Heritage Coast, Wales
My good friend known as Chucky responded to a multi-topic blog article I posted on satire and theology.
Within the article I had posted a link from the Albert Mohler program which discussed global warming, but also Richard Dawkins. Here is the Albert Mohler link:
http://www.albertmohler.com/radio_show.php?cdate=2007-01-23
Chucky noted:
Sounds like Dawkins is kind of a scientific Jerry Springer: he is more interested in provoking, offending and getting people riled up than in seeking truth. His righteous anger toward religion makes me think of the character of Saul of Tarsus. It is hard to think that anything other than a revelatory experience would cause him to change his ways.
Re: Global warming, I simply don't understand how our governments can just keep throwing gazillions of dollars at out-of-control health care, pointless wars, ineffective gun registries, all kinds of "squeaky wheels", etc. while productive industry shifts to developing countries, never mind placing additional restrictions on businesses which may do nothing more than hasten their demise (due o inability to compete with non-Kyoto countries). Yet I believe that we ought to be good stewards of what God has given us. The dilemma we face is caused by having already gone too far down the wrong road (of fossil fuel depletion) to make things right, unless there is a concerted global effort to change. Probably only a global dictatorship would have a chance at this point. 1984 here we come...
I replied:
Philosophical truth should not be overlooked as questionable and for the most part only empirical scientific data accepted as the means by which truth can be understood. Since the universe is expanding it is likely not infinite and eternal and neither is matter. What existed before matter and what caused it to exist? If time is eternal we have a vicious regress and an infinite amount of time cannot me traversed. If time is finite, what existed before time and what caused time? These are problems that are in my view larger than the problem of evil which is my MPhil and PhD topic. My articles on first cause and infinite on thekingpin68 blog point out difficulties with rejecting some non-materialistic explanations for truth in reality. Certainly supernatural occurrences are not typical but I would conclude that the existence of finite matter required the first miracle as a supernatural first cause created the universe. This first cause would have the capability to intervene within creation when desired and this would of course have the potential to appear untypical. I reason that Biblical revelation is a result of the creator intervening within the universe..
http://thekingpin68.blogspot.com/2006_07_01_archive.html
http://thekingpin68.blogspot.com/2006_10_01_archive.html
I would add that I am no expert on Richard Dawkins or science, but I saw an interview he did on the Charlie Rose show and he basically indicated that religious people were not educated. Clearly it is not that simple or easy for scientists who rely primarily on empirical testing to dismiss religious views that are developed through rational, reasonable deduction and revelation. There are educated scientists and educated philosophers, theologians, and Biblical scholars. Rather than dismissing those of other disciplines I think it is better to admit one's own intellectual short comings with an open mind. If I need to go into a hospital for open heart surgery I do not want a theologian to attempt to operate on me with the use of the Bible and theology texts. If I am terminally ill in the hospital a surgeon's skill becomes useless to me and if a theologian demonstrates to me that God has historically revealed himself in Scripture and provided a means of salvation and everlasting life through Christ, then he is of use to me in my time of need.
Russ:)
Two Christian wesbites dealing with science:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.godandscience.org/
http://www.reasons.org/
A blog article I commented on relating to Richard Dawkins:
http://neveroriginal.blogspot.com/2006/12/why-are-unicorns-hollow.html
From
ReplyDeletehttp://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=887
"You Might Say that Some of His Forays into Philosophy Are at Best Sophomoric, but That Would be Unfair to Sophomores" -- Plantinga
Alvin Plantinga, perhaps the most influential Christian philosopher in the world today, has issued a devastating review of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. It is not to be missed.
Plantinga, who serves as John A. O'Brien Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, published his review in the current issue of Books & Culture.
Plantinga acknowledges Dawkins' influence and giftedness as a writer. "Dawkins is perhaps the world's most popular science writer; he is also an extremely gifted science writer," he explains. Nevertheless, none of this qualifies Dawkins to venture into philosophy and theology:
Now despite the fact that this book is mainly philosophy, Dawkins is not a philosopher (he's a biologist). Even taking this into account, however, much of the philosophy he purveys is at best jejune. You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class. This, combined with the arrogant, smarter-than-thou tone of the book, can be annoying. I shall put irritation aside, however and do my best to take Dawkins' main argument seriously.
Ouch. That is stinging prose. When Alvin Plantinga tells you that you are not a philosopher, rest assured that you have been put on notice. But, as Plantinga promises, he does attempt to understand Dawkins' main argument -- such as it is. As expected, Plantinga's review essay is itself an exercise in Christian thinking. After an extended analysis of Dawkins' argument, Plantinga concludes:
According to classical theism, God is a necessary being; it is not so much as possible that there should be no such person as God; he exists in all possible worlds. But if God is a necessary being, if he exists in all possible worlds, then the probability that he exists, of course, is 1, and the probability that he does not exist is 0. Far from its being improbable that he exists, his existence is maximally probable. So if Dawkins proposes that God's existence is improbable, he owes us an argument for the conclusion that there is no necessary being with the attributes of God--an argument that doesn't just start from the premise that materialism is true. Neither he nor anyone else has provided even a decent argument along these lines; Dawkins doesn't even seem to be aware that he needs an argument of that sort.
In other words, Dawkins doesn't come close to succeeding in his argument that God's existence is improbable. To the contrary, his argument falls in on itself. As Plantinga explains, "The God Delusion is full of bluster and bombast, but it really doesn't give even the slightest reason for thinking belief in God mistaken, let alone a "delusion." Nicely said.
Furthermore, Plantinga puts his finger on Dawkins' greater intellectual problem -- his radical naturalism.
Consider these words:
The real problem here, obviously, is Dawkins' naturalism, his belief that there is no such person as God or anyone like God. That is because naturalism implies that evolution is unguided. So a broader conclusion is that one can't rationally accept both naturalism and evolution; naturalism, therefore, is in conflict with a premier doctrine of contemporary science. People like Dawkins hold that there is a conflict between science and religion because they think there is a conflict between evolution and theism; the truth of the matter, however, is that the conflict is between science and naturalism, not between science and belief in God.
And finally:
The naturalism that Dawkins embraces, furthermore, in addition to its intrinsic unloveliness and its dispiriting conclusions about human beings and their place in the universe, is in deep self-referential trouble. There is no reason to believe it; and there is excellent reason to reject it.
There is also excellent reason to add Alvin Plantinga's essay to your reading list.
Albert Mohler
Hey I'm famous!
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment more than a year later, but I have received continual occasional traffic due to the article.
ReplyDelete