Science and Religion, Epistemology and Discrimination

An interesting (but long - I only skimmed it) rehash of a debate between Alvin Plantinga (probably the most well-known Christian philosopher in the world) and Daniel Dennett (philosopher of mind and one of the "new atheists"). The commentator decided to remain anonymous, and wrote this about his decision:

I prefer to remain anonymous for various reasons, in particular because I am inclined towards Plantinga's position over Dennett's and were this to become well-known it could damage or destroy my career in analytic philosophy. This is something I prefer not to put my family through. I almost didn't publish these comments at all, but as far as I could tell, this would be the only public record of the discussion.

Friends, if you can identify me, I request that you keep my identity secret. I am sharing my thoughts as a service to the philosophical community and all those who have an interest in such debates. But I prefer not to suffer at the hands of my ardently secular colleagues. This is not to say that all secular analytic philosophers are this way; they most certainly are not. But enough of them are that I cannot risk being known publicly.

Interestingly, in the comments on the post, several people dismissed this as paranoia, while one person gave an example of something like this happening. One commenter wrote this:

I am a Christian, and I wrote my master's thesis at a secular university on Plantinga's epistemology. Half of my committee members were theists, half were not. Not once during my time as a graduate student did I ever feel that my career as a philosopher was threatened due to my theism or my sympathy with Plantinga. I have no idea why anyone would make this statement.

Fantastic argument, that. "It hasn't happened to me, therefore it doesn't happen to anyone." Reminds me of this comment from Emily Maguire's recent book on feminism, Princesses and Pornstars:

I’m sick of hearing people say that women aren’t oppressed because their husband does lots of housework or because their company pays women the same as men or because they’ve never personally been raped/groped/called a slut/been denied a basic human right.

Anyway, it is an issue I think about from time to time. Am I too open about my Christian beliefs? Will I be stereotyped as a believer, with the result that no one will take what I say seriously, because obviously I'm biased? This thought occurred to me a couple of years back when I was at a conference held in honour of John Hedley Brooke, one of the world's leading scholars on science and religion. He's notorious for never giving a straight answer about just what he believes, although rumour is that he's a Christian. He's written a lot about the relations between science and Christianity, in particular against the idea of conflict. His work is well respected, but if he was more open about what he believed, would he have been dismissed as an apologist or propagandist for Christianity? Not sure about this. Still thinking. Well, actually, thinking is on hold until after the thesis, but anyway...

Reason and Revelation

There is in scripture therefore no defect, but that any man what place or calling soever hee holde in the Church of God, may have thereby the light of his naturall understanding so perfected, that the one being relieved by the other, there can want no part of needfull instruction unto any good worke which God himselfe requireth, be it naturall or supernaturall, belonging simplie unto men as men, or unto men as they are united in whatsoever kinde of societie. It sufficeth therefore that nature and scripture doe serve in such full sort, that they both joyntly and not severallye eyther of them be so complete, that unto everlasting felicitie wee neede not the knowledge of any thing more then these two, may easily furnish our mindes with on all sides, and therefore they which adde traditions as a part of supernaturall necessarye truth, have not the truth, but are in error.

- Richard Hooker, Of the Lawes of Ecclesiastical Polity, 1593, 1.14.5.

Yikes, but that's a nasty passage to try to follow!

Pink chicky

Tee hee - this is fun!

Bunny!

Random comments

From "Roop" on "Superchic(k)":

A generalized anxiety disorder causes excessive and unrealistic anxiety about life circumstances. Usually it is a feeling of anxiousness and worry about things even when everything is fairly stable in your life. You might feel nervous, but don't know the reason for the same. Nothing has changed in your life, today is actually a nice looking day, and all is pretty much going well in your life, but you still feel nervous about something or the other.http://www.buy-xanax-online-now.com

From "hi mik1986" on "Anxiety and the Grace of God":

The best help for anxiety disorders is often self-help. Many people with anxiety disorders benefit from joining a self-help group and sharing their problems and achievements with others. No harm trying it, as there is nothing to be lost.http://www.buy-xanax-online-now.com

Weird.

HURRAH!

It's here at last:

The relationship between science and religion (SR) has often been portrayed as bellicose. Yet some scholars view the disciplines as allies that complement and buttress one another. Others consider them to be entirely discrete entities. Without a doubt, the interface of the two disciplines is complex and nuanced, and they have much to learn from one another. Heidi Campbell and Heather Looy assembled A Science and Religion Primer to guide a respectful, intelligent conversation. This landmark work is simultaneously an encyclopedia, an annotated bibliography, and a survey. What's more, the stalwart advisory board for this singular project is made up of

• Celia Deane-Drummond
• Nancey Murphy
• George F. R. Ellis
• Peter Harrison
• Holmes Rolston III
• Craig A. Boyd

Four substantive introductory essays--from Harrison (History and People in Science and Religion), Murphy (The Role of Philosophy in Religion-Science Dialogue), Deane-Drummond (Theology's Intersection with Science and Religion), and Rolston (Science and Technology in Light of Religion)--set the book's background. The second, and primary, section of the book provides an A-Z listing of entries dealing with a variety of philosophical, historical, scientific, and theological concepts, individuals, or events related to the SR dialogue. Each one is divided into three parts: a brief summary/definition of the concept, a key points and challenges section that identifies significant issues, and a "discussion partners" section that lists key related readings. A Science and Religion Primer is an indispensable source in its own right and a springboard for more in-depth research.

(Also, keep your eye out for a small entry on "Natural Theology".)

Another grr about Christians and evolution

From Tim Challies' blog - a quote from someone called Greg Koukl:

Some people suggest that God used evolution to design the world. They are motivated, I think, by two impulses. The first is a desire to affirm the Bible. The second is a suspicion Darwinism may have merit. Thus, they declare both true.

These two notions, however, seem incompatible to me. It may sound reasonable for God to “use” evolution, but if you look closer I think you will see the problem.

Suppose I wanted a straight flush for a hand of poker. I could either pull the cards out of the deck individually and “design” the hand, or I could shuffle the cards randomly and see if the flush is dealt to me. It would not make any sense, though, to “design” the hand by shuffling the deck and dealing. There’s no way to ensure the results. (I guess if I were really clever I could make it look like I was shuffling the deck when in reality I was stacking it, but that would be a deceitful kind of design called “cheating.”).

In the same way, either God designs the details of the biological world, or nature shuffles the deck and natural selection chooses the winning hand. The mechanism is either conscious and intentional (design), or unconscious and unintentional (natural selection). Creation has a purpose, a goal. Evolution is accidental, like a straight flush dealt to a poker rookie.

The idea that something is designed by chance is contradictory. Like trying to put a square peg in a round hole, this just doesn’t fit.

Fundamental problem here. As I understand it (need to do more reading), theistic evolutionists don't claim that God used evolution to design the world. Rather, they might claim that God used evolution in his work of creation, or that God established evolution as a process by which things change and develop in the world he created. Once again, can one really mount a serious argument without properly understanding the position one is arguing against?

Desperate Darwinists?

This is the kind of Christian comment on evolution that bugs me.

Let's have compassion for Darwinists as they develop desperate theories positing the existence of an infinite number of universes. Many cloak themselves as objectively scientific, but that can't dodge even what secularists like novelist Kurt Vonnegut acknowledge: "My body and your body are miracles of design. Scientists are pretending they have the answer as to how we got this way when natural selection couldn't possibly have produced such machines."
- Marvin Olasky, "Dialogue with Darwinists: Key themes to remember on the birthday of 'On the Origin of Species'"

It seems to me that while Olasky discourages ridicule of Darwinism, he himself is ridiculing Darwinists.

It's important to understand the position you're arguing against, and to offer actual arguments rather than ridicule. But calling "Darwinists" (who does that refer to anyway?) "desperate" - isn't that ridicule? Sure, the whole multiverse concept seems a bit wacky, but a lot of science is wacky (what does Olasky think about quantum physics?) and not all Darwinists would buy into that anyway. I know this is only a short article, but Olasky's attacks are on the people, not the ideas - "muttering" Darwinists are "desperate" and "cloaking themselves in scientific objectivity" - i.e. they're not really scientists. I guess Intelligent Design proponents are articulate, calm and actually objective.

And to say that scientists are pretending to have the answers? I don't know of any scientists (apologists for atheistic science such as Dawkins and Dennett are a different matter) who would even claim to have absolute answers - science is more a search for answers, which are always acknowledged to be provisional (even Dawkins admits that we may end up chucking out Darwinism if we find a better theory). We look at the world, and think "wow, that's so amazing, how could things have ended up this way?" To say that God created and sustains the universe is one possible answer, but it's not a scientific explanation. It could be true (and I believe it is) but it doesn't tell us anything scientifically. And, in a sense, it doesn't affect the way science is done. Whether or not a scientist believes in creation, she will still be seeking physical explanations of natural processes. Can science prove or disprove the existence of a divine designer? I don't think so. The same evidence can be interpreted in different ways. One person sees evolution as the means by which God created, while another sees blind physical process.

And on the issue of "complexity" - where one person sees "irreducible complexity", another sees a question to be answered. Sure, we might not know right now how particular mechanisms within a cell developed, but that doesn't mean that we won't know some years down the track. Throughout the history of science, human knowledge of nature has constantly been expanding - constantly discovering new things, and finding out that things are more complex than we thought. Complexity is not a new thing - just a deepening thing. Why stop now, throw our hands up and say, we can't figure it out? People could have done that with the atom, once they realised it wasn't just like a billiard ball.

Anyway, this is a rambling, ill-thought out post. Brain not working - blame the PhD. Just felt like a little rant. I know there are people who may read this blog who will disagree with me, and that's fine. Just don't expect me to get into a deep discussion about it - maybe after the thesis is done, but I really don't have the time or mental energy right now. And please, if you do want to criticise what I say, have the decency to leave your name. Thanks!

Hope is coming for me

C.S. LEWIS SONG - Brooke Fraser



If I find in myself desires nothing in this world can satisfy
I can only conclude that I was not made for here
If the flesh that I fight is at best only light and momentary
Then of course I’ll feel nude when to where I’m destined I’m compared

Speak to me in the light of the dawn
Mercy comes with the morning
I will sigh and with all creation groan
As I wait for hope to come for me

Am I lost or just less found,
On the straight or on the roundabout of the wrong way?
Is this a soul that stirs in me,
Is it breaking free, wanting to come alive?

‘Cause my comfort would prefer for me to be numb
And avoid the impending birth
Of who I was born to become

Speak to me in the light of the dawn
Mercy comes with the morning
I will sigh and with all creation groan
As I wait for hope to come for me

For we, we are not long here
Our time is but a breath
So we better breathe it
And I, I was made to live
I was made to love
I was made to know you

Hope is coming for me

Speak to me in the light of the dawn
Mercy comes with the morning
I will sigh and with all creation groan
As I wait for hope to come for me

There is nothing new under the sun - 4

From the Consideration of the Possibility of a divine Revelation in general, let us, in particular, examine whether the Christian Religion is founded on divine Revelation. How shall we be resolved in this important Point? The Way to do this, a Free-Thinker tells us, is to renounce all Guides, and to think freely for ourselves about this Matter.

But if by Free-thinking be meant bare Reason, and metaphysical Speculations, 'tis impossible for us this Way to come to any Certainty in this present Case; for Revelation in general, and that which Christianity is founded upon, does resolve itself into plain Matter of Fact: Whence the Evidence of the Truth of the Christian Revelation can be only a moral Evidence, arising from ancient Testimonies and authentic History of plain Matter of Fact.

So that if I should propose to inform myself whether the Christian Revelation be true, I must enquire whether the History of the Gospel be true; for if that be true, the Christian Revelation is so too.

Now 'tis impossible to determine this in our Thoughts only, we must take in the Witness of others, who lived at, or near those Times; and examine all the Evidences and Monuments of Antiquity relating to these Facts.

And whoever takes this Pains, will find the History of the Gospel stands upon a firmer Bottom than any other History.

And therefore whoever rejects the History of the Gospel, and yet gives Credit to other Histories, discovers gross Partiality.

But if the Facts recorded in the Gospel be true, then Christianity is founded on divine Revelation; then our Saviour had Authority from God to declare his Will; then he had Power to commission others to teach in his Name, and transmit his Doctrines to Posterity; then he did assist them to do this with Certainty; and then we may suppose these Writings freer from Effects of human Weakness.

Benjamin Ibbot, The True Notion of the Exercise of Private Judgment, or Free-Thinking, 1713.

There is nothing new under the sun - 3

The Foundation of our Religion, as it is purely Christian, is this, that the Sins of Men are not otherwise to be forgiven, nor their Souls saved, than by the Mediation of Jesus Christ, and by that Expiation which he has made with God for our Reconciliation.

The Doctrine the Enemies of Christianity run down, as unreasonable, and foolish, and altogether unworthy of God. They assert, that God is not to be worshiped by a Mediator, nor Pardon of Sins and Reconciliation to be expected by a Sacrifice of Expiation and Atonement; that these Things are disagreeable to the Mercy of God, and to the Freedom of his Grace, both which are essential to him as well as Justice and Vengeance. Or at most they tell us, that Repentance is of itself a sufficient Expiation, and to pretend that we cannot be saved but by the Redemption and Mediation of Jesus Christ, is, say they, as derogatory to the Love and Compassion and Clemency of the divine Nature, as the Worship of him by an Image is to his Spirituality.

But in answer to such Notions I will shew, that the Doctrine of Man's Redemption, and Remission of Sins, by the expiatory Sacrifice of the Blood of Christ, is neither unnecessary nor unreasonable, but are agreeable to the Perfections of God, and manifest his Wisdom and Goodness in our Redemption.

John Turner, The Wisdom of God in the Redemption of Man, 1708.

There is nothing new under the sun - 2

The Infidels of our Times despairing of being able to reason Religion out of the World, seem now to place all their Hopes of Success in sneering and laughing it out of Countenance.

To arm Men therefore against these rude Assaults, wherein their chief Strength lies, I will shew, That whosoever is a true Christian, both in Faith and Practice, can have no Reason to be ashamed of his being so.

Lilly Butler, Religion no Matter of Shame or Reproach, 1709.

There is nothing new under the sun

The Folly of Atheism, from the Pleasures of a Religious Life

Religion tells us we are the Workmanship of a superlatively wise, powerful, and good Being; that we are placed here to view and applaud these glorious Scenes of Heaven and Earth; and that God has created a sufficient Store of all Things, either necessary or convenient for us; and particularly to such as obey him, has promised a Supply of all our Wants, and a Protection from all Dangers; That he has sent his Son into the World to bring Life and Immortality to Light, and to render to Mankind, if they would obey his Commandments, the Promise of eternal Salvation.

Atheism on the contrary would persuade us, that this is all a Dream; that there is no such excellent Being as supposed, that created and preserves us; that all about us is dark senseless Matter, driven on by the wild impulses of Fatality; that Men rose out of the Slime of the Earth, and that what is called the Sou, perishes by Death.

And what Stupidity is this, to let go the Hopes of everlasting Life with Willingness, and entertain the Thoughts of Perdition with Exultation?

This inconsiderate Behaviour of the Atheists is so extremely absurd, that it would be deemed incredible, if it did not occur to our daily Observation. It proclaims aloud, that they are not led astray by their Reasoning, but led captive by their Lusts to the Denial of a God.

Did Religion bestow Heaven to both good and bad Men, there would be no Infidels among us: But it is the Way of attaining it, that makes prophane Men let go the Expectation of it. They will not practise its Rules, and therefore they cannot believe its Promises.

But, however, let us suppose that they have acted like reasonable Men, and upon diligent inquiry have found they were under a necessity of rejecting Religion, upon account of their being obliged to give their assent to such Things as are repugnant to common sense. And here I confess, that did the Offers of eternal Happiness depend upon our giving a full assent to such Things, the Kingdom of Heaven would become the Inheritance of Idiots and Fools. And if the Atheist can shew me any such Absurdities in the Christian Religion, I will either evince them to be Interpolations and Corruptions of the Faith, or yield myself a Proselyte to Infidelity.

Richard Bentley, The Confutation of Atheism, 1692.