I recently listened to a May 7, 2010 debate between Robert Price, “The Bible Geek,” and James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries.
(I wish you could, too, but YouTube reports that the video has been removed. Dr. White is now charging for it.)
The topic was “Is the Bible True?” If you don’t know the players, Dr. Price, of whom I’m a big fan, took the negative position.
A couple of points stood out for me. Continue reading
Category Archives: Uncategorized
Christian Shenanigans Mar 9/11 Remembrance
Did you hear about the “Miracle Cross”? It’s a 17-foot-tall piece of rubble found in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack. Out of all that wreckage, it’s not too surprising that the intersection of two beams had broken to make a cross-shaped piece of steel. It wasn’t even found at the Twin Towers site but rather at 6 World Center, but it has become a religious relic.
The shape could just be a coincidence, or it could be a sign from God. If the latter, I’m not sure what to make of the fact that the only evidence of God participating was his business card. In the rubble. And this evidence of God-not-doing-anything is now highlighted as a holy relic.
Hmm—that it’s just a coincidence is starting to sound a lot better from the standpoint of the Christian. (But if you want a commemorative two-inch-high statuette of the Miracle Cross, it’s available in handsome pewter for the low, low price of only $12.95.)
Anyway, this cross is now a controversial addition to New York City’s soon-to-be-completed National September 11 Memorial & Museum.
American Atheists and New York City Atheists are suing to have the cross removed. Their remedy is to return it to St. Peter’s Church, two blocks from Ground Zero, where it had been for the past five years. Since half of the museum’s financing has been provided by the government, that sounds a lot easier than giving equal time to all the religions that don’t have a cross as their symbol.
There’s another controversy Continue reading
Creationism Lacks Qualified Spokespeople
David Berlinski, part of the Discovery Institute’s evolution-denial project, recently said about evolution:
That’s not a theory. That’s just a string of wet sponges on a clothesline.
Uh huh. Here’s (1) a guy who’s not a biologist (2) criticizing a theory in biology (3) that happens to be the scientific consensus. (4) Overwhelmingly.
Slick packaging and bypassing the scientific process to sow confusion among the public doesn’t change the fact that there’s no argument here.
Wake me up when the scientific consensus changes. Until then, no layperson has an intellectual warrant for embracing Creationism.
Burden of Proof
Do you believe in unicorns? I’m guessing not. But how do you know that unicorns are fiction? Or leprechauns? How do you know that aliens from distant planets aren’t on earth, dissecting cows and probing humans?
Of course, we don’t know with certainty. But that is where the evidence points, which is our best alternative.
Suppose someone makes a claim. You don’t believe it, but you’re willing to listen to the argument. There are three possible outcomes at the end of this discussion:
- Right. The other person is right, and you change your mind.
- Wrong. Nope—you’re still right. You’ve heard nothing new, and this conversation might as well not even have happened for the effect it had on you.
- Middle Ground. You’re not convinced, but you’ve now heard evidence that you can’t simply dismiss.
Let’s consider another area of argumentation, the courtroom. Legal cases don’t end in ties. There are only two options—guilty or not guilty. The law handles option 3, the domain of some evidence but not enough to be compelling, by giving it to the defendant.
Suppose the prosecuting attorney and defense attorney did nothing more constructive than use their time to talk about favorite movies. The arguments are equally bad. Does the judge declare a tie? No—the prosecution didn’t uphold its burden of proof, so the defense wins.
When someone shows you evidence for unicorns (perhaps references to unicorns in historical documents), you might agree that it is evidence but not sufficient evidence to convince you. The other person didn’t uphold the burden of proof.
On a related issue, if you say, “unicorns exist” and I respond, “No, unicorns don’t exist,” then I have now made a claim that I need to defend. If I make no such claim, the burden of proof remains yours.
Greg Kokul and his Stand to Reason blog say that it’s a “ploy” for the atheist to put the burden of proof on the Christian who claims that God exists. The atheist isn’t playing fair.
Nope, “God exists” is a claim. In fact, the claim that a supernatural being exists and created the universe is about the boldest claim possible. If you make that claim, you shoulder the burden of proof. If the evidence you provide isn’t compelling, I’m logically obliged to reject your claim.
Photo credit: stock.xchng
We Have an Admirer!
Well, not really an admirer—more like an antagonist. But I say that in a good way.
Matt Slick runs the CARM (Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry) web site. He interviewed me on his radio show about a dozen times in 2007. We reconnected recently, and he responded to my Science Answers the Big Questions post.
His reply is here.
Unfortunately, there’s not much to respond to. Matt seems mostly concerned about sloppy thinking, making sure we put materialistic thinking into the “science” bin and philosophical thinking into the “philosophy” bin, making sure words are used correctly, and so on. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but I didn’t find anything interesting enough to respond to.
But let me sharpen one point. I said that science answers the Big Questions of Life. It would probably be better to say that what science tells us about reality means that wedon’t need religion’s answers. Science’s natural answers show that looking for a transcendental purpose or an ultimate mind are unnecessary.
Map of World Religions
Everyone’s seen maps of world religions like this one.
Have you ever wondered why you never see a Map of World Science?
Let’s imagine such a map. Over here is where scientists believe in a geocentric solar system, and over there, a heliocentric one. This area is where they think that astrology can predict the future, and that area is where they reject the idea. The Intelligent Design guys reign in the crosshatched area, and evolution in the dark gray area.
Naturally, each of these different groups think of their opponents as heretics, and they have fought wars over their opposing beliefs. (To keep it manageable, I’ve shown on the map only the conflicts with more than 1000 deaths.)
Of course, the idea is nonsensical. A new scientific theory isn’t culturally specific, and, if it passes muster, it peacefully sweeps the world. Astronomy replaced astrology, chemistry replaced alchemy, and the germ theory replaced evil spirits as a cause of disease. One scientist should get the same results from an experiment as another, regardless of their respective religions. Evolution or germ theory or relativity or the Big Bang are part of the consensus view among scientists, whether they are Christian, Muslim, atheist, or Other.
Sure, there can be some not-invented-here thinking—scientists have egos, too—but this only slows the inevitable. Contrast this with the idea that Shintoism will sweep across America over the next couple of decades and replace Christianity, simply because it’s a better idea.
Let’s go back to our map of world religions. Religions claim to give answers to the big questions—answers that science can’t give. Questions like: What is our purpose? Or, Where did we come from? Or, Is there anything else out there? Or, What is science grounded on?
But the map shows that the religious answer to that question depends on where you are! If you live in Tibet or Thailand, Buddhism teaches that we are here to learn to cease suffering and reach nirvana. If you live in Yemen or Saudi Arabia, Islam teaches that we are here to submit to Allah. We ask the most profound questions of all, and the answers are location specific?
What kind of truth depends on location?
For discovering reality, religion comes up short. Next time someone nods his head sagely and says, “Ah, but Christianity can answer the Big Questions®,” remember how shallow that claim is.