The best Christmas present I ever received was given to me by my wife last year.* It was the book Philosophical Foundations of a Christian Worldview by J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig. (Why yes, I am a nerd; how could you tell?) It is a great introduction to philosophy by two of the best Christian thinkers today. One of the best features of the book is that each chapter contains a reference list of additional, more in-depth resources. As I was perusing these bibliographies last night, I came across http://www.philcristi.org. This is the website for the Evangelical Philosophical Society (EPS), which is "an organization of professional scholars devoted to pursuing philosophical excellence in both the church and the academy." I have not had the chance to perform and in-depth review of this website, but I have linked to it on this blog for that purpose. I have managed to read one particular article, however, which I felt was definitely blog-worthy. It is an article entitled "The Big Bad Wolf, Theism and the Foundations of Intelligent Design: A Review of Richard Dawkins', The God Delusion" by Peter S. Williams.
Although I have not read Dawkin's book, it is obvious that Williams has, and meticulously. In his lengthy review (15 pages, but I would urge you, if interested, to read all of it), Williams dissects Dawkin's arguments for atheism and naturalism and against theism and the Intelligent Design theory. Williams gives a very fair critique. Not only does he point out areas of weakness, but he also points out areas in which Dawkins is right on the money. Probably the most interesting point found in the review is Dawkin's support of Intelligent Design as a scientific theory. Of course, Dawkins does not agree with it, but he does state that if an intelligent designer did leave marks of design in the universe, such marks would be subject to scientific scrutiny in theory, if not in fact. Dawkins also correctly notes that certain scientific disciplines such as archaeology already employ the concepts of Intelligent Design--the problem comes when those concepts are introduced into biology. Williams rightly praises Dawkins for this understanding, while also critiquing him for poisoning the well by "tendentiously talking about 'Phillip E. Johnson who leads the creationist charge against Darwinism in America' and 'creationist Michael Behe.'"
Williams goes on to discuss many other aspects of the book, and for time's sake I cannot repeat them all here. His review is, however, a great read for one interested in understanding better the philosophy that lies behind modern science.
*I expect to receive a much better present this year, though.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
It seems like you reach out to me whenever you bring up science...
Although it seems that there is so much atheism in science, I think that this is a shame and if one is truly to call themselves objective (which any deconstructionist will tell you is absurd) then they must attempt to divorce themselves from any "isms" whether it be atheism theism or any other.
Saying that something proves God exists or proves God does not exist is fruitless because the same evidence points in both ways depending on how it is interpreted. It is all based upon ones worldview. The ultimate tests are the positive results. Unfortunately for many, the positive tests for faith are few. However, that is why it is called faith. I also believe that Jesus praised those who believed without proof. If God lived up in the clouds for all to see like those Monty Python sketches, then faith would be rather silly like saying you have faith that the sun exists.
It is true that while science does attempt to find naturalistic explanations for phenomena, this should not be seen as an attempt (although many may want it to be) to push God to non-existence.
So many have attributed actions to God when they have natural causes (which may be more deeply controlled by God but at that point it is useless to talk about them). In Biblical times, diseases and disorders were thought to be the cause of demons, yet now those demons are called viruses, neurotransmitter imbalances or chromosomal anomalies.
There are many references to God's directing the stars and planets and yet NASA does not have to pray for permission to launch a rocket or have a satellite orbit the Earth.
Intelligent design has submitted itself to be a scientific theory and I say go for it. However, a theory does not have the loose definition that so many attribute to it. A Law is describing something about the universe (e.g. Objects tend to fall toward the Earth). A theory is the explanation of why the law occurs (e.g. General Relativity).
ID has been slammed even by theists because it does not present any testable theories. One cannot simply look at something and infer that it was designed simply because one may be ignorant of the natural forces that can cause the phenomena. I direct your attention to the work of scientists in the field of Biology,Astronomy,Physics, Chemistry,etc and how once mystical operations became explanable. As Arthur C. Clark of 2001: A Space Odyssey fame said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".
An important philosophical gift from the French philosophers is deconstructionism. Although many theologians lump this in with relativism and therefore discard it, it solves the many of the theist's problems of faith.
Many Christians claim that there faith is built upon pillars. Example: Jesus Christ came to earth, died for our sins, and will return later to judge.
Now this is completely hypothetical (please take it as such) but what if through a time machine or sufficient archeology, it was proven that Jesus never came to Earth (stay with me here). Would you still believe in God or be a Christian?
Now for a less heretical example. If your faith is built upon the above pillar and many smaller ones for example:
-Prayer works
-Humanity was especially created by God and all species were formed within the 6 days of creation.
-Jesus will return in 1 year, 10 years, etc.
-Insert any other fact here.
If the above did not occur or was proven to be false would you still be a theist?
Now, specifically to science, many Christians have been taught that creation is a pillar of faith. What happens when many realize that evolution is a valid explanation for the variety/similarity of species found on Earth (I assure you it is) is that they either:
A) Leave the faith finding that their faith can no longer stand without that pillar.
B) Try and demonize Evolution setting up a false dichotomy.
C) Find a way to make the two integrate into a stronger faith.
If faith is based upon pillars then we have only a God of the gaps who is only as strong as our ignorance. The more we find out the less powerful God seems. However, if we allow our faith to not be based upon such pillars, then we find that our faith becomes more beautiful. Think about how God can still be all that she is within an evolving creation.
If you promise to stop using "isms" I will do my best within the scientific community to get them to stop as well.
:) Thanks for bringing up science. I always enjoy reading your posts!
I was under the impression that specified complexity was a sufficiently testable theory. After all, is that not the criterion by which archaeologists, SETI, e.g., test for evidence of design? And I am aware that science tends to be deductive, but there is a valid logical form called inference to the best explanation. There is a lot of confusion on this point. Some people see ID, creationism, or whatever as committing the logical fallacy of god in the gaps, when in fact they may be inferring to the best explanation. "We don't know how X happened, so God must have done it" is much different than "Because of what we observe, it seems more probable that X was created rather than evolved", and this philosophical distinction is one that needs to be explored and understood further, both in "Christian" and "scientific" communities (not to exclude one from the other).
Moving along, I would have to disagree with the validity of a decontructionist viewpoint with respect to the foundations of Christianity. First and foremost, as Paul mentions in 1 Co 15:12-19, if Christ did not actually exist in history, did not actually die and raise again in history, then our faith is useless, and "we are to be pitied more than all people." So to answer your first question, if Jesus never came to earth and it could be proved, would I still be a Christian? No. Christianity is a faith that is rooted in history. If one uses deconstruction to remove this feature, then one has removed much of the basis for faith in the first place. Now, regarding your second list, and I understand where you're coming from here, these would be secondary "pillars" that could potentially be removed, as they are not "weight-bearing", so to speak. I'm not sure where I personally would place the creation/evolution "pillar"; I suppose it would depend upon what the presuppositions behind each of these are, which may very well vary from person to person.
One last thought, and then I've got to run. The reason I use "isms" is because I like to talk about the philosophy that lies behind science. As you mention, objectivity is hard to come by, but in order to be more objective, or at least more truthful, it is important to understand one's underlying thoughts. So forgive me for using "isms", I mean no harm!
I'm glad you enjoy my posts. I try very hard to write lucid, thoughtful posts with which people can interact on important issues. So thanks for the compliment; it means a lot to me.
Complexity can be tested for if what you mean is just that. It seems that your examples are referring to the Paley argument that a watch found on an island infers design. Yes this is true as long as there are no natural explanations for how a watch could appear. (Yet, I'm speaking out of ignorance)
This was the grand stroke of Dawkins in "The Blind Watchmaker" where he points out that when Paley made this argument there was no knowledge of genetics. Now Darwin himself hinted at inherited traits/genes but he didn't know about genetics either.
I can speak with some authority on this topic having just been to a conference at the University of Utah where the top geneticists in the world spoke of the power of genes. Without going into too much detail, I'll stick to one example which Dawkins also uses in "The Blind Watchmaker". There are these sets of genes called "hox genes" that depending on their frequency in the genome and in what place, this will determine the body type and many other characteristics of the organisms anatomy/physiology. It is very fascinating, especially since all have wondered how small mutations can lead to dramatic differences in species. I direct you to a google or wiki search on the topic because I would take up too much room but it is incredible.
Complexity and design is a human concept. The party game Boggle is based in the ability of some people to find words in randomly shaken letters. However, an American playing against a Frenchman would end in frustration as the American's patterns (aka words) would not align with the Frenchman's patterns.
It is true that SETI, archeologists, and almost every other type of scientist seek for patterns which hint at design. However, the design is always presupposed to be of natural origin even if it not from Earth (i.e. aliens). If there were patterns or proof of intelligence beyond our physical realm we would not have the senses to perceive it nor would we be able to distinguish it from natural causes. For example: A book which is said to have been inspired by the spirit of God could just as easily be explained as the work of excellent writers describing their philosophy and experience with life.
A person comes across a piece of toast where the Virgin Mary's face appears, could be explained (however unlikely) as the shorting of thermocoils in a particular pattern. While many could look at that piece of toast and see nothing, or maybe see Gene Simmons sticking his tongue out, this person choose to see Mary.
I have to disagree with you that theism is a logical inference to explain phenomena. Science must be repeatable by anyone with a similar setup. Prayer works for some and not others, some are healed while other die. This may be a part of a plan but it is certainly not science that is made available to us.
I have yet to find one example where a phenomena is better explained by supernatural rather than natural. Even if gravity, or protein folding, or particle-wave duality are not fully understood there are many more problems caused by invoking the supernatural than seeking deeper naturalist explanations.
Saying God did it may or may not be true, but it is not good science because once it becomes the realm of the supernatural it is impossible to explore further. However, the problem has not been that the phenomena requires God but more precise measuring devices and new techniques. You may prefer the term inference as opposed to "God of the gaps" but they are the same. However, I also disagree with Dawkins or anyone else "inferring" that evolution causes God to be nonexistent of unnecessary. Inference is a dangerous territory which is impossible to be objective because ones worldview is going to guide their inference. Scientists who are theists have no problem practicing both as long as they remember that they are exploring phenomena. Whether they choose to attribute this to Jesus or the FSM is completely up to them but it should not be conflated with the discovery.
Finally, I agree that removing the central pillar of Christianity would cause the tower to fall. I forgot to make my point last time, that faith or philosophy should not be seen as a bunch of pillars holding up a building but a web much like a spider's with a central dogma sine qua non. If a few strands are cut the faith can still stand, however at a certain point if one's faith is based on fallacies then a rebuilding of the faith with stronger strands is required.
Too often people are told that to accept Christianity you must be anti-abortion, pro Republican, pro War, anti-evolution, anti-gay, etc. etc. Now of course these points are not made in the beginning otherwise who would come to such a faith but they are made over time. Once someone has fallen in love with Jesus (or anyone for that matter) they will be willing to do anything to please him. Now I am not inferring that Christianity should be pro-abortion, pro-Democrat, anti-War (ok maybe this), etc. far from it but that if ones faith requires a lot more than the central point in order to stand, a change of view will cause unnecessary challenges to faith when they should in fact be a beautiful rebuilding of the web much like muscle torn rebuilt stronger.
This blog is one of the highlights of my week!
Phil,
Thanks for the good comments. This week is turning out to be extremely busy, and I will respond to you in greater detail later if I can, but let me make one comment for now.
Inference to the best explanation and the fallacy of god in the gaps are not the same thing. Inference to the best explanation is a method of reasoning in which one chooses the hypothesis that would, if true, best explain the relevant evidence. The god-of-the-gaps fallacy refers to an argument that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon. Inference to the best explanation looks at all live options and chooses the one most likely to be true based on certain decision-making criteria. God of the gaps assumes God did it until proven/in spite of being proven otherwise.
Anyway, I appreciated your comments on genetics, and, as I said, I hope to respond further if I can find the time.
Okay, I have found a bit of time.
You say that Paley's watch illustration is not valid because he knew nothing of genetics. If this is valid, then by the same line of reasoning can I discount Darwin's theory because he had no knowledge of cell biology?
As far as genetics goes, that conference sounds very interesting. That would have been cool to go to. It seems to me, though, that this answer just serves to remove the question by one degree. In other words, to say small gene mutations can result in divergent characteristics is to raise the question, "Why are genes organized in such a way that they can transmit any meaningful information at all?" The question of information at that level is indeed a very interesting one. If anything at all would imply design, I would think information (quantum, genetic, etc) would be it. I am not aware of how information, or meaning at all, could arise in a completely naturalistic manner. (I'm not saying that you believe this, but just that it is an interesting question.)
One last comment about the Boggle analogy. If we are made in God's image as Genesis indicates, it would make sense that in some way, we would be able to play Boggle with Him. Even if He does speak French, and I English, because I do know a few French words, there is a chance that I would recognize one or several words.
Hope this wasn't too disjointed--I've only had one cup of coffee yet this morning.
Darwin was wrong or ignorant of many things. However, this does not mean that the theory itself was incorrect. Darwin was ignorant of cell biology and referred to an eye as a blob of goo. He was also ignorant of genetics and therefore could not define the mechanism for speciation.
Later on these developments led to what was called the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis. This gave flesh to Darwin's theories.
However, Paley was saying that complexity or information infers design. I disagree, information is a human construct and a very specialized one at that. If you don't believe me, try running Apple software on a PC. My point regarding Paley is that he (and until recently, everyone) was ignorant that a mechanism existed which could create complex body types with small variations.
Evolution has absolutely nothing to say about origin of life (although some evolutionists may say otherwise). That is historical and could only be proven by historical evidence. However, we are discovering new laws of Bio Chemistry which allow non living molecules to assemble into DNA and RNA. These processes occur naturally and do not require intelligence to occur, simply the right conditions.
As for your point on the amazing power of DNA to transmit information. I agree it is amazing. The combination of the 3 billion nucleotides in humans are extremely numerous. However, there are many different ways that DNA could function. It currently has 4 different base chemicals. I have heard no reason that it could not have been 3 or 5. The system evolved and found a dynamic equilibrium at 4 base pairs. Our language has 26 letters and other languages have more or less. I continue to be facinated by their ability to communicate information. However, these languages were not divinely given but evolved over time.
I would really like to have some clarification on your thoughts on "playing Boggle with God". I think I may be missing your point and it sounds cool so if you get a second cup of joe I'd like to hear more.
Thanks!
The Boggle thing: I was using the imago dei as a jumping-off point. In Gen 1:26, God says, "Let us create man (humanity) in our image." So what is this image of which God speaks? It can't be physical--God doesn't have a body. It must be mental or spiritual in some way. I think the image of God is multifaceted, but if it has anything to do with the mind (I think it does), then there must be some way in which communication or the flow of meaningful information is possible. That is, if we share certain mental characteristics with God, then we could expect that if God did input some type of design, some type of information into the cosmos, we just might be able to understand it if we found it. Back to the Frenchman example, if God spelled out a French word or phrase in Boggle, even though I don't know much French, I do know a few words (Je ne parle pas français, to use a silly example) and thus there is a possibility that I would know that this isn't a random assortment of letters, nor could this plausibly arise by chance.
In this way, one hopes to avoid jumping to conclusions but still allow for the possibility of design in nature.
I hope this is a better explanation. I haven't had any more coffee yet (very suprising), but I have been awake for an additional 10 hours.
Very cool thoughts. If you want some awesome mental food check out Michael Polanyi's Personal Knowledge. Excellent stuff regarding faith and design! Thanks for sharing. I look forward to reading the next post...
Thanks, I will add that to my list of books.
Post a Comment