August 08, 2011

Why the God Debate is Valid and Necessary

The God Delusion debate.
Atheists who frequently lose debates, such as Richard Dawkins, often shift criticism from the material itself to the medium and method of debate. They propose that debate is not a valid method for arriving at truth. This is apparently one of the main reasons Dawkins refuses to debate Michael Behe and Stephen Meyer. While there are limitations in the debate process, there are historical and timeless reasons why debate is a valid method for testing ideas, in addition to other methods of analysis. Debate is useful both from a general, secular perspective and from a theist perspective as well. Due to increased academic fraud, discrimination, censorship and non-objective reporting by the media, public debate forums have become critical venues for understanding the evidence of God's existence.

I. Limitations of Interactive Debates

Time limitations
Research limitations
Skill and personality factors

II. General justifications for Debates

Historical need for first principles
Justification is a primary consideration
Science bypasses the deeper “why” questions
Fraud and censorship in academia
Atheist atrocities justified by atheist doctrines
Need for public awareness
Intelligent Design science is pure science
Debate helpful for testing ideas
Debate helpful for gaining knowledge

III. Spiritual Justifications for Debates

Supported by scriptural texts
Debates can be fruitful
Improves theological knowledge

I. Limitations of Interactive Debates

Time and research limitations

Two of the main complaints about debates are the issues of time and research  limitations in answering points. While books and research papers are better means for elaborating on the details of a specific subject, debates offer ample opportunity for outlining the main facts of any given subject. In a live debate between John Lennox and Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion was the predetermined subject of debate and the debate points were known in advance based on specific chapters and sentences in the book. This allowed ample time to study and prepare.[1] If a person does not like live debate, online Internet debating offers ample time for research and meditation before answering each point. So these two excuses for not debating are without merit. Some may argue that personality and skill are too much of a factor. While this does have an effect, the people judging the debate may take this into consideration along with the validity of the answers themselves. For example, an individual would probably not be able to win a debate claiming that consciousness does not exist, no matter how charismatic and clever he or she may be. Furthermore, the motive to win a debate, in and of itself, is not enough to change reality and change the facts themselves that are presented and decided on. This objection presupposes that winning is the only reason for debate, which is false.One of the main reasons for debate is simply to bring critical issues to the forefront which the public is not aware of. In this respect, one can "lose" a debate and still be successful in bringing critical issues into public awareness.

II. General Justifications for Debates.

You can't really avoid logic.
Historical need for first principles

Most of the Greek philosophers saw the need for sound "first principles" in order to have sound reasoning. Aristotle discovered and codified the classic laws of logic, which have been relevant for over 2000 years. Socrates developed the "Socratic Method" which calls for the testing of ideas through cross-examination in order to find fault with a person's logic. Socrates and the early philosophers also saw the need for values and the need for justification with regard to these first principles of knowledge: "Socrates' great educational innovation was in ascribing moral worth to the intellectual activity reflectively directed at one's own life."[2] Socrates believed knowing the truth was of utmost importance and showing a person his or her errors in reasoning was a means of freeing the soul of that person from error. Today the tradition of live philosophical debate continues. Common Sense Atheism lists over 500 live debates between atheists and theists in audio and video format that is updated regularly.[3]

Positivism is Dead.

Hawking's philosophy is dead.
Though the first principles of logic and debate are still considered valid by many atheists, some atheists today propose that philosophical debate is altogether irrelevant. In the early writings of Stephen Hawking, he describes how his views of science are based on positivism: “Any sound scientific theory… should in my opinion be based on the most workable philosophy of science: the positivist approach put forward by Karl Popper and others."[4] Positivism essentially promotes science as the ultimate and final arbiter of truth. His defense of positivism is mentioned in more than one occasion: "If one takes the positivist position, as I do, one cannot say what time actually is. All one can do is describe what has been found to be a very good mathematical model for time and say what predictions it makes.”[5] Later in an interview, Hawking declared "Philosophy is dead." The reason he declared philosophy was dead may have been because his philosophy, positivism, was declared to be dead by a majority of secular philosophers. The New World Encyclopedia states “Today, among most philosophers, positivism is dead, or at least as dead as a philosophical stance or movement ever becomes…”[6] It is rather arrogant to propose all philosophy is dead because one's particular philosophy is considered illogical.

The main problem with positivism is that it does not begin at square one, with first principles, but begins with the presupposition that science is the final arbiter of truth. It is ironic that Hawking was wrong about black holes for 30 years[7], but, all of a sudden, he wants to declare that science has overtaken the need for logic and philosophical debate. in his new book, The Grand Design, Hawking criticizes philosophers for failing to keep up with scientific progress.According to Nicholas Blincoe of the Guardian, "Hawking is so evangelical about the notion of progress is he that it might as well be a religion."[8]

Justification requires justification.
Justification is a primary consideration

Webster's Dictionary defines justification first with a theistic definition: "the act, process, or state of being justified by God."[9] The implication is that there is an absolute truth and an absolute standard for morality as found in the theistic God. In setting out to formalize any belief system, one of the primary considerations must be "What justifies my belief system?" If one takes a normative position, then history and convention serve as a basis for justification. In this respect, atheists cannot very well justify the rejection of philosophical debate because it is very much a foundational aspect of civilization. Most secular scholars consider that justification is based on normative values and some believe the principles of logic are important as well. In either case, Hawking and positivists aren't justified in declaring philosophy and philosophical debate are dead issues.

Science bypasses the deeper “why” questions.

Webster’s dictionary defines science as “the state of knowing” and, more specifically, the second definition relates to science as a specific kind of knowledge: “a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study.”[10] Even before the “systematized knowledge” is organized, scientific knowledge today is based on certain presuppositions, such as methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism presupposes there are no supernatural phenomena. Therefore, any evidence which may point to the existence of supernatural phenomena will not be acknowledged as such. For such reasons, science cannot be considered philosophically neutral and objective. The scientific method itself has no universally accepted standards and knowledge has no universally accepted definition. Science does not begin at square one but is loaded with subjective presuppositions, and the philosophy of positivism, which is based on the idealization of science, is considered logically inconsistent.

When scientists such as Dawkins and Hawking cross over into the philosophical realm and make statements about the existence of God, they have consistently failed to justify their proclamations philosophically. Because science doesn’t start at square one philosophically, it isn’t adequate to address the deeper questions of existence, such as “Why does something exist instead of nothing?” Science addresses mainly the “what questions” while philosophy mainly addresses the deeper “why questions.”  This is another reason why Hawking’s statement “philosophy is dead” is truly an uninformed one.

Atheist regimes tend to repress truth.
Fraud, censorship and discrimination in academia supported by mass media.

Documented cases of fraud continue with regard to the teaching of evolution. Haeckel's fraudulent drawings continue to be used in science textbooks in deceptive presentations though proven to be erroneous in the 19th Century.[11] Though peer-reviewed articles have been published supporting the tenets of Intelligent Design, often these articles are censored from wider circulation and further review due to political censorship. In June 2011, the publisher of Applied Mathematics Letters has agreed to publicly apologize and pay $10,000 in attorney’s fees to Professor Granville Sewell after he won a court case verifying the censorship of one of his peer-reviewed articles.[12] In January 2011, Martin Gaskel received a $125,000 settlement from the University of Kentucky based on discrimination against him as a Christian scientist.[13] Though there is unlawful and unethical fraud and censorship, the secular media rarely if ever reports it. On the contrary, mass media it is known to distort information to present Intelligent Design and Creationism in a negative light. Following the decision by the Kansas state school board to de-emphasize evolution in its curriculum, Time magazine falsely claimed in its Aug. 23, 1999 edition that evolution had been "expunged" from the curriculum, and continued to support the error despite being advised of it.[14]

During international debates regarding  climate changes in the world, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made reports basically for every debate and thus served as a panel of judges for these debates. These reports are documented records outlining key issues. And because these reports exist, people were held accountable and fraud was eventually exposed. In January 2010, the Daily Mail reported on how scientist Dr Murari Lal had bowed to peer pressure in making his claim that "Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035."[15] According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, as outlined in the same article, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’." The "neutral" panel was shown to be in error, and it was the documented records of the debate process that exposed Climategate for what it was.

Atheist atrocities justified by atheist doctrines

No reason for torture.
The desire to close the door on theological debate is one of the first signs of a totalitarian regime. A belief in atheism has been a fundamental justification for censorship, racism, eugenics and genocide. Marx had written, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways; the point is to change it." He had developed dialectical materialism as a means to this end.[16]

Atheists sometimes claim horrific things have been done in the name of theism, but the foundational teachings of Christ did not justify the Crusades or the Inquisition. Dinesh D'Souza noted: "Richard Dawkins argues that at least the atheist regimes didn't kill people in the name of atheism. Isn't it time for this biologist to get out of the lab and read a little history? Marxism and Communism were atheist ideologies. Stalin and Mao weren't dictators who happened to be atheist; atheism was part of their official doctrine. It was no accident, as the Marxists liked to say, that they shut down the churches and persecuted the clergy.."[17] Vladimir Lenin stated: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."[18] Pastor Richard Wurmbrand described his 14 years of torture and imprisonment behind the Iron Curtain in his book Tortured for Christ.

Slavery ended through debate.
Need for public awareness

Public debate has always served as a means of bringing key issues to the forefront, especially when there has been hegemony of one form or another. Take the case of human slavery, which had economic, political and ethical ramifications. Wealthy businessmen opposed the abolition of slavery but certain men, such as William Wilberforce in England, used financial resources and public forums to continuously bring up the issue and debate it until laws were passed against the practice of slavery. Wilberforce began an Anti-Slavery Society for such purposes. In 1791, Wilberforce introduced an Anti-Slavery Bill to the House, which was defeated by a landslide. However, after much debate, Wilberforce’s Slavery Abolition Act was eventually passed a month after his death.[19] In a similar manner, atheist hegemony, both in academia and the mass media, has led to a repression and distortion of facts underscoring the need for public debate and awareness.

Intelligent Design science is pure science.

According to its definition, Intelligent Design science does not make any reference to spiritual texts or deities: “the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence.”[20] Opponents of Intelligent Design, however, frequently state it is Creationism in disguise. It is not. As a theory it makes no references to a creator or any deity and utilizes only scientific evidence to prove that design elements could not have come about by way of natural selection alone. Because it makes no religious claims and is based solely on science, Intelligent Design is a valid theory for academic curriculum. In the Dover case, however,evidence was misrepresented regarding irreducible complexity[21] and the presiding judge was uninformed about the fact that peer-reviewed articles on Intelligent Design had been published.[22] Thus, justice was not served when Intelligent Design was ruled to be inappropriate for public schools.

III. Spiritual Justifications for Debates

Debate is scriptural and often fruitful.

Who's refusing to reason?
Isaiah 1.18 shows how reason is a gateway to understanding spiritual truth: "Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.” Richard Dawkins portrays theists as "enemies of reason" in his film by the same name, but, more appropriately, his photo on the cover reminds us who is refusing the discourse.

In Ecclesiastes 1.13a, Solomon describes his philosophical pursuit which became the basis of the book of Ecclesiastes: "I applied my mind to study and explore by wisdom all that is done under the heavens."

The Apostle Paul had a maxim he used with regard to his relationships with atheists: “I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.”[23] Paul put this aphorism into practice when he visited Athens Greece. When the Apostle Paul was in Athens, he was inspired to debate with people there: "Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of Idols. So he argued in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and in the market place every day with those who chanced to be there."[24] Many people who heard Paul speak had a sincere desire to know truth and continued to listen as he expounded on spiritual truth in the philosophical context of the Areopagus at Mars Hill: “Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we want to know what they mean.” (All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)[25]

Paul was able to use his education and knowledge of Greek writers to make parallels with spiritual truths of Christianity: 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'[26] The debates and preaching Paul had engaged in were fruitful and some people believed: “When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, “We want to hear you again on this subject.” At that, Paul left the Council. A few men became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others.”[27] For theists with a sound foundation in God’s word, debates with atheists will lead to a greater understanding of theological truths. Unfortunately, immature Christians sometimes lose faith in God when they debate because they don’t have a firm handle on important scriptural truths and concepts. With Paul, however, it is clear that he was able to hold his own theologically at Mars Hill because some of the people who heard him converted to Christianity. In our postmodern and post-Christian society, there are many parallels with ancient Greece. It may be that there will be some spiritual fruit in returning to the public forum and debating the truth of Christ on a philosophical level.

Endnotes

[1] God Delusion Debate, Lennox and Dawkins, http://www.fixed-point.org/index.php/video/35-full-length/164-the-dawkins-lennox-debate
[2] The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Plato on Education as the Development of Reason, http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Anci/AnciScol.htm

[3] Common Sense Atheism, 500+ Atheism vs. Theism Debates, http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=50
[4] Wheat and Tares, Stephen Hawking's Defense of Positivism, http://www.wheatandtares.org/2011/03/03/stephen-hawkings-defense-of-positivism/ (The Universe In a Nutshell, p. 31)
[5] Wheat and Tares, Computabilit and Comprehension is Science about Prediction, http://www.wheatandtares.org/2010/12/23/computability-and-comprehension-is-science-about-prediction/
[6] New World Encyclopedia, Positivism, http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Positivism
[7] Natural science, STEPHEN HAWKING ADMITS HE WAS WRONG, http://www.natscience.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/physics/5886/STEPHEN-HAWKING-ADMITS-HE-WAS-WRONG
[8] The Guardian, Why does Stephen Hawking think science has overtaken philosophy?, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/sep/08/stephen-hawking-philosophy-maths
[9] Webster's Dictionary, justification, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/justification
[10] Webster's Dictionary, science, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science
[11] Evolution News, The Textbooks Don't Lie: Haeckel's Faked Drawings Have Been Used to Promote Evolution: Raven & Johnson (2002) (Part 2), http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/the_textbooks_dont_lie_haeckel_1003664.html
[12] Evolution News, Journal Apologizes and Pays $10,000 After Censoring Article, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/journal_apologizes_and_pays_10047121.html
[13] The Blaze, Update: Christian Astronomer Settles Lawsuit Over Discrimination Claim, http://www.theblaze.com/stories/update-christian-astronomer-settles-lawsuit-over-discrimination-claim/
[14] Answers in Genesis, Confusion in Kansas—evolution not outlawed!, http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4110.asp, A Storehouse of Knowledge, Suppression of dissent against evolution, http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/Suppression_of_dissent_against_evolution
[15] Daily Mail, Mail Online, Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn't been verified, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html
[16] Quotations Page, Karl Marx (1845), Theses on Feuerbach (Thesis XI), http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/33862.html
[17] Church in History, Answering Atheist’s Arguments Regarding Wars, http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/atheism/805-answering-atheists-regarding-war.html
[18] Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, 1973,Moscow, Volume 15, pp. 402-413., http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm
[19] Great Slavery Debate, www.studyhistory.co.uk/Y8/Great%20slavery%20debate.doc
[20] Webster's Dictionary, Intelligent Design, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary-tb/intelligent%20design
[21] Center for Science and Culture, Kenneth Miller, Michael Behe, and the Irreducible Complexity of the Blood Clotting Cascade Saga, http://www.discovery.org/a/14081
[22] Evolution News and Views, Dover in Review, pt. 2: Did Judge Jones read the evidence submitted to him in the Dover trial?, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/dover_in_review_pt_2_did_judge001793.html
[23] 1 Corinthians 9.22b, NIV
[24] Acts 17:16-17, RSV
[25] Ibid, 17:19-21, NIV
[26] Ibid, 17.28, NIV
[27] Ibid, 17.32-34, NIV

Revised August 12, 2011

24 comments:

  1. Your examples for point 1 undermine your overall position.
    Regarding time and research opportunities, you cite a specific debate which was very constrained, yet live debates are usually not like this at all. As the apologetic strategy of "Gish Gallop" demonstrates, this is definitely a problem with live debate.
    You also mention "internet debates", and this also undermines your position (as well as your claim that theists usually win).

    I'm not sure there is much point in reading and responding to the rest of your post, since this initial point of yours, in your own words, seems to undermine your general claims.
    Regarding debate skill, this is certainly a factor, and when debates are judged by the audience, rather than a smaller group of knowledgeable individuals, rhetorical flair and sophistry can often win the day - just look at the debate record of William Lane Craig, for example.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sorry, I still cannot help myself, but comment Rick s ranting. 8)
    I know that I will be ignored, but it is just too funny too miss. My only excuse would be that Rick himself invited anyone to refute him in a huge number of spam on different forums and blogs.

    Time and research limitations

    Both internet and live debates are still not very constructive ways of searching for truth. In a internet debate, where there is no specific time constraint, the debate can last infinitely. Most human beings simply do not want to change their religious views no matter the arguments from the opposite side.

    As for a live debate, the situation is even worse. No matter how well one does prepare for a debate, they will almost always be some unknown points or articles mentioned. Knowledge is just too vast too include everything before a live debate.

    I am no expert on debates, but the mentioned live interrection between John Lennox and Richard Dawkins interrection seemed to me like a poor example of your case, Rick. It was obviously rigged from the start. Correct me if I am wrong, but should not the defending side speak second in a decent debate? However, Dawkins was forced to speak first to "clarify" some obvious points from his book while Lennox enjoyed his 5 minutes of bashing the opponent. Dawkins had to spend 2-3 minutes to defend his point of view from the bashing and was forced to lose 2-3 minutes each time to "clarify" one of his obvious arguments from his book.

    Skill, personality and motive factors

    You are also underestimating the role of charisma. Any good book on psychology or on debate will tell you so. Do I realy need to recommend you such book?

    Your claim that a good debator will never be able to prove some obvious lie is also higly doubtful. Have you heard of the notion "sophism"?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Historical need for first principles

    Your point about Ancient Greece and the Middle Ages is also very shaky. Peer reviewed journals did not exist at the time and, since most people were illiterate, debate was the only effective way to educate the mass.

    Justification is a primary consideration

    Rick, you sound quite arrogant. Are you implying that your own truth and morality is absolute and the only right ones? Do you realy think that what was moral in the 10th century is moral today?

    Nobody rejects philosophical debate, it is just not viewed as a primory source of knoledge.

    Science bypasses the deeper "why" questions

    I do not understand how come you believe that science bypasses the question "why". The main difference between science and religion is that science does not rush with an answer. Science answers the question "why" after scrupulous studies.

    And what on Earth do you mean by "supernatural phenomena"? Something which science has trouble explaining today? Do we need to just accept some mystery without trying to understand it? Personnaly, remainig ignorant, is not something I am content with. If you did hint at "God" as a supernatural phenomena, science just do not consider the explanation "God did it" as a satisfactory one for a huge number of reasons.

    Fraud, censorship and discrimination in academia supported by mass media

    Do we realy need to discuss this issue again? ID lacks evidence from the point of view of science, not to mention that ID supporters do not have academic credentials to be taken seriously. The fact that Haeckel s drawings are represented in some poor quality textbooks does not point at a worldwide atheistic plot.

    Need for public awarness

    That is one of the rare points I agree with you, Rick. That is why your blog exists and the thought police has not manifested itself.

    ID science is pure science

    It seems that ID supporters and the scientific community have different understanding what is "scientific evidence". The criteria are just too different and even if ID does not have any references to spiritual texts, it does imply the existence of God.

    Spititual Justification for Debates

    Rejoice, I will not be repeating for the millionth time why the bible is not accurate. However, I would like to point out a funny observation. If an atheist gains faith after a debate - he has open his eyes to truth. If a christian has lost his faith - he is immature.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Havok,

    You wrote: "Your examples for point 1 undermine your overall position. Regarding time and research opportunities, you cite a specific debate which was very constrained, yet live debates are usually not like this at all. You also mention "internet debates", and this also undermines your position..."

    Havok, Your logic seems a wee bit off. Because I present alternatives to the norm, for people who want to make excuses for not debating, it doesn't in any way "undermine" my general claims. People are free to debate in any manner they prefer to. There are no laws regarding debate.

    In the comments of former articles You presented me with a list of excuses why you believe debate is invalid. In addressing your excuses I am in no way claiming the exceptions are the standard. The exceptions are for those who use the standard as an excuse to reject debate in its totality. Let's go through your list of excuses and see where each point is refuted:

    August 4, at the "why Atheists Fear Debate" article, you made the following comments regarding debate: "Debate is a terrible way to establish truth... It's entertainment, where the best speaker usually wins (rather than the person on the side of "truth"). - I pointed out in the above article why winning is not necessarily the main motive of a debate (see I. D.). Another one of your comments August 4: "creationism and other silly beliefs do not hold up well when there is ample time to rebut each claim (written debates tend not to favour your beliefs, for example)."

    - I pointed out in sections I. A. and B. circumstances where research time was more focused, as in the noted Lennox - Dawkins debate. I did not anywhere state this was the most common format. But as far as excuses go, it is a poor one, because ID scientists and Creation scientists would probably opt for a "restrained debate" as you called it in order to debate prominent atheists, such as Richard Dawkins. I don't believe Stephen Meyer or Michael Behe would have any problem with this format. However, Dawkins would probably come up with some other reasons (i.e. excuses) not to debate these people.

    Another comment from August 4: "Philosophy is not done through live debate. Science is not done through live debate... You're entire point, that live debate is a great venue for finding truth is completely without merit."

    - I pointed out in the above article how the Socratic Method is based on an approach of asking questions in order to find a logical contradiction in the other persons views (Section II. A) I also added an ATHEIST website posting 500 plus live debates between theists and atheists. Philosophy is definitely "done" through live debate today. Show some proof of why you believe this is not so.

    cont...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Havok,

    August 5 you wrote in the comments of the "Why Atheists Fear Debate" article:

    "Rick, you might try responding to what I actually said. You claimed that debate was a great (perhaps the best) way to get to truth, and that reasoned discourse as happens in academia was not."

    Havok, there are many valid methods and means of conveying truth and arriving at true conceptions. Debate is one of those valid methods. I've pointed out a number of times that there is fraud, censorship and discrimination in academia due to atheist hegemony. But, as far as I know, you have yet to read an article I wrote outlining the historical foundation of this hegemony:

    http://templestream.blogspot.com/2010/02/are-atheist-jellyfish-taking-over-world.html

    In this article, Why the God Debate is Valid and Necessary, I've listed historical reasons why people, atheists, theists and others, consider debate to be valid. Socrates and the Greek philosophers in general are one example. Present day scholarly atheists debate theists regularly, as noted at the atheist website Common Sense Atheism. Just to underscore this point, I should probably add the climategate scandal as a reference in my article.

    cont..

    ReplyDelete
  6. Havok,

    August 6: "Debate, due to time and resource constraints, is not a great way of arriving at the truth. An opponent may simply bring up an argument you're not familiar with and are unable to answer."

    - As I mentioned, there are certain forms of debate, such as noted in the Dawkins - Lennox debate, that outline specific points that will be addressed in the debate beforehand so that there is ample time to study and prepare. This is usually the case with presidential debates, for example. Debaters are free to choose whether or not they agree to these terms. I am in no way stating this is the MOST common form of debate but it is an available form if someone believes preparation time is a key aspect. Internet debates similarly offer more free time for answering points. Ultimately, these excuse you brought up are fairly weak ones, as I've shown.

    H: "I'm not sure there is much point in reading and responding to the rest of your post, since this initial point of yours, in your own words, seems to undermine your general claims."

    R: It seems, rather, that when atheists lose their excuses their logic enters a painful contortion phase. I have in no way undermined my general claims.

    H: "Regarding debate skill, this is certainly a factor, and when debates are judged by the audience, rather than a smaller group of knowledgeable individuals."

    R: Havok, again I point out that any panel of experts may be assembled. There is no law. When "Climategate" was being debated, there was an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). As noted, "IPCC reports are widely cited in almost any debate related to climate change."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change

    These reports are documented records outlining key issues. Because of these key records, people were held accountable and fraud was eventually exposed:

    "Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.

    According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#ixzz1UaMUfG5Y

    Climategate exposed what has been dubbed as science fraud:

    Russia & IPCC Insiders Reveal Climate "Science" Fraud

    http://hubpages.com/hub/Russia-IPCC-Insider-Reveal-Climate-Science-Fraud

    In a similar manner, evolution debates also reveal science fraud. Just because professional scientists offer information doesn't necessarily make it factual. The debate forum is the most advantageous forum for exposing science fraud. And as I pointed out in the Dawkins / Wright interview, scientists like Richard Dawkins have a habit of making false statements which aren't exposed until there is a debate format.

    http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/08/why-atheists-fear-debate.html

    ReplyDelete
  7. Rick, you seem confused. I've never said debates are "invalid" simply that they're not the best means of searching for what is true. They're mostly entertainment, and are a venue for getting ideas out into the public, and the public thinking.
    You're also imputing motivations to people without evidence. You claim Meyer, Behe etc would have no problem with a constrained debate, but I think you'll find that in such circumstances ID'ers/creationists do not fare as well as they do when they're able to present a Gish Gallop of arguments and claim victory if any of their arguments are left unaddressed (regardless of how ridiculous it may be).
    You also seem confused regarding how academic disciplines work (including Philosophy). They are predominantly conducted through written works, and responses to those works. People write papers, others critique those papers, or build on them, etc.

    Also, the fact that you buy into climate gate as being some knock down argument against anthropogenic global warming tells me a lot about your ability to rationally assess the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Rick, it's also hilarious when you link to other posts on your site as a reference for me, when I'm actively participating in the discussion on the referenced thread, and things there are not going your way in the least :-)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Havok,

    You wrote: "Rick, you seem confused. I've never said debates are "invalid" simply that they're not the best means of searching for what is true. They're mostly entertainment, and are a venue for getting ideas out into the public, and the public thinking."

    R: It's nice to see you back-peddling, Havok, and now admitting that debating is in fact a valid.

    You've gone from an absolute statement, "It's entertainment" August 4th to "It's 'mostly' entertainment in your most recent reply. Do you also want to revise another one of your absolute statements from August 4th?: "Philosophy is not done through live debate." Because this also implies, as your other comments have, that live philosophical debates are not valid. :)

    You repeat and confirm a point from my article: debates are "a venue for getting ideas out into the public, and the public thinking." - But you have not seriously addressed the many other points. :)

    H: You said of me, "You claim Meyer, Behe etc would have no problem with a constrained debate."

    R: I neither made nor would make such an absolute claim, Havok. You are reading between the lines of my text. I believe it is highly likely Meyer and Behe would have no problem with a constrained debate. Both of these men have made no secret of their challenges to debate Dawkins. Anyone can find references to specific times when these challenges were made and how they were flexible in dates and schedules.

    However, there is no record whatsoever that Dawkins has interest in debating these men at all, or other qualified ID scientists, under any circumstances. If you can prove me wrong, show me links. Biology is Behe's main area of study, as it is Dawkins' but Dawkins refuses to debate Behe regardless. Rather, he prefers to debate relatively unknown rabbis and pastors...

    cont...

    ReplyDelete
  10. William Lane Craig argues for God's existence from a cosmological perspective, as outlined in his book, The Kalam Cosmological Argument. However, Dawkins refuses to debate him also. And what are his excuses? Dawkins makes false claims November 29, 2009:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFamS4RGE_A&feature=player_embedded

    Question: "Professor Dawkins you are arguably the world's leading apologist for atheism and you have been invited on several occasions by the world's leading Christian academic apologist, Dr. William Lane Craig to engage in debate. I would like to know why this is not an example of a new atheist doing what Lord Harries has described as avoiding the strongest possible arguments for the opposition."

    Dawkins' reply: "I've always said when invited to do debates I would be happy to debate a bishop a cardinal a pope an archbishop and that I have done both. But I don't take on creationists and I don't take on people who's only claim to fame is that they are professional debaters. They've got to have something more than that. I'm busy."

    Dawkins' false claims:

    Dawkins claims that Craig is a creationist while Craig supports his kalam cosmological argument with the Big Bang.

    Dawkins claims that Craig’s only claim to fame is that he is a professional debater, but Craig’s resume and list of 30 published books exceeds Dawkins' publications.

    Craig has not declined debates with other leading atheists and thinkers, including Daniel Dennett, A.C.Grayling, Christopher Hitchens, Lewis Wolpert and Sam Harris.

    Some of the prestigious names available for Dawkins' elite CV include pastor Ted Haggard, Pastor Keenan Roberts of the Colorado Hell House and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, whom Dawkins lost to and then lied about.

    Dakins prefers to debate non-scientific people he can browbeat with scientific terms and references, as he did in his Wendy Wright interview:

    http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/08/why-atheists-fear-debate.html

    In The Ancestor's Tale Dawkins wrote: "If every fossil were magicked away, the comparative study of modern organisms, of how their patterns of resemblances, especially of their genetic sequences, are distributed among species, and of how species are distributed among continents and islands, would still demonstrate, beyond all sane doubt, that our history is evolutionary, and that all living creatures are cousins."

    - If Dawkins really believed his statements were true, that biological evidence "would still demonstrate, beyond all sane doubt" that evolution is true, - then he would not fear debating men with science backgrounds. :)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Havok,

    H: You also seem confused regarding how academic disciplines work (including Philosophy). They are predominantly conducted through written works, and responses to those works.

    R: No Havok, it is you who are a bit confused and changing your position. On August 4th you wrote "Philosophy is not done through live debate." and now I see you are back peddling on another point as you write philosophy is "predominantly" conducted through written works. In my article I acknowledged there are many forms of arriving at truth:

    "While there are limitations in the debate process, there are historical and timeless reasons why debate is a valid method for testing ideas, in addition to other methods of analysis."

    H: "Also, the fact that you buy into climate gate as being some knock down argument against anthropogenic global warming."

    R: Where did I write that I believed Climategate was proof global warming does not exist? Please show me a quote, Havok.

    Again (and yet again) Havok, please try to address specific quotes and use specific links to back up your points. Making ad hominem comments like "you are confused" without specific references is a typical tactic by atheists who lack substance in their positions.

    H; Rick, it's also hilarious when you link to other posts on your site as a reference for me, when I'm actively participating in the discussion on the referenced thread, and things there are not going your way in the least :-)

    R: Havok. I don't see truth as merely "going my way" or "going your way" in a debate. Truth is quite able to stand on its own without my help. Atheist relativists who want to repress truth, however, will often try and commandeer a person's blog with a multitude of comments that are shown to lack in substance when examined. Anyone with an honest interest in knowing the truth with see this in our dialogue, no matter who gets the last word in. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Watching Christians trying to debate with Atheist is a bit like watching someone trying to break a lump of coal with an egg. Its entertaining but you know they haven't a hope in hell. Having said that there is one Christian apologist who is making waves in the holy water and unapologetic about his Christian beliefs. What he cannot avoid however is the fact that those beliefs create so much bias they become  an impediment to reason. In fact its interesting to see the way extreme cognitive bias prevents any fruitful dialogue between the opposing camps in the Atheist Theist debate.

    Having watched and listened to all the high profile performers on both sides, it seems to me, in my own cognitive little hollow that while the Theists can comprehend the essential nature of the scientific method they cannot ever get their head round the fact that gods existence is NOT a fact. Now I realise that they "think" it's a fact but therein lies the problem. They are pretending they can be objective, they cannot. So they try to use facts to defend faith and reason to defend belief  while being  crippled by cognitive dissonance. Even when they play the game of science the all pervading "knowledge" that saturates their arguments, is that god  exists a priori, they are  not using science to appraise evidence, they are trying to use science to legitimise cradle faith  and parading religious opinion  as fact. They seek to use the very tools they claim are insufficient to explain their world  to prop  up a crumbling edifice, namely their faith.  Why seek to "prove" your blind faith exists?  Faith needs no proof! Is it simply to stem the hemorrhage of believers swayed by the obvious errors and contradictions of faith now presented to the masses living  in a secular world ? The argument that Agnostics and non followers think gods non existence is a fact is not equivalent. Only one  camp elevate their beliefs to the status of facts.  All Agnostics and most  Atheists would agree, that gods non existence is NOT a fact and while (contrary to popular belief) it is possible to prove a negative it still requires evidence. They would suggest it is not a credible hypothesis and it its impossible to find evidence from the comfort of  an armchair or the study of philosophy.  The Theists will always fail if they use nothing but philosophical arguments, they know this, which is why they wish to wrap their proof of god in the trappings of scientific discourse, why they need ID why they need more people with the smarts to muddy the waters.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I don't know if Dawkins should debate William Craig Lane it might be  a case of the open honest  country boy coming to the big city and being fleeced by the slick attorney, a sort of  Mr Dawkins goes to town, on the other hand Sam Harris soundly demolished Craig Lane recently  (in my opinion ) yet I found the god-sphere declaring Craig Lane had given a resounding trouncing to poor Sam  Harris - the young whelp was sent packing by god's champion. The argument that William Craig Lane is a professional debater  is a red herring and  holds little  water but Dawkins has little to gain from any debate and Craig Lane  is the superior debater whenever the topic drifts into the realms of analytical philosophy. Lane's arguments rely on complex sophistry they are all philosophy and semantics and no tangible substance and while he is a very knowledgeable opponent he is a bit of a one trick pony.   Take  a question, any question, now re-word it and answer a different question, don't stray into the realms of fact or common sense, stick to the impeccably reduced terrain of sterile, logical statements and extrapolate like fury. His Proof of god (the Kalam Cosmological Argument) and his arguments defending the unevangelised are prime examples of this tactic. However by laying out his arguments so clearly he is standing up to be counted or shot down.  He puts his mouth where his faith is and presents a big target. Where  is Darwin's bulldog when you need it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Darnok,

    You wrote, "They (Theists) are pretending they can be objective, they cannot."

    R: Your comments seem to be a longwinded subjective rant. But where is your objective evidence disproving my article on God's existence?

    "How Identity, Logic and Physics Prove God's Existence"

    http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-identity-logic-and-physics-prove.html

    ReplyDelete
  15. Rick: William Lane Craig argues for God's existence from a cosmological perspective, as outlined in his book, The Kalam Cosmological Argument.:
    Yes, he still argues his Kalam Cosmological Argument even though the argument has been debunked. Why does he do this? I suspect it because it has great rhetorical impact, and would take a long time to point out the problems. Simply stating "Craig's premises are questionable at best" doesn't have the same force.

    Rick: Dawkins claims that Craig is a creationist while Craig supports his kalam cosmological argument with the Big Bang.
    Of course Craig is a creationist - who does he think "caused" the big bang?
    Craig also seems to reject valid science when it runs counter to his beliefs (ie. evolutionary theory).
    Craig is a great rhetorician, but has shown himself uninterested in seeking the truth. Rather he is committed to supporting his ideology at the expense of logic and reason.

    Rick: Dawkins claims that Craig’s only claim to fame is that he is a professional debater, but Craig’s resume and list of 30 published books exceeds Dawkins' publications.
    And yet what is Craig known for? His debating and career as an apologist. He touts his philosophical credentials, but he is first and foremost a Christian apologist, and seems rather uninterested in taking an objective view of things.

    Rick: Craig has not declined debates with other leading atheists and thinkers, including Daniel Dennett, A.C.Grayling, Christopher Hitchens, Lewis Wolpert and Sam Harris.
    Craig has in the past claimed he will only debate people with a PhD, and as such has refused to debate quite a few people who were willing to do so.

    Rick: Some of the prestigious names available for Dawkins' elite CV include pastor Ted Haggard, Pastor Keenan Roberts of the Colorado Hell House and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, whom Dawkins lost to and then lied about.
    Why is debate such a big thing to you Rick?
    Dawkins is a respected biologist, and a great promoter of the understanding of science. He is not known as a debater, and so making such absurd comparisons reflects poorly on yourself and your motives, not on Dawkins.

    Rick: - If Dawkins really believed his statements were true, that biological evidence "would still demonstrate, beyond all sane doubt" that evolution is true, - then he would not fear debating men with science backgrounds. :)
    Those men with science backgrounds can participate in the conversation of science - academic publishing. The they don't seem to do so (writing popular books and claiming strange conspiracies, while lacking the evidence to back up such claims speaks loudly for their own motivations).

    ReplyDelete
  16. Oh, and just to further underline the fact that your claims regarding debate fail, you may want to consider the fact that people using what seem to be basically the self same arguments can either win or lose debates (WLC scores with his Kalam against people who are not knowledgeable about physics and cosmology, but falters when they are).

    This ought to tell you what you need to know about the specific live debate formats you seem to be championing so heartily.

    ReplyDelete
  17. RW: Your comments seem to be a longwinded subjective rant. But where is your objective evidence disproving my article on God's existence?

    D: Of course they are, thats the whole point I was following in the established Theistic tradition of debate.

    on God's existence?

    RW: Metaphysical world

    I. Formal Logic Requires Certain Truths Theoretically Exist as a Basis for Sound Reasoning.

    D: Real world
    The existence of metaphysical truths doesn't prevent people coming out with unsound conclusions regardless of logic ie. Now I have proved the universe has a creator I can state with certainty he is interested in my sexual orientation and hates Cannonites.

    The perfect worlds of abstract metaphysics are seen in the abstract rules of formal logic. But beware, statements cannot possess meaning or truth abstracted away from their actual use and our experiences in the dirty world of reality. This is the mistake the metaphysician makes in describing god in abstract terms of omniscience and omnipotence and being all-good of being inerrant and universal and timeless. When you attempt to prove gods existence by metaphysics god becomes too abstract to be of use, when reduced to usefulness in the real world he becomes open to ridicule. If you have to invoke the law of identity and loop quantum gravity to show us your god then is he worth worshipping.

    The law of identity the law of the excluded middle and the law of contradiction are a way to look at the world not the way the world is or how people think.

    Take the law of non-contradiction: It is not possible that something be both true and not true.

    Maybe some things can be true and not true? certainly entities can be paradoxical. Some things are simply not amenable to truth statements. The assumption is that we "know" that in the entire universe nothing can be true and not true. We would have to be omniscient to know all that was knowable. On a more mundane level How about......

    The statement "I know that I know nothing at all'
    the statement "Schrodingers cat is dead"
    The statement "the sun is big"
    The statement "kittens are cute"

    An alternative to the law of non -contradiction is that there are only degrees of truth not absolutes. For instance when does a pinch of sand when added to one grain at a time become a heap? This underpins the whole theory of Fuzy logic many-valued logic which deals with reasoning that is approximate rather than fixed and exact. In contrast with traditional logic theory true or false a multi value logic.

    Or the coherence theory of truth that a proposition will be true if it forms part of a system of mutually coherent propositions which is wider than any rival system.

    RW: b. Law of identity: A = A. Something is what it is and has at least one identifying characteristic.

    Tautology, but we could consider what identity means....

    are you who you were when you were born?
    Physically every atom in your body is different
    but your a different person you are a father a husband an engineer a writer you can talk walk write drive an cat
    is the number 5 different from every other number 5

    To the Law of identity maybe we should add the law of being alive .... you are alive if you are alive.


    II. The Foundation of cohesive Logic Appears to Have Been undermined by Quantum Physics.

    QM is incomplete. Consider phase space or momentum space. There are theories that get round the uncertainty principle

    RW: III. NDE Caes Support a Cohesive, Logical Understanding within a Theistic Framework.

    There is no evidence to support NDE's that is more credible than the documented evidence to support UFO's
    All near death experiences are unique subjective unrepeatable and break the known laws of physics.
      
    RW: IV. Materialism has Failed to Provide Support for Answers to Foundational Questions while Theism has Provided Such Support.

     Subjective emotional wishful thinking.
     
    V. Conclusion I believe in god so he exists.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Havok,

    “He (W. Lane Craig) is first and foremost a Christian apologist, and seems rather uninterested in taking an objective view of things.”

    R: It’s funny how atheists assume they are the one’s being objective when for all practical purposes it is the other way around. There are 2 ways in which Christians are more objective than atheists:

    First, people who idolize science, methodological naturalism and/or the philosophy of positivism, have long ago closed the door on the possibility of God’s existence and, no matter what the evidence may imply, there is no possible way in which any evidence could ever be attributed to God because they have already decided God cannot exist. They subjectively have presupposed atheism is true.

    Secondly, atheists consider the mind to be purely a product of the materialist universe and due to discoveries in quantum physics we understand there is no decisive physical boundary between the self and the environment, according to atheist understandings. Thus, objectivity is illusory for the atheist.

    The theist, on the other hand, can be truly objective on a practical level because the spirit is not limited to the physical dimension. Jesus put it this way: “If ye were of the world, the world would love his own; but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” (John 15:19) Born again Christians can be truly objective in viewing the world because spiritually we are not of the world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am a little offended by the assumption that any individual atheist actually thought about their feelings on god, or their lack. Most atheists - again, I cannot speak for all - that start out as part of a religion spend a significant amount of time debating with themselves and others about the nature of their faith. Perhaps you should stop attacking those who do not share your faith with generalizations, and should begin to practice that charity which Christians are meant to be about

      Delete
  19. D: “The existence of metaphysical truths doesn't prevent people coming out with unsound conclusions regardless of logic. e. Now I have proved the universe has a creator I can state with certainty he is interested in my sexual orientation and hates Cannonites.”

    R: I agree with you that the existence of metaphysical truths doesn't prevent people coming out with unsound conclusions regardless of logic. But in establishing the fact that metaphysical truths and logic exist helps take us one step closer to understanding their true implications, as compared with people who don’t believe logic and truth exist.

    D: “Maybe some things can be true and not true? certainly entities can be paradoxical.”

    R: People who attempt to show these types of ideas usually use sophistry. When people bring up paradoxes that occur in scripture the situations seem illogical to the natural mind and natural circumstances. But when circumstances are considered in light of a spiritual reality the issues are not self-contradictory.

    D: An alternative to the law of non -contradiction is that there are only degrees of truth not absolutes. For instance when does a pinch of sand when added to one grain at a time become a heap?

    R: I agree a grain of sand and heaps of sand are real concepts. However, you haven’t made a distinction between the degrees of quantities and relationships in your example and degrees of truth, quite a different matter.

    D: “There is no evidence to support NDE's that is more credible than the documented evidence to support UFO's”

    R: You mean you to tell us you have the credible testimonies of professional doctors who have operated on aliens as the testimonies of the aliens themselves were corroborated with such doctors, though the aliens could not have possibly seen or heard these experiences with their physical senses? And on top of this your medical operations were recorded by monitoring equipment exactly as the aliens had described ?

    - Do please show us these documented cases you have just advertised.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Rick: First, people who idolize science, methodological naturalism and/or the philosophy of positivism, have long ago closed the door on the possibility of God’s existence and, no matter what the evidence may imply, there is no possible way in which any evidence could ever be attributed to God because they have already decided God cannot exist. They subjectively have presupposed atheism is true.
    Completely false, Rick. Though this may apply to some people, you simply don't account for those people who understand that methodological naturalism (and more broadly, intersubjective empiricism) is the best, most objective means of investigating reality. These people are of various beliefs (and none). Your claim of an a priori presumption doesn't cover those people who, like myself, come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist after examining the evidence.

    Rick: Secondly, atheists consider the mind to be purely a product of the materialist universe and due to discoveries in quantum physics we understand there is no decisive physical boundary between the self and the environment, according to atheist understandings. Thus, objectivity is illusory for the atheist.
    Which is why we use methodological naturalism, as it reduces subjective biases and allows us to make some reasonably certain pronouncements regarding reality (QM being one such claim).

    Rick: The theist, on the other hand, can be truly objective on a practical level because the spirit is not limited to the physical dimension.
    This simply does not follow, Rick.

    Rick: Born again Christians can be truly objective in viewing the world because spiritually we are not of the world.
    This also doesn't follow. My example regarding WLC is instructive. He has made the claim that reason MUST be subject to faith. That the proper use of reason is in support of faith (Christian faith, of course). He terms this the "ministerial" use of reason, and contrasts it with the "magisterial" use of reason, where faith is subject to reason, which in his mind is invalid.
    Given this, WLC's faith is simply immune to reason. If God's existence is shown to be incoherent, then to him this would simply be an incorrect use of reason, and be ignored.

    ReplyDelete
  21. While for UFO's
    .......If the only strange things seen in the sky were a few oddly moving lights at night, or some specks glinting in the sun, there would be no UFO issue. But there have been many close range observations of these strange objects. Often by multiple witnesses and sometimes with radar confirmation. In addition, physical traces of various kinds have been left behind, and witnesses have experienced physical and medical effects.
    Supported by declassified documents from the US National Archives, US Navy pilot Cmdr Graham Bethune describes the encounter with a huge 90m (300ft) discoid UFO in 1951 on the way back from a classified mission to Iceland: "We had 31 people [relief crews] on board and a psychiatrist, plus the crew. We all witnessed it" (2.5min):
    Some with four-way confirmation: ground visual, ground radar, airborne visual and airborne radar -- as early as 1950s, watch LtCol Brown NPCC 2001 testimony, who worked in the US Air Force's Office of Special Investigations on project Grudge, the precursor to Project Bluebook. Such radar/visual UFO cases include the Washington DC 1952, the Bentwaters England 1956, the landmark RB-47 1957 case

    An Air Force Boeing Stratojet reconnaissance jet RB-47, equipped with electronic countermeasures gear and manned by six officers, was followed by an unidentified object for a distance of well over 700 miles, and for a time period of more than one hour, as it flew from Mississippi, through Louisiana and Texas and into Oklahoma. The object was, at various times, seen visually by the cockpit crew as an intensely luminous light, followed by ground-radar and detected on ECM monitoring gear aboard the RB-47. Of special interest in this case are several instances of simultaneous appearances and disappearances on all three of those physically distinct observation channels, and rapidity of maneuvers beyond aircraft possibilities.

    On board an RB-47H aircraft equipped with sophisticated electronic countermeasures equipment, including three electronic intelligence (ELINT) stations over the Gulf of Mexico.
    The crew consisted of:
    Major Lewis D. Chase, pilot, Spokane, WA
Capt. James H. McCoid, copilot, Offutt AFB
Capt. Thomas H. Hanley, navigator, Vandenberg AFB
John J. Provenzano, No. 1 monitor, Wichita, KS
Capt. Frank B. McClure, No. 2 monitor, Offutt AFB
Capt. Walter A. Tuchschner, No. 3 monitor, Topeka, KS
    These six men were on a training and test exercise in an RB-47H electronic countermeasures reconnaissance aircraft. The RB-47, while originally developed as a bomber, was also used extensively as a reconnaissance aircraft. One was shot down by the Soviet Union while on such a mission in 1960.
    There are several thousand UFO sightings and reports, reports of alien encounters and abductions. The people in question are sincere they are often qualified professionals who are trained to observe and record in a detached and unemotional way. They have related their stories under close examination from psychologist and psychiatrists and while atatched to polygraphs.........

    This is just so much more substantial if your criteria fir proof is as low as that for NDE's

    Ther are more documented cases of UFO sightings its a fact
    There are more people who claim to have seen UFO'Ss and claim to have been abducted by aliens than people who claim NDE experiences. There is as I claimed as much evidence of the same nature. ie first hand accountd from reliable witnesses who swear their experience was true. Individuals with professional expertise in aviation in observation and credible fist hand accounts and unlike NDE's these accounts have been coroberated by others, as well as radar records and physical records.

    So I was wrong to say as much evidence for UFO's as NDE's........ What I should have claimed is that there is MORE evidence from more credible sources to support UFO's than NDE's and there are facts physical evidence and corroborated first hand accounts.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Havok,

    H: "This simply does not follow, Rick." (That a transcendent perspective is more objective than a naturalistic one in viewing the physical universe.)

    R: Jesus put it succinctly "You are in the world but not of the world."

    The following example may help:

    The objective medical observation and diagnosis of a disease is easier done by someone other than the person affected.

    A person who has a serious disease can hardly describe all the aspects of the disease objectively. Likewise, a mind that is supposedly merely a biological product cannot objectively describe the physical world it is derived from and in which contained. However, the mind of a spiritual person in harmony with God does in fact have this connection with the transcendent perspective that is informed from outside of the "disease zone" so to speak.

    H: This also doesn't follow. My example regarding WLC is instructive. He has made the claim that reason MUST be subject to faith.

    Here's another example for you. Suppose there was a group of very intelligent fish who were born in a fishbowl and grew up there. One day, a fish was removed from the bowl and given the ability to breath air and observe the fishbowl.

    Which of the fish has the most objective understanding of the fishbowl, the fish swimming inside the bowl or the one observing the fishbowl from outside the glass?

    You would probably agree the fish outside the fishbowl has a more objective understanding of fishbowlness as a reality in context within the whole framework of existence.

    It isn't because the outside fish is necessarily smarter or because it has a dominant faith or a dominant reason, is it? The main issue is that the fish has had insight into the situation through a transformation that has occurred.

    Similarly, a Christian is not born a Christian from birth. A person has a revelation of truth that God exists and there is a desire to know God and the spiritual world. By faith in God and God's word, a person becomes spiritually born again (John 3.3) and in this transformation he or she is spiritually "translated or transferred into the kingdom of God: "For he has rescued us from the kingdom of darkness and transferred us into the Kingdom of his dear Son," Colossians 1:13

    To emphasize faith or reason is incorrect from the theist position. Scripturally, the emphasis is on God's revelation to a person and God's transformation of a person. In this case, God's reason is magistral, as the creator and guide of history, and our human reason is ministerial. We don't deny the importance of reason, but acknowledge that there is a higher reason than our puny human intellect. The emphasis is neither on human reason nor human faith.

    When you look carefully at WLC's statements he does qualify his position that way: "In light of the Spirit’s witness, only the ministerial use of reason is legitimate. Philosophy is rightly the handmaid of theology."

    Did you notice that first part, "In light of the Spirit's witness." I realize as an atheist it's difficult for you to understand these concepts, but if you would take a step of faith and seek God with a sincere heart and seek to understand God's word with an open-mind, willing to receive and try out its truths, I believe you or anyone who reads this would have a conversion experience allowing you to understand these concepts quite easily.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Rick: A person who has a serious disease can hardly describe all the aspects of the disease objectively.
    Why not? Sure, their subjective experience and beliefs might get in the way, but this is not necessarily the case.
    Also, the same things are likely to effect anyone diagnosing the disease (personal opinion and beliefs). This is why we have intersubjective empiricism (science, basically) - to limit the subjective component.

    Rick: Likewise, a mind that is supposedly merely a biological product cannot objectively describe the physical world it is derived from and in which contained.
    Your point might be valid if we did observe the world objectively.
    If you were correct we'd hardly need to compare note on facts of the world, since we'd agree.

    Rick: However, the mind of a spiritual person in harmony with God does in fact have this connection with the transcendent perspective that is informed from outside of the "disease zone" so to speak.
    Possible, but unlikely.
    We still seem to be "subjective observers", we fall prey to bias and cognitive defects, etc. We also have no empirical support for these claims of yours (and make no mistake, your claims do have empirical content).

    Rick: A person has a revelation of truth that God exists and there is a desire to know God and the spiritual world
    An appeal to religious experience is a terrible argument Rick, unless you're some sort of Universalist.
    People have "revelations" and attribute them to different deities. Religious experience is all over the map, and appears to generally reinforce the religion the person already tacitly accepts (through culture, etc).

    Rick: We don't deny the importance of reason, but acknowledge that there is a higher reason than our puny human intellect. The emphasis is neither on human reason nor human faith.
    Our human reason is all we have to go by Rick. You're basically agreeing with WLC's ridiculous "ministerial use of reason" notion - which is basically that "God exists" is not up for debate, nor question (in his mind and in yours, it seems).

    Rick: When you look carefully at WLC's statements he does qualify his position that way: "In light of the Spirit’s witness, only the ministerial use of reason is legitimate. Philosophy is rightly the handmaid of theology."
    Which is a lame qualification.
    WLC's "spirits witness" is not a decent reason to believe, but I gather it is a convincing one (WLC has stated that if he were to travel back in time and see that Jesus died and was not resurrected, he would still believe because of the "Witness of the Holy Spirit", which in his case seems to boil down to a teenage experience when he felt anxious and frustrated, had a good cry, and felt better about things - hardly something which would require the intervention of an omniscient being to explain).

    Rick: Did you notice that first part, "In light of the Spirit's witness."
    I did, but it is still ridiculous - he is claiming that this witness cannot be subject to reasoning (ie. that it must simply be accepted). That is ridiculous and obviously unreasonable.

    Rick: I realize as an atheist it's difficult for you to understand these concepts, but if you would take a step of faith and seek God with a sincere heart and seek to understand God's word with an open-mind, willing to receive and try out its truths, I believe you or anyone who reads this would have a conversion experience allowing you to understand these concepts quite easily.
    I have looked with an open mind and a sincere heart, and i found a contradictory and sometimes incoherent mess of writings and beliefs.
    But even apart from my experience, what reason can you give for treating the bible differently than other texts? (or should I read the work of Homer and other ancient Greeks with an open mind, seeking Zeus in my life)?

    ReplyDelete

You are welcome to post on-topic comments but, please, no uncivilized blog abuse or spamming. Thank you!