, Lord willing, I will review it in full.
More here.
Author of the New York Times bestseller God: The Failed Hypothesis (reviewed here), Stenger attempts a more positive presentation of modern atheism. And he urges scientists and other non-Christians to resist and challenge anything not justified by reason.
In explaining the new atheism, a few elements stand out in the book: naturalism, denial of God's existence, rejection of Biblical ethics. The likes of Buddhism, Taoism and other Eastern systems are considered superior to "traditional supernatural monotheisms".
As soon as the book comes in, Lord willing, I will review it in full.
More here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
This ad actually intends to "free" children to the bondage of anti-God behaviors. The Christian position is antithetical: one is for God and His Christ or against Him. There is no middle ground. Christians have historically defined freedom differently than atheists.
In all fairness, the article asserts that everyone should "see children as individuals, free to make their own choices as soon as they are old enough to fully understand what these choices mean..." Defining "old enough," "fully understand," and "choices" is a legal quagmire let alone a social nightmare. Are they "old enough" to have sex? commit suicide? join the army?
Once again, there are more questions than answers. The atheists in this campaign are hiding behind generalizations and loaded language that they themselves do not agree upon.
The bold undefended assertion that pits children as individuals against their larger group associations is historically ignorant and philosophically naive. Are not children members of the British society? Given the rights therein of police protection by the state? Or are they "individuals" who ought not to be raised in a society that "labels" them British?
To answer this question is to vitiate the entire ad.
Let us examine this more philosophically: "the freedom to decide which belief system they wanted to belong to" is the freedom to self-label. It is not labeling per se that this ad wishes to attack but labeling done by others, done against that precious commodity of men-in-sin: free-will. Besides, the children are already labeled by atheists: 'free,' 'innocent,' and 'child'.
In contrast, God has labeled them and all humans 'sinner' and 'rebel'. In his grace, He has labeled church (covenant) children 'mine'. Both labels are intolerable to atheists and secularists and any other religion not Christian. Thus their desire to rip children from their parents and churches.
And thus the real debate comes to the fore once again. Does God exist? What are the implications of His existence?
The implications of His non-existence for many atheists are clear: parents ought not enculturate their own children. Thus this atheism can truly be labeled an attack upon childhood and the family.
(this article published nationally here)