|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The God Delusion Debate | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Lennox makes points (here and in some other amazing debates you should watch vs Hitchens) that get no rebuttal: Um, you completely forget PaulK's Message 3 posted just a few hours before this your message in this very same topic (my emphasis added):
PaulK writes: The debate format favoured Lennox. Dawkins was to make his arguments and then Lennox would answer - with no opportunity for Dawkins to rebut Lennox. If Lennox' opponent is not allowed to rebut, then there cannot be any rebuttal. That is not because Lennox' points have any merit (he does certain misrepresent evolution, so that demonstrates that his "points" have no merit). It's the same pattern we saw in the infamous creationist debates which were rigged to allow the creationist to win. It is very telling that when creationists are confronted with most honest debate formats, they absolutely refuse to participate. Such debates are very rarely won on the strength of the arguments, but rather on the participants' performance and showmanship and one side's ability to hamper the opponent's performance. See my page, Creation / Evolution Debates, for links to articles and for my own discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Frankly, all I know about Lennox is how he eagerly propped up Bill Barr's gross bastardization of law and order and the "Rule of Law" in this country. That is all I could ever need to know about Lennox and his evil intent.
I seem to recall that Faith was so very much in lust over Lennox. Not much of a recommendation. Just who is that idiot, anyway?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
... , though dwise1 has a point in that many creationists make up their own science and have to make it fit since God has never directly taught us anything that we thus never need to learn regarding science) Huh? I have studied more than a dozen human languages (but only speak five ... six if I can bring my Russian up to speed) and about the same number of computer languages. Parsing statements is very important in both endeavors. What you said did not parse. What were you trying to say with that? Now, actual creationists (ie, those who believe in the actual Christian god who is Sovereign over Nature, unlike the creationist and ID god, the God of the Gaps, who is destroyed by knowledge and must hide in fear of Nature) would believe that their god did indeed create the universe to function in the way we find it to function. Thus when science discovers how the universe works, then an actual creationist would see that as science discovering what their god had done. And when we discover naturalistic explanations for how something works or originated, then actual creationists would see that as their god working through the very natural processes that He had created. No conflict between creation and evolution. But these other creationists do no believe in the Christian god, but rather in the false theology of the God of the Gaps. They see science as the enemy of their religion because their religion demands that reality doesn't exist in order to allow their god to exist. Which means that they believe that science is trying to disprove God -- what foolishness! They believe that their god only works through supernatural acts, so any naturalistic explanation for anything is seen as opposing their god. It is only when religion opposes reality that there is conflict with science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
I believe that there is One God. Even if we have many religions, there is One God. Even if the entire theory of multiverses were true there would be but One God ruling over all of them. Could be, but absolutely irrelevant. OK, virtually irrelevant to give you a lot of slack. Even if there were to exist a supernatural entity that could be deemed "God", it would have virtually nothing to do with any of the very many religions and their very many gods. At the very best, nearly each religion conjectures a "God" to exist and then tries to imagine what it could be like, basically by a process of somebody dreaming something up, then somebody else making their imaginative contribution, et cetera, et cetera until enough such imaginings have accreted to form their "God". And then those members of those religions who actually try to actually give it any thought will themselves create their own personal versions of "God" through their interpretations of their religions' official versions of "God". A possible exception to that may be Buddhism, in that the Buddha taught that you should not rely on the gods because they would only hinder you from gaining Enlightenment. Not sure how well that squares with some sects' reliance on Bodhisattvas (eg, as presented in class I found Amida Buddhism to be little better than simplistic approaches to Christianity). My page, Do We Understand What We Think We Believe In?, reposts a 1991 AP article about a survey done by the Barna Research Group, a conservative Christian company that has conducted many polls on religious subjects. This article reports on their poll of what Christians believe. For the most part, many "Christian beliefs" actually ran counter to actual Christian doctrine. Many Christians misidentified quotes for "Poor Richard's Almanack" (Ben Franklin) as coming from the Bible. But a salient mistaken belief is that Christians, Jews, Muslims and Buddhists "pray to the same God," although by different names. The irony is that Buddhists reject the gods.
As a Christian, I believe that Jesus is God incarnate. Of course you do, which is only natural. That is not the "One God" that might actually exist, but rather your personal interpretation (since you have given it some thought as opposed to those who only put in their "pew time") of your particular religion's ideas about a "God". No different from billions of other believers. As I've quoted from a novel in one of my sets of signatures:
quote: We are not trying to destroy your faith, but rather we ask for a degree of self-awareness in understanding your own position. That would include realizing that your own particular beliefs are yours, suitable for you and not necessarily for others, even though you are doing the same as so many others whose beliefs you would not agree with completely.
After thinking about my chosen beliefs, I will add that there should be little to no conflict between Science and God. (I say God instead of religion on purpose.) Science is the study of the natural universe, discovering how it works. "God" is a proposed supernatural entity. We cannot perceive the supernatural, not even to be able to determine whether it even exists let alone determine its characteristics. Science cannot work with the supernatural, so it doesn't. Science cannot make any use of the supernatural in the scientific method (including the question of accepting supernaturalistic hypotheses), so it doesn't. IDists and creationists mistake this methodological naturalism (only considering naturalistic explanations because that's the only kind it can work with) for philosophical naturalism (that the supernatural doesn't exist) -- we've just seen robertleva repeat that mistake in Message 295. There is an enormous difference between finding something unsuitable to work with and claiming that that unsuitable something doesn't exist. However, I think that religion can indeed play nice with science, that they do not conflict unless people force them to conflict. Science does not and cannot try to "disprove God", but some religions believe that it does (eg, creationism). Religions do not conflict with science unless they insist on making assertions about the natural world which are contrary to fact (eg, young earth, misrepresenting how evolution works, misrepresenting how leap seconds work, misrepresenting biology, misrepresenting geology, etc). It can be done. Many scientists are also religious. They see no conflict because they do not try to create such conflict. Religionists such as robertleva seek to create conflict. That has to do with his particular religion, not with any "God". Though a god who does conflict with science is the creationist and IDist "God of the Gaps". Since the "God of the Gaps" can only exist within human ignorance and science works to lessen our ignorance, science does present a danger to that "God of the Gaps." But the problem there for believers is that they have chosen the wrong god to follow.
That all being said, God works in many ways that are not supernatural. He can use a Donkey to speak. He can and does use various humans of various beliefs to teach and encourage. Exactly! Those Christians who believe in "God the Sovereign Over Nature" believe in a god who is not limited in what he uses. That would include the very natural processes that he had himself created! For whatever mistaken reasons, creationists and IDists react against the idea of something coming about by natural processes, misinterpreting that as denying God. They are probably finding themselves hoisted on their own petard of anti-naturalism (ie, their paranoid of their boogeyman of "anti-God Naturalism" such as robertleva has advanced (again, Message 295)). On my cre/ev links page, I've posted links to Dr. Allan H. Harvey's essays. He is a scientist (Ph.D. Chemical Engineering) and a believing, practicing Christian. For his Sunday school, he has written a number essays, including two which discuss the false theology of the "God of the Gaps". Here is the section that link goes to: quote: Some food for thought. Share and enjoy!
He can use a Donkey to speak. Yes, Balaam and his ass (donkey), Numbers 22. A friend at work, a fundamentalist Christian but a good guy, told about teaching that story to his son whose concluding comment was, "So God was speaking out of Balaam's ass?" There was a Warner Brothers western comedy, The Great Bank Robbery (1969) where various thieves gathered to rob an impenetrable bank, and a Texas Ranger (Clint Walker) to stop them. Zero Mostel was posing as a minister. His sermon was on Balaam and his ass with repeated refrains of "And Balaam smote his ass again!". Clint Walker arrived late, didn't understand what was going on, and kept looking around confused that nobody was bothered by what was being said.
While I dont agree that all apologists are liars or on par with those other creationists you mention, I will allow for the possibility that many of the goats are Biblical Christians and Creationists. Much of my understanding of apologetics comes from an NCSE article, Creationist and Fundamentalist Apologetics: Two Branches of the Same Tree by Robert M. Price (Creation/Evolution Journal, Volume 4 No. 4, pp 19-31, Fall 1984). To get a flavor, here's the conclusion:
quote: The reason I mention it is because of its description of the two-fold role of apologetics as described by Francis Schaeffer:
quote: Price later provides a key word from apologetics: harmonization. Believers need to find ways to harmonize their beliefs with the real world both to assuage their own doubts and to make them seem more reasonable more reasonable to potential converts. That understanding is the main thing I took away from that article. The problem, as I recall (it's been a few decades) is that instead of harmonizing by showing that there is no conflict between Christianity and reality, fundamentalist and creationist apologetics chooses to deny reality. I believe it was geologist and ex-YEC Glenn R. Morton who emphasized the need for scientifically accurate apologetics while providing personal testimonies by former creationist who had lost or very nearly lost their faith because of the scientifically inaccurate creationist apologetics. Apologists can be honest (even though creationists are by definition dishonest, most believers in Divine Creation can be and usually are honest). However, there's also the inherent problem that apologists are partisan, are intent on defending and promoting their particular theology. As such, it would be very difficult for them to think critically of their own position while they are so busy defending it. That is what honesty would demand. I'm sure that it can be done, but I'm also sure that it can be very difficult and hence likely quite rare.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
I am providing this link to my page, Creation / Evolution Debates, because I link to several other pages and articles on the topic -- they all said it so well that I couldn't see how I could refer to and summarize them properly except to present those links.
When really spread "creation science" in the 1970's was their "creation/evolution debates". Basically, they would come into town sponsored by a local church who would recruit a local teacher or scientist as the professional debater's opponent. For a number of well-known wrong reasons, the creationist with his highly polished and practiced routine would run circles around his amateurish and inexperienced opponent who wasn't even aware of what "creation science" was, thus building a reputation for being unbeatable thus also building up the reputation for "creation science". Even when the opponent did well, that news remained local (the ICR, a major source of debaters, would report on these debates in their newsletter and they always reported a creationist victory even when the creationist got whopped (eg, the 1981/82 Tampa debates which resulted in the local school board shelving its plans for implementing a creationist curriculum). Instead, the creationist would just take his snake-oil show down the road to the next town that didn't know what had happened. The tide finally turned around 1980 after past victims teamed together and started to beat the creationists in debates. Anyone interested in that story can read the articles linked to through the above link.
Dawkins only dignifies Lennox and deprecates himself by serious participation in such debates. Until believers get serious and rigorous in their evidence and argument only a mocking tone and incredulous expression are called for. During all that, there was an internal debate about engaging in a "creation/evolution debate." Some of the points of that debate were (from the NCSE article, Creation-Evolution Debates: Who's Winning Them Now? linked to through my page):
Another problem, a "con", is that creationists will use your "defeat" to bolster their side. Creationists would taut their "victories", reporting each one in their newsletters. Even when they clearly lost (much as we saw in this Lennox-Dawkins "debate"). Basically, their "debates" are little more than traveling snake-oil salesman operations that, after having been exposed as frauds in one town, will simply go down the road to defraud the next town who doesn't know what had just happened. That same article that the cons&pros list came from describes the debate situation as of Spring 1982. For example, in the two Tampa debates (Dr. Ken Miller v. D. Henry Morris, 19 Sep 1981, and again v. Dr. Duane Gish, 21 Mar 1982), Dr. Miller soundly defeated both creationists. After the first debate, the ICR claimed victory in its newsletter and that the outcome"seemed to materially strengthen the creationist position in the Tampa area." In fact, the school board had decided to shelve its planned creationist curriculum because of Morris' defeat. Plus when the second debate came around, the public had lost interest and there was almost no news coverage. In another debate in Redlands, Calif, a few years later before a large audience, the "evolutionist" side surveyed the parking lot to get a feel for the composition of that audience. With all the school buses from churches and Christian schools and ΙΧΘΥΣ and other religious stickers on cars, they estimated that 90% of the audience walked into that debate on the creationist side. The creationist organizers had obviously advertised heavily at churches and Christian schools in order to pack the audience. At the end of the debate, they had the audience vote on which side had won the debate. Only two-thirds of the audience, 67%, voted for creationism. Despite having lost nearly a quarter of their original audience (90%-67%=23%), they still declared a creationist victory. In his description of these debates, Fred Edwords advised that in order to debate creationism you not only need to know your science very well, but you must also know your creationism much better. When you first encounter a creationist claim, you can tell immediately that it's wrong, but within a debate format how do you explain to the audience why it's wrong. The first "evolutionists" caught in the creationist debate trap lost, not because of any fault in science, but rather because they had no idea where those creationists claims were coming from. Now they know. Since creationists polish their debates so well, they rarely wander off-script. That means that by studying their past debates, you can know what they will hit you with. Part of Edwords' prep work was to write each creationist claim on loose-leaf notebook paper, one sheet per claim, along with his response to that claim. Then as the creationist did his thing, Edwords would take out that claim's sheet and add it to his rebuttal pile. That proved to be so effective that the creationist demanded to be given extra time in order to respond to Edwords' rebuttal. Finally, it should be pointed out that the NCSE has put more effort into talking people out of engaging in debates. Effective debating requires special skills and experience and lots of preparation. And the potential danger to local education that is posed by a poor performance is rarely worth it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
I wonder whether that's the trend now or that they're too busy supporting the overthrow of the government (since the Beast and AntiChrist are supposed to take power and keep it, the fact that the Beast (AKA Trump) was voted out poses enormous problems for biblical inerrancy that they must not allow).
Even though the current creationists may realize defeat, undoubtedly the next generation of creationists, not knowing about that defeat since nobody will tell them about it, will try to pick up the fight again. We'll just have to wait and see. So Dembski has retired. Like Dr. Michael Denton he thought he knew a lot more than he actually did. When he was still talking, Glenn R. Morton reported on a 2000 ID conference in Waco, TX. In Dembski's presentation he made his typical pronouncement that genetic algorithms don't work, whereupon many hands went up and members of the audience informed him that they routinely used genetic algorithms and that they work, and then they started schooling him on genetic algorithms. Morton described Dembski as looking like a deer caught in headlights.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024