Oxford Professor for the Public Understanding of Science.
It is reported that the professor has refused to debate the existence of God with philosopher William Lane Craig when the latter visits the UK. I suppose I find this striking because the professor has largely built his career on such controversy rather than any solid scientific research and such debates fall well within his 'job description'. The suspicion is that the professor is more comfortable bullying "creationists" rather than engaging in any meaningful dialogue with more sophisticated protagonists. It has struck me that the professor's grasp of the issues has always been poor and he has lazily resorted to caricature of his opponents rather than examine what they actually say. Maybe in the final analysis a debate with William Lane Craig was likely to prove too much like hard work.
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 08, 2011
Monday, April 11, 2011
NIALL FERGUSON, THE PROTESTANT WORK ETHIC AND THE RING OF TRUTH . Last night on Channel 4 we had the final part of historian Niall Ferguson's analysis of "Civilization: Is the West History?" Over the preceding weeks he has pointed to several (what he calls) 'killer apps' which enabled the West to progress in a way that other cultures could not; these included Competition, Science, Medicine and Democracy. Last night we had "the Protestant Work Ethic". I believe that Niall Ferguson is correct in saying that part of the West, that is Europe, has learnt to despise the work ethic while other cultures have embraced it. Do we live to work or work to live? I believe we live to be active and creative. Furthermore he is correct in his observations that the Chinese have more Christians than the whole of Europe! As a European Christian I think that is wonderful! Truly wonderful and a remarkable testimony to the work of the Holy Spirit despite decades of persecution the church there has prospered! Christianity can no longer be perceived as a western phenomena - and quite rightly so - because it never was! In contrast to the USA Europe has sold its share of the Christian heritage for a mess of pottage. As a Christian from Europe I can see the consequences of such a dereliction. Niall Ferguson is perceptive in parts; he alludes to a loss of faith within European society which now requires the affirmation of all beliefs, no matter how crackpot, on the basis that no belief is any better than any other. He has hit the nail on the head there. But his solution is not however a reaffirmation of Protestant Christianity but a renewal of faith in ourselves.... hmmm. The problem there is that Europe has already been engaged in an experiment of substituting faith in God for faith in humanity. At that point, you will realise, that Niall Ferguson has lost the plot of his own argument. There has never been a loss of faith in ourselves! Indeed that faith has always been humankinds fundamental problem. The reality is once one abolishes God one also abolishes Man! What do I mean by that? I will argue that the intellectual environment cultivated by Protestant Christianity (which is shorthand for genuine, biblical, apostolic Christianity) has had a number of positive consequences for society and that when we abolish God and substitute Man in his place negative consequences follow. I will follow up this train of thought in the next couple of months by looking at 'Democracy & the Rule of Law' and 'Science' as attributes of a Christian worldview under a series called 'The Ring of Truth'. But for now I will confine myself to the 'Protestant Work Ethic'. I will add one caveat; Capitalism is not the ultimate goal of the Gospel of Jesus Christ! From his description I do not believe Niall Ferguson really understood the work ethic. Properly understood it is not about living driven lives under the whip hand of God. It is actually about realising that a believer can glorify God in whatever sphere of life they find themselves in. One does not have to become a priest, monk or nun in order to serve God, one can do so whatever one's circumstances if one's attitude is right. The split between the sacred and secular was broken down and different sets of spiritual and moral standards no longer applied... all are equally called. This is what was meant by the Protestant/Biblical concept of "the priesthood of all believers"; which is also a democratising influence but I'll leave that for another day! Why is it particularly a 'Protestant' work ethic? The priesthood of all believers implies a degree of activism, involvment and personal engagement which will be absent in societies which defer to a special priestly caste. I recall a commentator once saying that the difference between north and south America was that in the south the settlers came to find paradise and in the north they came to build it! That has more than a ring of truth about it. Critics of 'religion' will point out that it reduces the believer to helpless passivity. Well, there may be more than a ring of truth to that too. But I will argue that Protestant/Biblical Christianity is the exception which proves the rule. The work ethic founded on the Creation mandate of Genesis is hardly a call to inaction!
Tuesday, March 08, 2011
The Romantic Revolution by Tim Blanning.
Post-Modernism is often assumed to be a 21st Century response to the misplaced certainties of the modern era. This book raises the intriguing suggestion that an earlier movement prefigures this development by some way.
Tim Blanning makes a convincing case that the Romantic movement was a reaction against the reductionistic certainties of the Enlightenment and the dehumanising consequences of the new industries of the late 18th and early 19th Centuries.
"Three great revolutions rocked the world around the beginning of the 19th Century. The first two - the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution - have inspired the greatest volume of literature. But the third - the Romantic Revolution - was perhaps the most fundamental, radical and far-reaching. From Wordsworth, Coleridge, Burns and Byron, to Beethoven, Rossini, Berlioz, Liszt and Wagner, to Goya, Blake, Turner and Delacroix collectively brought about an alternative revolution".
"'Absolute inwardness' is how Tim Blanning defines the essence of romanticism. From this derives virtually all the cultural axioms of the modern world: the stress on genius, originality and individual expression; the dominance of music; the obsession with sexuality, dreams and the subconscious; the role of the public as patron; the worship of art and artists."
Artists became the high priests of a new religion which venerated paintings, poetry and music. Indeed the concept of spirituality around this time shifted from the religious to the artistic. The Romantics worshipped nature - but not nature as it truly is but an idealised version of it. As a consequence they abhorred any organised religion in favour of subjective deism. The real wonder of the last two centuries has been the resilience of the church to withstand such cultural unpopularity.
The scientific revolution which had diminished the universe and life into a few objective fundamental laws was too reductionistic for the romantics who sought to affirm the value of humanity and yet they were inevitably compelled, as Blanning puts it, to resort to 'absolute inwardness' - turning inside themselves to find value and beauty. To contrast themselves from the Enlightenment which used the metaphor of daylight the romantics applied the alternative metaphor of night-time; a realm of dreams, emotion and subjectivity. For them nature was not to be tamed by the rational.
The problem for the romantic was to find themselves idealising not just nature but the world as it is; as Alexander Pope wrote:
"All nature is but Art, unknown to thee;
All Chance, Direction, which thou canst not see;
All Discord, Harmony not understood.
All partial Evil, universal Good:
and, in spite of Pride, in erring Reason's spite,
One truth is clear, Whatever is, is right."
From a Christian such an outlook is optimistic in the extreme and at variance with the world as it truly is. The world is far from ideal. So far as I know Tim Blanning is not a Christian but as with all sensitive, informed commentators their observations will chime with the Christian world-view. The book is a brilliant commentary on the culture of the West and its anomie or moral rootlessness. The Christian can affirm the empirical method of science but reject its naturalism and reductionism; that science describes the truth and nothing but the truth yet is not the whole truth. Equally the Christian can affirm the value of humanity and nature without the error of deifying them. Ultimate value is not found by 'absolute inwardness' as if we are the centre of the Universe but it is found in God, who is beyond the outermost reaches of nature. Such a God is also far greater than our inner selves. The Christian rejects the twin errors of deism and subjectivism, and avoids the false optimism of those who believe in the perfectability of humanity.
In recent years there has been an attempt to forge a Scientific History which rejects all that is past and affirms universalist values. Tim Blanning quotes Hugh Trevor-Roper's scathing analysis;
"We exist in and for our own time: why should we judge our predecessors as if they were less self-sufficient: as if they existed for us and should be judged by us? Every age has its own social context, its own intellectual climate, and takes it for granted, it is not explicitly expressed in the documents of the time: it has to be deduced and reconstructed. It also deserves respect... To discern the intellectual climate of the past is one of the most neccesary. To neglect it - to use terms like 'rational', 'superstitious', 'progressive', 'reactionary', as if only that was rational which obeyed our rules of reason, only that progressive which pointed to us - is worse than wrong: it is vulgar."
The intriguing conclusion is that what we call post-modernism may merely prove to be the logical extension of the romantic movement. The post-modernist rejects the grand narrative, teleology and rationalism. They have a strong emphasis on hedonism and the need to escape the mundane realities. Music - as the least rational of the arts - is one of the defining features of youth culture. Not to mention the use of narcotics or the fascination with the gothic. These were all features of the Romantic Revolution.
'How do you annoy a post-modernist?' 'Tell him is not original'!
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Pluto is not a planet; get over it!
Eighty years ago today "Pluto" was discovered and classed as the ninth planet of the Solar System.
In 2006 the "International Astronomical Union", the only official body which can classify and name celestial bodies, demoted Pluto and reduced us to eight planets - but not before making idiots of themselves by initially including other objects as planets and boosting the number temporarily to twelve! Pluto has the consolation prize of being classed as a "dwarf planet", a completely spurious concept in my opinion! The only thing "dwarf planets" have in common is that they are roughly spherical, any body over 300 miles in diameter will have enough gravity to render itself spherical.
When it was first discovered Pluto was thought to be several times the size of Earth and easily fell within the then accepted definition of a planet. But over the subsequent years its size has been revised down to about Earth's size, then the size of our Moon and ever down...... one wag said that if Pluto continued to lose mass at this rate it would cease to exist by the centenary of its discovery!
One reason for the apparent loss of mass was the discovery in 1978 that "Pluto" was actually two objects orbitting each other - Pluto and Charon. Since then many more objects have been identified in the outer reaches of the Solar System which have caused astronomers to revise how we look at our celestial neighbours. In fact there are thought to be countless numbers of such icey bodies at the outer margins of the Solar System and that these are the source of comets, which are periodically sent our way by the influence of the gas planets.
When one plots such things as size, orbital properties, composition etc the Solar System easily breaks down into four quite distinct groups (five if you include the Sun); the 'Rocky Planets' (Mercury, Venus, Earth & Mars), then the asteroids, followed by the 'Gas Planets' (Jupiter. Saturn, Uranus & Neptune) and in the outer reaches 'Kuiper Belt Objects' - of which Pluto and Charon are an example.... and not even the largest!
Pluto is not the outermost planet, it is among the innermost KBOs. Sorry but there you have it!
Eighty years ago today "Pluto" was discovered and classed as the ninth planet of the Solar System.
In 2006 the "International Astronomical Union", the only official body which can classify and name celestial bodies, demoted Pluto and reduced us to eight planets - but not before making idiots of themselves by initially including other objects as planets and boosting the number temporarily to twelve! Pluto has the consolation prize of being classed as a "dwarf planet", a completely spurious concept in my opinion! The only thing "dwarf planets" have in common is that they are roughly spherical, any body over 300 miles in diameter will have enough gravity to render itself spherical.
When it was first discovered Pluto was thought to be several times the size of Earth and easily fell within the then accepted definition of a planet. But over the subsequent years its size has been revised down to about Earth's size, then the size of our Moon and ever down...... one wag said that if Pluto continued to lose mass at this rate it would cease to exist by the centenary of its discovery!
One reason for the apparent loss of mass was the discovery in 1978 that "Pluto" was actually two objects orbitting each other - Pluto and Charon. Since then many more objects have been identified in the outer reaches of the Solar System which have caused astronomers to revise how we look at our celestial neighbours. In fact there are thought to be countless numbers of such icey bodies at the outer margins of the Solar System and that these are the source of comets, which are periodically sent our way by the influence of the gas planets.
When one plots such things as size, orbital properties, composition etc the Solar System easily breaks down into four quite distinct groups (five if you include the Sun); the 'Rocky Planets' (Mercury, Venus, Earth & Mars), then the asteroids, followed by the 'Gas Planets' (Jupiter. Saturn, Uranus & Neptune) and in the outer reaches 'Kuiper Belt Objects' - of which Pluto and Charon are an example.... and not even the largest!
Pluto is not the outermost planet, it is among the innermost KBOs. Sorry but there you have it!
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
"GOD'S PHILOSOPHERS: How the Medieval World laid the Foundations of Modern Science" by James Hannam.
I suspect that the word 'medieval' conjures up images in your mind of ignorance and superstition and that would have been true of me until I read this book which is deliciously subversive of our modern conceits about this period of history. James Hannam redresses the dark propaganda of the Humanists who have effectively written off a thousand years of human progress.
The ancient classical world's take on science was dominated by the writings of Aristotle who was considered the final authority. After the fall of the Roman Empire in the 5th Century these writings were taken up by the medieval scholars - and over time found wanting. In fact the Church became the repository of learning and while the Church could be very defensive about its monopoly on Theology as an academic discipline, "Natural Philosophy", as science was then known, was an open field. The Christian doctrine of Creation - which emphasised that God and his Creation were separate entities made the study of Creation, and naturalistic explanations of it, possible. It was these scholars who first started to apply mathematics to physics; eg 'mean speed theorem' was not devised by Galileo but by 12th century scholars! And contrary to popular opinion the number 'zero' was not banned nor did these scholastics believe the world was flat; fears for the safety of Columbus' expedition were not founded on 'flat earth theory' but on the fact that the explorer grossly underestimated the size of the globe! Christian scholars travelled to the Islamic world without any seeming prejudice to learn from their contemporaries there. Nor were 'Christian' armies more likely to burn down libraries than any other contemporary army.
So how come we moderns have such a dim view of medieval scholasticism? Hannam points to The Renaissance (14th -17th Century) skewing our perspective of history. Moderns suppose The Renaissance to be about the rebirth of learning after a dark hiatus in human history but Hannam convincingly demonstrates that The Renaissance was actually a reactionary movement which looked back to the ancient classical world as unsurpassed. Consequently Humanist education centred exclusively upon the study of Latin and Greek classical literature, a feature which dominated European education for the following three or four centuries. It also meant a reinstatment of Aristotle - the progress made by the medieval scholastics being effectively junked.... or plagiarised by others as original work!
Another consequence of The Renaissance was, paradoxically, the death of the Latin language. After the fall of the Roman Empire Latin had continued to be used by the succesor nations and had continued to evolve as a European lingua franca but The Renaissance by insisting on a reversion to the "purer" Latin of ancient times was rather snobbish about Latin's modern incarnation and it became unfashionable to speak it.
Humanist education (by which is meant the study of ancient classical literature) despised the Christian era and looked back to the ancient pagan world with nostalgia - the legacy of this outlook is still present with us.
Hannam's book is wonderfully subversive of our modern conceit and questions many of our unexamined assumptions about the medieval period. I highly recommend this book.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Did Aliens help to line up Woolworths stores?
In last Saturday's edition of The Guardian newspaper (16th Jan 2010) was a brilliant "Bad Science" article by Ben Goldacre. He reports that a researcher called Tom Brooks had analysed 1,500 prehistoric monuments and had found that all of them were on a grid of isosceles triangles, each pointing to the next site. "Such is the mathematical precision, it is inconceivable that this could have been carried out by the primitive indigenous culture we have always associated with such structures" Brooks is quoted as saying. In fact he does not rule out the possibility of extraterrestrial help!
Matt Parker, who is based at the School of Mathematical Sciences at Queen Mary, University of London applied the same techniques used by Brooks to the now defunct Woolworths stores. The results revealed an exact and precise geometric placement of the Woolworths locations, by "skipping over the vast majority, and only choosing the few that happen to line up" with 1,500 locations, Brooks had almost twice as much data to choose from.... so it is not surprising he could make his pattern fit selective evidence.
Imagine it, in some future era someone might look back using Brooks' technique and trace the patterns of the ancient Woolworths stores and conclude we must have had help from an alien civilisation!
In last Saturday's edition of The Guardian newspaper (16th Jan 2010) was a brilliant "Bad Science" article by Ben Goldacre. He reports that a researcher called Tom Brooks had analysed 1,500 prehistoric monuments and had found that all of them were on a grid of isosceles triangles, each pointing to the next site. "Such is the mathematical precision, it is inconceivable that this could have been carried out by the primitive indigenous culture we have always associated with such structures" Brooks is quoted as saying. In fact he does not rule out the possibility of extraterrestrial help!
Matt Parker, who is based at the School of Mathematical Sciences at Queen Mary, University of London applied the same techniques used by Brooks to the now defunct Woolworths stores. The results revealed an exact and precise geometric placement of the Woolworths locations, by "skipping over the vast majority, and only choosing the few that happen to line up" with 1,500 locations, Brooks had almost twice as much data to choose from.... so it is not surprising he could make his pattern fit selective evidence.
Imagine it, in some future era someone might look back using Brooks' technique and trace the patterns of the ancient Woolworths stores and conclude we must have had help from an alien civilisation!
Monday, December 21, 2009
Monday, August 20, 2007
CONFESSIONS OF AN ARMCHAIR ASTRONAUT!
Thirty years ago today in 1977 the Voyager space programme blasted off to explore the outer solar system. As an avid fan of all things spatial I followed all such exploration. Paradoxically it was Voyager 2 which lifted off first to travel to the outer solar system. Voyager 1 was launched on 5th September 1977 on a fast track to Jupiter and Saturn only. Thinking back to my books on astronomy written in the 1970's my recollection is just how sketchy they were about all these planets and the moons of these worlds were a complete mystery. The Voyagers revolutionised our understanding of our planetary neighbours. Jupiter's moons were no longer mere dots of light but worlds in their own right. And even worlds as far flung as Neptune had active cryo-volcanic features! These probes are even now moving out into interstellar space and looking back they can give us an astonishing view of our solar family from the outside.
I was first enthralled by the early manned space flights, and as an "armchair astronaut" I absolutely loved the Apollo Moon Shots. I vividly remember watching Neil Armstrong's first step on the Moon; to those of us on this side of the Atlantic Ocean that occured on 21st July 1969 - 38 years ago. As an excited eleven year old I got up in the early hours of the morning to watch that 'one small step'... I was entranced by the whole adventure of space flight and followed each moon shot closely. I laid out charts and maps and models as each mission unfolded.
Apollo 15, July/August 1971, though stands out in my mind to this day as the most visually exciting mission of them all. This mission launched in July of 1971 was the first to take a 'lunar rover' with its own freely operated TV camera. It was like sharing in this whole fantastic adventure, nothing will ever recapture the sheer delight of following those particular Moon walks. encompassing Hadley Rille. All the later Apollo missions were similarly equipped and I charted the progress of Apollos 16 and 17 just as avidly.
The Hubble Space Telescope was launched in 1990 and opened up the wider universe to us with some of the most breathtaking photographs imaginable. It is an amazing time to be alive to witness such things - I hope that future generations will have the opportunity to marvel as I did at the Universe we inhabit and that they will never grow blase about such
wonders.
Thirty years ago today in 1977 the Voyager space programme blasted off to explore the outer solar system. As an avid fan of all things spatial I followed all such exploration. Paradoxically it was Voyager 2 which lifted off first to travel to the outer solar system. Voyager 1 was launched on 5th September 1977 on a fast track to Jupiter and Saturn only. Thinking back to my books on astronomy written in the 1970's my recollection is just how sketchy they were about all these planets and the moons of these worlds were a complete mystery. The Voyagers revolutionised our understanding of our planetary neighbours. Jupiter's moons were no longer mere dots of light but worlds in their own right. And even worlds as far flung as Neptune had active cryo-volcanic features! These probes are even now moving out into interstellar space and looking back they can give us an astonishing view of our solar family from the outside.
I was first enthralled by the early manned space flights, and as an "armchair astronaut" I absolutely loved the Apollo Moon Shots. I vividly remember watching Neil Armstrong's first step on the Moon; to those of us on this side of the Atlantic Ocean that occured on 21st July 1969 - 38 years ago. As an excited eleven year old I got up in the early hours of the morning to watch that 'one small step'... I was entranced by the whole adventure of space flight and followed each moon shot closely. I laid out charts and maps and models as each mission unfolded.
Apollo 15, July/August 1971, though stands out in my mind to this day as the most visually exciting mission of them all. This mission launched in July of 1971 was the first to take a 'lunar rover' with its own freely operated TV camera. It was like sharing in this whole fantastic adventure, nothing will ever recapture the sheer delight of following those particular Moon walks. encompassing Hadley Rille. All the later Apollo missions were similarly equipped and I charted the progress of Apollos 16 and 17 just as avidly.
The Hubble Space Telescope was launched in 1990 and opened up the wider universe to us with some of the most breathtaking photographs imaginable. It is an amazing time to be alive to witness such things - I hope that future generations will have the opportunity to marvel as I did at the Universe we inhabit and that they will never grow blase about such
wonders.
Friday, February 23, 2007
ARGUMENTATION!
A few weeks ago I received a 'freebie' from
http://www.teach12.com/ in the form of an article
called "38 Ways to Win an Argument from
Arthur Schopenhauer's 'The Art of Controversy'."
It makes fascinating reading for someone like
myself who takes an interest in Christian
Apologetics.
The strategies suggested involve misrepresenting
your opponents position, making them angry,
confusing them and twisting their language. Also
by using the innocence of a non-expert audience
you can ridicule a perfectly valid argument made
by your opponent. "For it is with victory that you
are concerned, not with truth"! There is something
unkind - if not downright cruel - about it all, but
perhaps this should not surprise us because
all that is false is cruel by that very fact.
Well, frankly I find the strategies suggested totally
deplorable. Of course I am saying this as a
Christian for whom the 9th Commandment against
"bearing false witness" is a cardinal principle.
Furthermore underhand strategies are antithetical
to the spirit of the Gospel; they imply that the truth
will not do. Integrity requires that one
understands and represents ones opponent's views
fairly.
I can only conclude that there are people out there
who are prepared to publicly argue a case they
know to be false, because these strategies can serve
no other purpose; unless the whole article is meant
to be 'tongue in cheek' of course, but somehow I
doubt it.
I have no interest in arguing something I suspect
is false; my philosophy of argumentation is this:
my primary goal is to understand the truth and
if I am wrong it is a kindness to put me right. In
that sense an argument requires good faith on
both sides to engage with an issue fairly and,
no matter how difficult the discussion is, it will
ultimately be collaborative and enlightening.
Even an insult may contain some flash of insight
from which one might benefit. The alternative
of cheap point scoring at someone else's expense
is mindlessly adversarial and results in nothing
of worth.
The only"victory" worth having is to know the
truth. Ultimately the facts are their own best
argument.
A few weeks ago I received a 'freebie' from
http://www.teach12.com/ in the form of an article
called "38 Ways to Win an Argument from
Arthur Schopenhauer's 'The Art of Controversy'."
It makes fascinating reading for someone like
myself who takes an interest in Christian
Apologetics.
The strategies suggested involve misrepresenting
your opponents position, making them angry,
confusing them and twisting their language. Also
by using the innocence of a non-expert audience
you can ridicule a perfectly valid argument made
by your opponent. "For it is with victory that you
are concerned, not with truth"! There is something
unkind - if not downright cruel - about it all, but
perhaps this should not surprise us because
all that is false is cruel by that very fact.
Well, frankly I find the strategies suggested totally
deplorable. Of course I am saying this as a
Christian for whom the 9th Commandment against
"bearing false witness" is a cardinal principle.
Furthermore underhand strategies are antithetical
to the spirit of the Gospel; they imply that the truth
will not do. Integrity requires that one
understands and represents ones opponent's views
fairly.
I can only conclude that there are people out there
who are prepared to publicly argue a case they
know to be false, because these strategies can serve
no other purpose; unless the whole article is meant
to be 'tongue in cheek' of course, but somehow I
doubt it.
I have no interest in arguing something I suspect
is false; my philosophy of argumentation is this:
my primary goal is to understand the truth and
if I am wrong it is a kindness to put me right. In
that sense an argument requires good faith on
both sides to engage with an issue fairly and,
no matter how difficult the discussion is, it will
ultimately be collaborative and enlightening.
Even an insult may contain some flash of insight
from which one might benefit. The alternative
of cheap point scoring at someone else's expense
is mindlessly adversarial and results in nothing
of worth.
The only"victory" worth having is to know the
truth. Ultimately the facts are their own best
argument.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
COSMIC FINE TUNING....
"what banged and why?!"
There are four fundamental laws of physics
which determine the nature of the universe.
They are gravity, electromagnetism, and the
weak and strong nuclear forces.
All these factors (any of which could have
absolutely any value) are, in reality, so care-
fully balanced that the mathematics is
unbelievable. It has been likened to someone
firing an arrow from one side of the universe to
the other and hitting the bull's eye. Or put
another way the odds are conservatively estimated
to be 10 to the power of 55 [that's a 10 with 55
zeroes after it]. If any of those fundamental
values were not exactly balanced as they are by
each other we would not have an ordered, habitable
universe. A slight variation one way or another in
any of the four laws and the universe is a titanic
'black-hole', and a minor tweak the other way, the
universe is a diffuse cloud of gas - with no stars
or planets. Another twist; you can have stars and
planets but no Carbon [and hence no complex organic
molecules]. The universe we observe is exactly as
it should be to sustain intelligent life.
The standard objection to these observations is
that if it didn't exist, as is, we wouldn't be here
to discuss it. This misses the point entirely - it
is like the man put up before a firing squad to be
executed. Against all the odds the soldiers miss.
After the event someone comments that he has had a
lucky escape! Or could it be that the squad had
been bribed, were they drunk, had the rifles been
sabotaged, or was there some other logical explan-
ation? "None of these", says the prisoner, "because
if they hadn't missed I wouldn't be here to discuss
it". One would rightly conclude that the man was
being rather obtuse to put it mildly. There is a
legitimate existential question here.
The usual response is to bring up the 'lottery
analogy'. Of course the odds in favour of any
given winner winning in the lottery are vanishingly
small, but the odds that there will be a winner are
actually very good. Again, this misses the point
entirely. There aren't trillions and trillions of
players in this cosmic lottery. There is only one
and its our 55 figure number which came up. Again,
let me repeat, there is a legitimate existential
question which - despite our best efforts - cannot
be avoided.
tagline; Calendar of Doom. Anthropic Principle.
Cosmic Fine Tuning. Cosmic Precision Tuning.
Cosmological Argument. Goldilocks Enigma.
"what banged and why?!"
There are four fundamental laws of physics
which determine the nature of the universe.
They are gravity, electromagnetism, and the
weak and strong nuclear forces.
All these factors (any of which could have
absolutely any value) are, in reality, so care-
fully balanced that the mathematics is
unbelievable. It has been likened to someone
firing an arrow from one side of the universe to
the other and hitting the bull's eye. Or put
another way the odds are conservatively estimated
to be 10 to the power of 55 [that's a 10 with 55
zeroes after it]. If any of those fundamental
values were not exactly balanced as they are by
each other we would not have an ordered, habitable
universe. A slight variation one way or another in
any of the four laws and the universe is a titanic
'black-hole', and a minor tweak the other way, the
universe is a diffuse cloud of gas - with no stars
or planets. Another twist; you can have stars and
planets but no Carbon [and hence no complex organic
molecules]. The universe we observe is exactly as
it should be to sustain intelligent life.
The standard objection to these observations is
that if it didn't exist, as is, we wouldn't be here
to discuss it. This misses the point entirely - it
is like the man put up before a firing squad to be
executed. Against all the odds the soldiers miss.
After the event someone comments that he has had a
lucky escape! Or could it be that the squad had
been bribed, were they drunk, had the rifles been
sabotaged, or was there some other logical explan-
ation? "None of these", says the prisoner, "because
if they hadn't missed I wouldn't be here to discuss
it". One would rightly conclude that the man was
being rather obtuse to put it mildly. There is a
legitimate existential question here.
The usual response is to bring up the 'lottery
analogy'. Of course the odds in favour of any
given winner winning in the lottery are vanishingly
small, but the odds that there will be a winner are
actually very good. Again, this misses the point
entirely. There aren't trillions and trillions of
players in this cosmic lottery. There is only one
and its our 55 figure number which came up. Again,
let me repeat, there is a legitimate existential
question which - despite our best efforts - cannot
be avoided.
tagline; Calendar of Doom. Anthropic Principle.
Cosmic Fine Tuning. Cosmic Precision Tuning.
Cosmological Argument. Goldilocks Enigma.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
EDWARD O WILSON; Lies,
Damned Lies and Statistics.
November 2006's thought from my agnostic calendar is;
"No statistical proofs exist that prayer reduces illness and
mortality, except perhaps through a psychogenic enhancement
of the immune system; if it were otherwise the whole world
would pray continuously". Edward O Wilson.
I'm intrigued to discover what exotic statistics Wilson is demanding
which can be used to demonstrate 'contingent knowledge' (how life
might have turned out in other circumstances). How can Wilson assert
that prayer has no effect on a statistical basis? How do you know that
I wouldn't still be laid up with back pain? How do you know that I
wouldn't have had a heart attack last year or died in a car crash aged
19 but for someone's prayer?
I'm also intrigued to discover why Wilson has assumed that Christians
claim to be exempt from the common experiences of Mankind. I am
aware of no such assurance in the Bible - quite the contrary. If statistics
prove anything it is that Christians are not above the sufferings of Humanity.
Quelle surprise.
I'm intrigued too why Wilson assumes that prayer is exclusively about
physical healing of a 'name it and claim it' variety when all the Christians
I know would say that prayer is about conversing with God and not
neccesarily about getting stuff. In the words of Robert Law "prayer is
not an instrument for getting man's will done in heaven, but for getting
God's will done on earth". Wilson - it seems to me - has a formulaic
and one dimensional understanding of prayer, one that I would argue is
sub-Christian. I assume, for reasons that are unclear, that Wilson has
excluded from the equation the more usual phenomenon of prayer by
Christians offered in support of those health care professionals who are
there to care for their loved ones using their God given talents. And
Wilson has also excluded the phenomena Christians call "common grace"
where God blesses the unbeliever because he cares for all his creatures.
I'm baffled, but if the charge is that the bloated claims of some tele-
evangelists are to be laid [sotto voce] at my door, I can assure you that
I am sceptical about their claims too, but for a wholly different reason:
miracles in the New Testament are not miracles for miracles sake - they
are 'identifiers'. The miracles point the observer to precedents and
promises in the Old Testament and help them understand who the miracle
worker is. In the New Testament miracles are not mere padding within the
narrative - in reality they contain meaning beyond the event itself. Miracles
attest the revelation brought by the messenger. "Could this be the Christ?",
"who is this, that even wind and sea obey him?", "that you [all] may know
that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.....[he said to the
paralytic] pick up you bed and go home." etc etc etc. You have to test these
things against the claims they make for themselves not by Wilson's skewed
standard - 'supernatural healing on demand' - something Jesus never
promised because that was never the primary function of his ministry. I
should add that even when Jesus and his apostles did perform miracles this
did not automatically result in saving faith, the message of even the authent
-icated messenger could and frequently was rejected. Jesus went so far as to
say that some people will not "be convinced [even] if someone should rise
from the dead" Luke 16v19-31. Biblically speaking the real miracle is that
anyone comes to saving faith in Jesus at all..........and actually this is more
important than mere physical wellbeing.
So what test then can we apply which is congruent with Christ's claims?
It is a remarkable fact that within thirty years of Jesus' three year ministry the
message of the Gospel had spread from a tiny band of followers on the
Roman periphery to all around the empire. They had a sizeable community in
Rome itself - sufficiently large to be worth persecuting by the Emperor Nero
and strong enough to survive. The promise is not that Christians are exempt
from difficulties but that God's grace is sufficient to help us through them. If
you want statistical evidence of a miracle look at the growth of the apostolic
church and its survival - and its continuing survival today despite physical
persecution and intellectual ridicule.
tagline: calendar of doom.
Postscript: Quite coincidentally the November 2006 edition of
"The Briefing" [issue 338] majors on the whole 'health & prosperity'
gospel and offers a critique of it from a Christian perspective.
http://www.matthiasmedia.com.au/
http://www.thegoodbook.co.uk/
Damned Lies and Statistics.
November 2006's thought from my agnostic calendar is;
"No statistical proofs exist that prayer reduces illness and
mortality, except perhaps through a psychogenic enhancement
of the immune system; if it were otherwise the whole world
would pray continuously". Edward O Wilson.
I'm intrigued to discover what exotic statistics Wilson is demanding
which can be used to demonstrate 'contingent knowledge' (how life
might have turned out in other circumstances). How can Wilson assert
that prayer has no effect on a statistical basis? How do you know that
I wouldn't still be laid up with back pain? How do you know that I
wouldn't have had a heart attack last year or died in a car crash aged
19 but for someone's prayer?
I'm also intrigued to discover why Wilson has assumed that Christians
claim to be exempt from the common experiences of Mankind. I am
aware of no such assurance in the Bible - quite the contrary. If statistics
prove anything it is that Christians are not above the sufferings of Humanity.
Quelle surprise.
I'm intrigued too why Wilson assumes that prayer is exclusively about
physical healing of a 'name it and claim it' variety when all the Christians
I know would say that prayer is about conversing with God and not
neccesarily about getting stuff. In the words of Robert Law "prayer is
not an instrument for getting man's will done in heaven, but for getting
God's will done on earth". Wilson - it seems to me - has a formulaic
and one dimensional understanding of prayer, one that I would argue is
sub-Christian. I assume, for reasons that are unclear, that Wilson has
excluded from the equation the more usual phenomenon of prayer by
Christians offered in support of those health care professionals who are
there to care for their loved ones using their God given talents. And
Wilson has also excluded the phenomena Christians call "common grace"
where God blesses the unbeliever because he cares for all his creatures.
I'm baffled, but if the charge is that the bloated claims of some tele-
evangelists are to be laid [sotto voce] at my door, I can assure you that
I am sceptical about their claims too, but for a wholly different reason:
miracles in the New Testament are not miracles for miracles sake - they
are 'identifiers'. The miracles point the observer to precedents and
promises in the Old Testament and help them understand who the miracle
worker is. In the New Testament miracles are not mere padding within the
narrative - in reality they contain meaning beyond the event itself. Miracles
attest the revelation brought by the messenger. "Could this be the Christ?",
"who is this, that even wind and sea obey him?", "that you [all] may know
that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.....[he said to the
paralytic] pick up you bed and go home." etc etc etc. You have to test these
things against the claims they make for themselves not by Wilson's skewed
standard - 'supernatural healing on demand' - something Jesus never
promised because that was never the primary function of his ministry. I
should add that even when Jesus and his apostles did perform miracles this
did not automatically result in saving faith, the message of even the authent
-icated messenger could and frequently was rejected. Jesus went so far as to
say that some people will not "be convinced [even] if someone should rise
from the dead" Luke 16v19-31. Biblically speaking the real miracle is that
anyone comes to saving faith in Jesus at all..........and actually this is more
important than mere physical wellbeing.
So what test then can we apply which is congruent with Christ's claims?
It is a remarkable fact that within thirty years of Jesus' three year ministry the
message of the Gospel had spread from a tiny band of followers on the
Roman periphery to all around the empire. They had a sizeable community in
Rome itself - sufficiently large to be worth persecuting by the Emperor Nero
and strong enough to survive. The promise is not that Christians are exempt
from difficulties but that God's grace is sufficient to help us through them. If
you want statistical evidence of a miracle look at the growth of the apostolic
church and its survival - and its continuing survival today despite physical
persecution and intellectual ridicule.
tagline: calendar of doom.
Postscript: Quite coincidentally the November 2006 edition of
"The Briefing" [issue 338] majors on the whole 'health & prosperity'
gospel and offers a critique of it from a Christian perspective.
http://www.matthiasmedia.com.au/
http://www.thegoodbook.co.uk/
Friday, September 01, 2006
RICHARD DAWKINS: but is it
"life as we know it"?
September 2006's thought from my agnostic calendar is;
"If we want to postulate a deity capable of engineering
all the organized complexity in the world, either instant-
aneously or by guiding evolution, that deity must already
have been vastly complex in the first place. The creationist,
whether a naive Bible-thumper or an educated bishop,
simply postulates an already existing being of prodigious
intelligence and complexity. If we are going to allow
ourselves the luxury of postulating organized complexity
without offering an explanation, we might as well make a
job of it and simply postulate the existence of life as we
know it!" Richard Dawkins.
Ah, but that is the question isn't it? Is it really an explanation for
"life as we know it"? Dawkins view of "life" is that 'fish are machines
for replicating DNA in the sea, birds are machines for replicating
DNA in the air and people are machines for replicating DNA on land'.
The question that is crying out to be answered is; is this an adequate
description for "life as we know it"? It is akin to someone saying
that they have a blueprint of an aircraft and assure you that this
tells them everything there is to know about flying! It has all the
lucid simplicity of the madman - I doubt that you would have faith
in such a person to fly an aircraft you were aboard that's for sure!
[And we all put our trust in other people at some time or other].
What am I driving at? Sure DNA helps replicate creatures, I don't
deny that. What I do deny is that this explains everything about
"life as we know it". Dawkins uses the word "life" to mean 'bio-mass'
and nothing else because a materialist is blind to the non material
dimensions of "LIFE" in all its fullness. "LIFE as we know it" is
much more richly textured and the non-material things we
experience are just as real; imagination, creativity, justice, love
(and hate), good (and evil), joy (and sadness) all make up a fuller
picture of "life as it exists".
Dawkins once wrote "in a universe of blind physical forces and genetic
replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going
to get lucky, and we won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any
justice. The universe [has] no design, no purpose, no evil, no good;
nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows, nor cares.
DNA just is, and we dance to its music." As an explanation for LIFE
is this adequate? To a materialist with a minimalist abstract notion
of life; yes.
But it seems to me that there are universal principles of justice as if
there is a natural law written into the fabric of the Cosmos - and
such law makes little sense without a law-giver. We care about the
suffering of those involved in natural or manmade disasters when
Dawkins' abstractions logically require indifference. DNA doesn't
care but personal beings do. Bafflingly even Dawkins uses words like
"evil" and "wicked" to describe those people [like me] he does not
approve of, as if even he is compelled at a subconscious level to
acknowledge that such categories exist [as with all such barrackroom
moralists his anger is peppered indiscriminately about - nonetheless
even he is a grudging witness to the reality of non-material values].
Why should I think that Dawkins is any more perceptive about LIFE?
All moralists [whether they realise it or not] have a simple formula
in their heads and it goes like this "the world would be a far
better place without.................people in it
(fill in the blank space)"."Evil" is always a
description of someone other than ourselves; it is
only the Christian who recognises that it is their name that should
be there! This is what Christians call "repentance" - the
acknowledgement of ones own evil, indeed it is this which makes a
Christian Christian (and is not to be confused with those who are only
notionally "christian").
Dawkins postulates life as an abstraction but LIFE as it is actually
lived [beyond the lucidity of the madman] is not an abstraction
LIFE is personal. From these thoughts I would argue that there is
adequate evidence of a cosmic creative lawgiver; one who is
personal; one who has nothing to learn from us about love and justice
- and thus is someone to whom I am accountable for the evil [aka
abscence of love & justice] which infests my heart and in whom I,
as a Christian, trust to pilot me home safely because I know that
I cannot do it.
I don't postulate I observe.
tagline: Calendar of Doom. swiftypete. swiftypete. the swiftypete. the
swiftypete blog. Peter Swift is swiftypete. life. existence. meaning.
reductionism. versus. christianity. richard dawkins. Peter Swift
is the swiftypete. The God Delusion.
post-script: I had intended to talk about "Cosmic Fine Tuning" as material
evidence of a creator but I've written enough already and it will have to wait
for another day.
post-post-script: There are some good articles on Genesis and Science in the
October 06 edition of "The Briefing" [issue 337]. Back issues can be obtained
from http://www.thegoodbook.co.uk/ or http://www.matthiasmedia.com.au/
"life as we know it"?
September 2006's thought from my agnostic calendar is;
"If we want to postulate a deity capable of engineering
all the organized complexity in the world, either instant-
aneously or by guiding evolution, that deity must already
have been vastly complex in the first place. The creationist,
whether a naive Bible-thumper or an educated bishop,
simply postulates an already existing being of prodigious
intelligence and complexity. If we are going to allow
ourselves the luxury of postulating organized complexity
without offering an explanation, we might as well make a
job of it and simply postulate the existence of life as we
know it!" Richard Dawkins.
Ah, but that is the question isn't it? Is it really an explanation for
"life as we know it"? Dawkins view of "life" is that 'fish are machines
for replicating DNA in the sea, birds are machines for replicating
DNA in the air and people are machines for replicating DNA on land'.
The question that is crying out to be answered is; is this an adequate
description for "life as we know it"? It is akin to someone saying
that they have a blueprint of an aircraft and assure you that this
tells them everything there is to know about flying! It has all the
lucid simplicity of the madman - I doubt that you would have faith
in such a person to fly an aircraft you were aboard that's for sure!
[And we all put our trust in other people at some time or other].
What am I driving at? Sure DNA helps replicate creatures, I don't
deny that. What I do deny is that this explains everything about
"life as we know it". Dawkins uses the word "life" to mean 'bio-mass'
and nothing else because a materialist is blind to the non material
dimensions of "LIFE" in all its fullness. "LIFE as we know it" is
much more richly textured and the non-material things we
experience are just as real; imagination, creativity, justice, love
(and hate), good (and evil), joy (and sadness) all make up a fuller
picture of "life as it exists".
Dawkins once wrote "in a universe of blind physical forces and genetic
replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going
to get lucky, and we won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any
justice. The universe [has] no design, no purpose, no evil, no good;
nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows, nor cares.
DNA just is, and we dance to its music." As an explanation for LIFE
is this adequate? To a materialist with a minimalist abstract notion
of life; yes.
But it seems to me that there are universal principles of justice as if
there is a natural law written into the fabric of the Cosmos - and
such law makes little sense without a law-giver. We care about the
suffering of those involved in natural or manmade disasters when
Dawkins' abstractions logically require indifference. DNA doesn't
care but personal beings do. Bafflingly even Dawkins uses words like
"evil" and "wicked" to describe those people [like me] he does not
approve of, as if even he is compelled at a subconscious level to
acknowledge that such categories exist [as with all such barrackroom
moralists his anger is peppered indiscriminately about - nonetheless
even he is a grudging witness to the reality of non-material values].
Why should I think that Dawkins is any more perceptive about LIFE?
All moralists [whether they realise it or not] have a simple formula
in their heads and it goes like this "the world would be a far
better place without.................people in it
(fill in the blank space)"."Evil" is always a
description of someone other than ourselves; it is
only the Christian who recognises that it is their name that should
be there! This is what Christians call "repentance" - the
acknowledgement of ones own evil, indeed it is this which makes a
Christian Christian (and is not to be confused with those who are only
notionally "christian").
Dawkins postulates life as an abstraction but LIFE as it is actually
lived [beyond the lucidity of the madman] is not an abstraction
LIFE is personal. From these thoughts I would argue that there is
adequate evidence of a cosmic creative lawgiver; one who is
personal; one who has nothing to learn from us about love and justice
- and thus is someone to whom I am accountable for the evil [aka
abscence of love & justice] which infests my heart and in whom I,
as a Christian, trust to pilot me home safely because I know that
I cannot do it.
I don't postulate I observe.
tagline: Calendar of Doom. swiftypete. swiftypete. the swiftypete. the
swiftypete blog. Peter Swift is swiftypete. life. existence. meaning.
reductionism. versus. christianity. richard dawkins. Peter Swift
is the swiftypete. The God Delusion.
post-script: I had intended to talk about "Cosmic Fine Tuning" as material
evidence of a creator but I've written enough already and it will have to wait
for another day.
post-post-script: There are some good articles on Genesis and Science in the
October 06 edition of "The Briefing" [issue 337]. Back issues can be obtained
from http://www.thegoodbook.co.uk/ or http://www.matthiasmedia.com.au/
Thursday, August 24, 2006
INTELLIGENT DESIGN:
does "infinity" exist?
I cannot help but feel that there are a number of
semantic misconceptions surrounding the concept
of "Intelligent Design" [ID]. The chief one being:
is ID scientific? And how do you define "science"?
The commonsense approach would be to say that
science is evidence based. Those of us who would
seek physical evidence of "design" would hope
that such evidence [if found] would [in principle] be
accepted as "scientific".
But it seems to me the debates surrounding ID
founder not on evidence but on one's philosophy of
science. For some, "science" is by definition natural-
istic and rejects the "supernatural" [a distinction
they themselves created], so on such a definition
any evidence of design cannot be science for that
very reason - the conclusion is built into the
definition. If they label something "supernatural"
it immediately makes it inadmissable as scientific
evidence. In a universe full of remarkable
implausabilities some are ruled in and others are
ruled out. The debate about "Creation Science" is
particularly acute in the USA where the state
education system is bound by the principle of
the separation of church and state.......and there
the debate is not science but the philosophy of
science. In short the presuppositions one starts
with determine the outcome - no wonder these
discussions are often debates of the deaf.
The concept of "Intelligent Design" stands or
falls on the principle of 'irreducible complexity'
[it is a falsifiable theory] and seeks to discover
biological systems [which can be studied objectively]
that cannot function in a precursor state [testable].
The classic example is the mousetrap comprising
spring, catch, trap and base plate; it cannot
function without all the components in place.
(It might have served a different function in a
precursor state - but the onus is on the naysayer
to state what that function was). A mousetrap
cannot evolve piece by piece - it is all or nothing -
hence 'irreducible complexity'. There are any
number of biological systems which fall into this
category.
Is it so unreasonable to ask about the origin of such
systems? At this stage no one is invoking God as
an explanation - we are merely raising biological
questions, but the materialist will invoke the
"slippery slope " argument. It is a paradigm they
are not prepared to explore.
Conversely, from a Christian perspective, the limit
in the creationist's argument is that even if we prove
the likelihood of a creator on material grounds, we are
still not able to identify conclusively who that Creator
is, not without special revelation anyway. So there is
only a limited mileage in the ID argument to start with.
But returning to the "Secular Fundamentalists" as
my chief target...someone will object and say that in
an infinite universe all sorts of improbable things will
happen. But it seems to me that one cannot
airily wave the word "infinity" over any given
problem and magic it away. You disallow one set
of improbabilities but admit this set (which
serves the same "god" function) because it fits your
preconceived ideas better - why is that?
Can I be provocative? Does "infinity" exist anyway?
Yes, I know it exists as a mathematical notion.
Yes, I know that space is infinite (albeit bounded). But
these are beside the point. Crucial to the materialists'
argument is not the size of the vacuum of space; what
matters to the materialist is matter [well, it would,
wouldn't it?] What matters is the stuff which makes
the world we inhabit and forms every biological sytem.
Is matter infinite? Well no it is not. According to the
Cornell University website the mass of the observable
universe has been calculated to be 25 billion galaxies
worth (and that includes dark matter). From this we
know that the universe will continue to expand - there
isn't enough mass (and so gravity) ever to draw
it back together. Indeed Cornell University go on to
say that the universe isn't big enough to contain
another Earth with another You! If we can quantify
the mass of the universe it is ipso facto not infinite and
does not contain the infinite possibilities you think it
should.
Given that - what is so unreasonable about flagging
up the "what if God does exist?" question?
does "infinity" exist?
I cannot help but feel that there are a number of
semantic misconceptions surrounding the concept
of "Intelligent Design" [ID]. The chief one being:
is ID scientific? And how do you define "science"?
The commonsense approach would be to say that
science is evidence based. Those of us who would
seek physical evidence of "design" would hope
that such evidence [if found] would [in principle] be
accepted as "scientific".
But it seems to me the debates surrounding ID
founder not on evidence but on one's philosophy of
science. For some, "science" is by definition natural-
istic and rejects the "supernatural" [a distinction
they themselves created], so on such a definition
any evidence of design cannot be science for that
very reason - the conclusion is built into the
definition. If they label something "supernatural"
it immediately makes it inadmissable as scientific
evidence. In a universe full of remarkable
implausabilities some are ruled in and others are
ruled out. The debate about "Creation Science" is
particularly acute in the USA where the state
education system is bound by the principle of
the separation of church and state.......and there
the debate is not science but the philosophy of
science. In short the presuppositions one starts
with determine the outcome - no wonder these
discussions are often debates of the deaf.
The concept of "Intelligent Design" stands or
falls on the principle of 'irreducible complexity'
[it is a falsifiable theory] and seeks to discover
biological systems [which can be studied objectively]
that cannot function in a precursor state [testable].
The classic example is the mousetrap comprising
spring, catch, trap and base plate; it cannot
function without all the components in place.
(It might have served a different function in a
precursor state - but the onus is on the naysayer
to state what that function was). A mousetrap
cannot evolve piece by piece - it is all or nothing -
hence 'irreducible complexity'. There are any
number of biological systems which fall into this
category.
Is it so unreasonable to ask about the origin of such
systems? At this stage no one is invoking God as
an explanation - we are merely raising biological
questions, but the materialist will invoke the
"slippery slope " argument. It is a paradigm they
are not prepared to explore.
Conversely, from a Christian perspective, the limit
in the creationist's argument is that even if we prove
the likelihood of a creator on material grounds, we are
still not able to identify conclusively who that Creator
is, not without special revelation anyway. So there is
only a limited mileage in the ID argument to start with.
But returning to the "Secular Fundamentalists" as
my chief target...someone will object and say that in
an infinite universe all sorts of improbable things will
happen. But it seems to me that one cannot
airily wave the word "infinity" over any given
problem and magic it away. You disallow one set
of improbabilities but admit this set (which
serves the same "god" function) because it fits your
preconceived ideas better - why is that?
Can I be provocative? Does "infinity" exist anyway?
Yes, I know it exists as a mathematical notion.
Yes, I know that space is infinite (albeit bounded). But
these are beside the point. Crucial to the materialists'
argument is not the size of the vacuum of space; what
matters to the materialist is matter [well, it would,
wouldn't it?] What matters is the stuff which makes
the world we inhabit and forms every biological sytem.
Is matter infinite? Well no it is not. According to the
Cornell University website the mass of the observable
universe has been calculated to be 25 billion galaxies
worth (and that includes dark matter). From this we
know that the universe will continue to expand - there
isn't enough mass (and so gravity) ever to draw
it back together. Indeed Cornell University go on to
say that the universe isn't big enough to contain
another Earth with another You! If we can quantify
the mass of the universe it is ipso facto not infinite and
does not contain the infinite possibilities you think it
should.
Given that - what is so unreasonable about flagging
up the "what if God does exist?" question?
Saturday, August 12, 2006
The Path of Brighteousness.
Richard Dawkins coined the term "bright"
as a noun to describe those people who have
a naturalistic world view; perhaps he was
also alluding to "The Enlightenment" as his
source of inspiration, one which denies the
existence of the spiritual.
Brights reading this blog will have already
concluded that I am a "dull" because I don't
buy into the reductionist interpretation of
life.But before any brights verbally lynch me
let me flesh out where I am coming from, I
don't mind being insulted provided you get
your facts right!
As a Christian (and one who works in a
science based field)I have no need necessarily
to deny the naturalistic description of the
Cosmos. After all, all truth is God's truth.
The bright's worldview may be "the truth and
nothing but the truth" but I don't believe
for one minute that it is "the whole truth"!
Nor do I accept that to explain something is
the same as explaining it away. To allude to
CS Lewis, Richard Dawkins and all the other
brights 'describe a city and think they've
described the world!'
In turn I will, no doubt, be called a Creation-
ist and a Christian Fundamentalist. Guilty as
charged. I do believe God created the cosmos so
that would make me a creationist, wouldn't it?
(Although "creationist" has now acquired
connotations of "Young Earth Creationism"
which I do not buy into!) I do believe
in the fundamental doctrines of the Christian
faith so I must be a fundamentalist; which is
what that phrase originally meant in the early
20th Century. However I'm not altogether happy
with some of the baggage both these appellations
now bring in tow. Even before the word "fundament-
alist" became associated with terrorism I was
already more than a little uneasy about the anti-
intellectual connotations it brought with it.
As if this wasn't bad enough "Fundamentalism"
has also since come to require an acceptance
of a Pre-millennialist interpretation of the
Bible. For what it is worth I, and many like
me, are amillennialist. This will seem an
esoteric quibble until one grasps that upon
this millennial [kingdom] question our under-
standing of the nature of The Kingdom of God
turns. Amillennialism as a term is a misnomer
because those who hold to it believe that the
Kingdom of God was realised by Jesus (realised
in the sense of made a reality, albeit yet to
come in all its fulness when Christ returns).
The premillennialists believe that the Kingdom
has yet to come. To cut to the chase this means
that a significant constituency within this
group called 'dispensationlists' have a
particular interpretation of the "End Times"
[which effectively means an interest in
'conspiracy theories'] and an exalted role for
the modern state of Israel which has major
implications for how they interpret the middle
eastern conflict. 'Dispensationalism' has a
disproportionate influence upon the church in
the USA. I do not share their convictions on
these issues and I do share some of Dawkins
reservations about the role religion plays in
fuelling violence; though I believe the issue
is human nature not religion per se (because
people will always find a host of excuses for
first despising and then seeking to destroy
other people): the secular ideologies have
blood on their hands too! Murder is certainly
nothing to do with the Gospel of Jesus, because
The Kingdom Jesus founded cannot be advanced by
the bullet or the bomb, indeed such methods are
fundamentally antithetical to its nature.
To conclude; the tele-evangelist Pat Robertson
describes amillennialism as "the end time
apostasy" no less! So I'm not convinced that
the fundamentalists Dawkins despises would
recognise me as one of their own, even if
Dawkins would!
So am I a fundamentalist or not? And am I a bright or a dull?
And are people that easily pigeonholed anyway?
It's a funny old world isn't it?
tagline: Dawkins. Fundamentalism. Reductionism.
Bright. Naturalism. versus. The Bible. Philosophy.
Religion. Science. Pat Robertson. Calendar of Doom.
Evangelical. Evangelicalism. Tele-evangelism.
Tele-evangelist. Creation. Secularism. Dull. New.
Premillennialism. Amillennialism. Postmillennialism. Realised
Millennialism. Christian Counter Culture. Church. State. Israel.
Morality. Grace. Dispensation. Dispensationalism. Theocracy.
Theonomy. Eschatology. Eschatalogical. End Times. Left Behind.
Richard Dawkins. The God Delusion.
postscript for postmillennialism! This theology
suggests that there is to be a glorious 'church
age' establishing the kingdom of God on Earth
after which Jesus will return. In its brashest
form this is also known as "Dominion" or
"Reconstructionist" theology. In my view, these
have a theocratic political agenda which by its
very nature stresses moralism as its driving
force rather than the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
They also stress raw political power as a means
to bring in the kingdom and I suspect that this
too is antithetical to Jesus' Gospel message.
Richard Dawkins coined the term "bright"
as a noun to describe those people who have
a naturalistic world view; perhaps he was
also alluding to "The Enlightenment" as his
source of inspiration, one which denies the
existence of the spiritual.
Brights reading this blog will have already
concluded that I am a "dull" because I don't
buy into the reductionist interpretation of
life.But before any brights verbally lynch me
let me flesh out where I am coming from, I
don't mind being insulted provided you get
your facts right!
As a Christian (and one who works in a
science based field)I have no need necessarily
to deny the naturalistic description of the
Cosmos. After all, all truth is God's truth.
The bright's worldview may be "the truth and
nothing but the truth" but I don't believe
for one minute that it is "the whole truth"!
Nor do I accept that to explain something is
the same as explaining it away. To allude to
CS Lewis, Richard Dawkins and all the other
brights 'describe a city and think they've
described the world!'
In turn I will, no doubt, be called a Creation-
ist and a Christian Fundamentalist. Guilty as
charged. I do believe God created the cosmos so
that would make me a creationist, wouldn't it?
(Although "creationist" has now acquired
connotations of "Young Earth Creationism"
which I do not buy into!) I do believe
in the fundamental doctrines of the Christian
faith so I must be a fundamentalist; which is
what that phrase originally meant in the early
20th Century. However I'm not altogether happy
with some of the baggage both these appellations
now bring in tow. Even before the word "fundament-
alist" became associated with terrorism I was
already more than a little uneasy about the anti-
intellectual connotations it brought with it.
As if this wasn't bad enough "Fundamentalism"
has also since come to require an acceptance
of a Pre-millennialist interpretation of the
Bible. For what it is worth I, and many like
me, are amillennialist. This will seem an
esoteric quibble until one grasps that upon
this millennial [kingdom] question our under-
standing of the nature of The Kingdom of God
turns. Amillennialism as a term is a misnomer
because those who hold to it believe that the
Kingdom of God was realised by Jesus (realised
in the sense of made a reality, albeit yet to
come in all its fulness when Christ returns).
The premillennialists believe that the Kingdom
has yet to come. To cut to the chase this means
that a significant constituency within this
group called 'dispensationlists' have a
particular interpretation of the "End Times"
[which effectively means an interest in
'conspiracy theories'] and an exalted role for
the modern state of Israel which has major
implications for how they interpret the middle
eastern conflict. 'Dispensationalism' has a
disproportionate influence upon the church in
the USA. I do not share their convictions on
these issues and I do share some of Dawkins
reservations about the role religion plays in
fuelling violence; though I believe the issue
is human nature not religion per se (because
people will always find a host of excuses for
first despising and then seeking to destroy
other people): the secular ideologies have
blood on their hands too! Murder is certainly
nothing to do with the Gospel of Jesus, because
The Kingdom Jesus founded cannot be advanced by
the bullet or the bomb, indeed such methods are
fundamentally antithetical to its nature.
To conclude; the tele-evangelist Pat Robertson
describes amillennialism as "the end time
apostasy" no less! So I'm not convinced that
the fundamentalists Dawkins despises would
recognise me as one of their own, even if
Dawkins would!
So am I a fundamentalist or not? And am I a bright or a dull?
And are people that easily pigeonholed anyway?
It's a funny old world isn't it?
tagline: Dawkins. Fundamentalism. Reductionism.
Bright. Naturalism. versus. The Bible. Philosophy.
Religion. Science. Pat Robertson. Calendar of Doom.
Evangelical. Evangelicalism. Tele-evangelism.
Tele-evangelist. Creation. Secularism. Dull. New.
Premillennialism. Amillennialism. Postmillennialism. Realised
Millennialism. Christian Counter Culture. Church. State. Israel.
Morality. Grace. Dispensation. Dispensationalism. Theocracy.
Theonomy. Eschatology. Eschatalogical. End Times. Left Behind.
Richard Dawkins. The God Delusion.
postscript for postmillennialism! This theology
suggests that there is to be a glorious 'church
age' establishing the kingdom of God on Earth
after which Jesus will return. In its brashest
form this is also known as "Dominion" or
"Reconstructionist" theology. In my view, these
have a theocratic political agenda which by its
very nature stresses moralism as its driving
force rather than the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
They also stress raw political power as a means
to bring in the kingdom and I suspect that this
too is antithetical to Jesus' Gospel message.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
BERTRAND RUSSELL:
interplanetary teapot.
June 2006's thought from my agnostic calendar is:-
"I think that in philosophical strictness at the level
where one doubts the existence of material objects
and holds that the world may have existed for only
five minutes, I ought to call myself an agnostic; but,
for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not
think the existence of the Christian God any more
probable than the existence of the gods of Olympus
or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody
can prove that there is not between Earth and Mars
a china teapot revolving in an elliptic orbit, but
nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken
into account in practice. I think the Christian God
just as unlikely." [Bertrand Russell].
I think Bertrand is trying to say it is impossible to prove
a negative - one cannot prove God does not exist any more
than one can disprove the interplanetary teapot theory.
Which is all very drole of course - and would be a perfectly
fair point...if he had left it at that. But he stretches the point
way too far, to breaking point in fact, and makes at least
one assertion which is patently false....all because he does
not understand agnosticism. [He makes a few other silly
points which for the sake of brevity I will let pass]. I have
to say in all candour that the notional challenge to "prove
God's non-existence" isn't one I've ever made [or heard
made] to a non-believer, probably because the subject is
far too important to leave the initiative with the sceptic.
Agnosticism is a perfectly sound position from an intellectual
point of view - but what Bertrand fails to grasp, as many do,
is that agnosticism does not work in practice. His apparently
casual move toward atheism is actually an imperative driven by
"the impossibility of agnosticism" [to quote Joseph Ratzinger].
In the real world one has to come down one side or the other;
to act as if God exists or to act as if God does not exist -
precisely because of the values involved one cannot be neutral.
And it is here that Bertie has got it so wrong - it does matter
in practice. How one views the world and ones fellow creatures
turns on the issue of God.
If it didn't matter I wouldn't be writing this - and presumably
you wouldn't be reading it!
interplanetary teapot.
June 2006's thought from my agnostic calendar is:-
"I think that in philosophical strictness at the level
where one doubts the existence of material objects
and holds that the world may have existed for only
five minutes, I ought to call myself an agnostic; but,
for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not
think the existence of the Christian God any more
probable than the existence of the gods of Olympus
or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody
can prove that there is not between Earth and Mars
a china teapot revolving in an elliptic orbit, but
nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken
into account in practice. I think the Christian God
just as unlikely." [Bertrand Russell].
I think Bertrand is trying to say it is impossible to prove
a negative - one cannot prove God does not exist any more
than one can disprove the interplanetary teapot theory.
Which is all very drole of course - and would be a perfectly
fair point...if he had left it at that. But he stretches the point
way too far, to breaking point in fact, and makes at least
one assertion which is patently false....all because he does
not understand agnosticism. [He makes a few other silly
points which for the sake of brevity I will let pass]. I have
to say in all candour that the notional challenge to "prove
God's non-existence" isn't one I've ever made [or heard
made] to a non-believer, probably because the subject is
far too important to leave the initiative with the sceptic.
Agnosticism is a perfectly sound position from an intellectual
point of view - but what Bertrand fails to grasp, as many do,
is that agnosticism does not work in practice. His apparently
casual move toward atheism is actually an imperative driven by
"the impossibility of agnosticism" [to quote Joseph Ratzinger].
In the real world one has to come down one side or the other;
to act as if God exists or to act as if God does not exist -
precisely because of the values involved one cannot be neutral.
And it is here that Bertie has got it so wrong - it does matter
in practice. How one views the world and ones fellow creatures
turns on the issue of God.
If it didn't matter I wouldn't be writing this - and presumably
you wouldn't be reading it!
tagline; Calendar of Doom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)