In last week's debate between John Lennox and Richard Dawkins, the world's most vocal atheist revealed a belief system based more on faith than on scientific evidence. Consider the following statements of Dawkins from the debate. (Notations are to the audio files B and C and time from their start. (See http://richarddawkins.net/article,1707,n,n)

B2
Life is explained by Darwin. Cosmology is waiting for its Darwin. (In other words, the discovery of a materialistic origin of the cosmos is not a question of "if" but "when." Such unwavering faith would make a born-again proud.)

B (6 min)
I invoke the Anthropic principle and the multiverse. (The reader will note that the multiverse has neither been observed nor is it theoretically verifiable--a charge, it will be noted, regularly made against faith in the supernatural. See my BP article "Of Blackholes and Multiverses.")

B (28 min)
I cannot conceive of a logical path that says because I am an atheist therefore it is rational for me to kill or murder or be cruel. (Actually, I cannot conceive of any moral restraint for an atheist. If an action--be it even killing or murder-- will give its perpetrator an added edge in his cosmic battle for survival, what should inhibit him?)

B (30 min)
The terrible things that Stalin did did not follow from his atheism. You will not do terrible deeds because you are an atheist--not for rational reasons. (To the contrary, the atrocities of 20th communism and Nazism were committed because of the rational belief of leaders who were convinced that the strong should rule the weak, employing "re-education" or extermination as necessary for social progress and the good of the State.)

B (34 min)
If you base your morals on the Christian Bible, your morals are likely to be hideous. (As hard as I try, I cannot imagine that if someone took the Sermon on the Mount, or even the minimal principles of the Decalogue seriously, his morals "are likely to be hideous.")

B (35 min)
How do I know what is moral? I don't on the whole. (Then how does one conclude that Christian morality is hideous?)

B (36 min)
Everyone knows by common sense that "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" is moral. (Did he say "common sense?" While the Golden Rule is certainly moral, it is not common sensical in a world created by matter and motion. Anyway, didn't Dawkins just say that he didn't know what was moral?)

B (37 min)
There is something "in the air" about what it means to be moral and it clearly has nothing to do with religion because it doesn't come from scripture. (And we know that how?)

C (1 min)
We understand that we are here as a result of a truly hideous process. (I repeat: we know that how?)

Natural Selection is an ugly process that has beautiful consequences. (...except for those who were victims of natural rejection in the onward march to progress.)

Comments

[Samantha]

Thanks for the "soundbites", if you will. When I listen to debates like this, I tend to get caught up in the dialogue and lose focus. I'm less able to "spot the faith" of the atheist. I must admit, there was a time when I would have agreed with Dawkins. Now he just comes off contradictory and, I'm afraid, stupid.

[Brian]

Does Dawkins maintain he does not have ANY faith system or does he just deny the existence of a god?

[Regis Nicoll]

Brian--"faith" is really a four-letter word among free-thinkers like Dawkins who consider themselves untethered from, what they characterize, irrational thinking. Instead of "faith" they would say that they have "beliefs" based on falsifiable evidence. However, never will you hear them suggest that the interpretation of that evidence is based on their staunch commitment (read: faith in) to naturalism.

[Brian]

Well that's unfortunate. I attended an interesting lecture series at USC on faith and science (granted, it was hosted by Campus Crusade so probably not the most unbiased source), but one of the speakers talked about both theism and atheism ultimately rest in faith.

Christians believe that there is a God who exists outside of our reality, and yet who can be known and understood (and maybe even interacted with).

Atheists believe that the universe is founded on certain laws which exist outside of our reality, that these laws will always behave the same way. That we can observe and thus predict reality.

In the end, both of these are unprovable suppositions. Most of the atheists I know admit an amount of faith as a part of their belief system. Though, I might know some unusual atheists because for the most part they seem to be open to the Gospel message.

[Brad]

Regis: first of all, if "faith" is a four-letter-word, then your dogma eats cat food.

Where to start, where to start. Well, in the first place, you should try reading Dawkins (and anything else) for yourself, not this selection of out-of-context fabrications. But it has been my experience (and yes, I was part of a church) that church-goers are trained to have things interpreted for them. Most (MOST) have not even read the bible by themselves, they go to "bible study" to make sure they don't start thinking for themselves.

It's called critical thinking, it's the basis of science and reason, and you should all give it a try. Then let's talk.

[JBW]

"B (37 min) There is something "in the air" about what it means to be moral and it clearly has nothing to do with religion because it doesn't come from scripture. (And we know that how?)"

We know this because Christians oppose slavery for moral reasons -- yet there is no proscription against slavery anywhere in the Bible.

[Lee]

Wow, Brad, I'm amazed Gina let this ad hominem pass. But it has been my experience (and yes, I was an atheist) that non-believers resort to non-rational argumentation routinely, to avoid any critical thinking that makes them uncomfortable.

We should talk only after you've decided to be respectful. You might try reading some of Regis's other articles for yourself.

[Regis Nicoll]

JBW--you might want to check out Paul's first letter to Timothy in which he declares that the law was not written for righteous folks but for the likes of murderers, adulterers, perverts, and "slave-owners." I'd say that's a pretty strong biblical proscription

[Gina Dalfonzo]

Re: slavery and Christianity: Coincidentally -- if one believes in coincidences ;-) -- Chuck Colson addresses that very point in today's BreakPoint commentary.

http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=1723

[Lee]

Haha, Gina - made ya blink! :-)

[MCR]

I have faith that the sun will rise in the morning, I have faith that evolutionary theory is a valid description of how life developed. I am using "faith" in a different way to a religious person having "faith" in God - which is believing something is true without evidence.

Suggesting that atheism is a faith is rather like suggesting that not collecting stamps is a hobby, or that baldness is a hairstyle.

MCR

[Gina Dalfonzo]

Sorry about the ad hominem, Lee. Sometimes it's difficult to know where to draw the line. We get so very many kinds and levels of insults around here, you know. :-) Generally I've been drawing it at outright name-calling.

[Regis Nicoll]

MCR—If you embrace in Darwinistic evolution, your faith is more akin to the belief that God answers prayers than that the sun will rise tomorrow. As I pointed out on another thread, the much-touted small-scale changes of drug-resistant bacteria, pesticide resistant insects and dog breed varieties are no more a demonstration of macro-evolution from common descent than of genetic variation within a common design. As to those lines of descent that paleontologists draw from a few bone fragments; even if they are legit—which is never certain given the fraudulent history of “missing link” finds--they no more demonstrate common descent than common design. Rather, what one “sees” from these scraps is determined by one's underlying presuppositions. So whether you presuppose that Nature is all there is or that God is, you are founding your belief system on something that cannot ultimately be proven—and that’s called, “faith.”

[Lee]

Wow, Gina, that was ad hominem? I thought it was "going along with the running joke". I myself thought it was quite funny, and took no offense whatsoever. And even if you had intended it as mildly cruel humor, I would still have accepted it, since I was the one who, after all, started it.

I do wish we could return to the days of the Chesterton / Shaw debate(s?), with G.K. laughing as G.B. went after him. People are way too sensitive these days. In most of my face-to-face debates with atheists, we've been able to use rollicking, jostling humor with each other. I'd try that with iota and Wiseclam, but I fear I'd be misinterpreted as sarcastic.

[Gina Dalfonzo]

Lee -- I think we're talking about two different things. You said to Brad, "I'm amazed that Gina let this ad hominem pass," and I was responding to that. Unless you were joking about that? Sorry if I got all mixed up. Wouldn't be the first time. :-) It's just awfully hard to tell what's a joke and what's not on a website!

[Steve (SBK)]

Definitely, Lee, I think print is a poor place for rollicking humor - almost always misinterpreted - which is too bad. Keep it up in "the real world" :).

[Bruce in Orlando]

Regis says "Actually, I cannot conceive of any moral restraint for an atheist. If an action--be it even killing or murder-- will give its perpetrator an added edge in his cosmic battle for survival, what should inhibit him?"

That moral restraint that you "cannot conceive of" is the universal moral restraint that predates Jesus by thousands of years, namely the golden rule. Dawkins calls it reciprocity. And what about empathy?

I am an atheist and have have not killed nor do I want to or think it is acceptable. I know that to kill, except for self defense, military, or police necessity would cause criminal punishment, societal shunning, and revenge against me or my family. And even if I did kill in a police or military necessity, I know I would have nightmares about it for the rest of my life. That's big in the news right now.

Regis should be ashamed to pull out this "atheists are not human and lack feelings" argument. So atheists are mindless robots who laugh while torturing animals while their children starve?

I've killed a handful of animals thru hunting or euthanizing suffering and I still wince at the memory.

I used to be a christian. I knew that god would forgive and wash away my sins - no matter how heinous they were. Most of the guys on death row use that forgiveness to feel better about murdering your friends and family.

Atheists can't claim that. We have to live with our actions. We can't claim the devil made us do it. We can't chant the "I'm forgiven" mantra.

And finally, I think Regis is hinting that there are some throats he would slit except for his god-beliefs. If he backslides, I suggest you watch him closely.

[Terry Kilmer]

I think Dawkins is right on. He couldn't be more accurate.

[Regis Nicoll]

Bruce—Actually, the Golden Rule predates Jesus by 1500 years. It was given to the nation of Israel by Yahweh (see Lev 19:18). Did I say that "atheists are not human and lack feelings?” I think not! What I said was that there is nothing in their worldview to restrain them from acting in self interest. Indeed Sir Richard &Co. frequently talk about “evil”; but without any transcendent standard, good and evil are nothing more than matters of personal taste or public opinion—in short, it’s whatever the ruling class says it is. If man is a cosmic happenstance in a world shaped by the survival the fittest and the will to power, then even censures against rape, cruelty and murder are social constructions. Yet, as we know, most atheists live better than their worldviews would naturally take them, as your admission about nightmares demonstrates.

[Lee]

Gina: woof, I got my threads warped - sorry! You were apologizing for letting Brad's ad hominem of Regis pass. I thought you were apologizing for your "ad hominem" about those who don't believe in coincidences.

First, I don't fault you for posting Brad's comment. I am surprised, but not dismayed, that you limit only outright name-calling. I hope you have few situations in the future that will cause you to ponder.

Second, I was tickled to see your "coincidences" comment, and I hope someday we can return to the past humor of The Point.

And finally, I heartily second those who say you're doing an amazing job. The explosion of verbiage on the Dawkins debate alone would sink anyone less capable...

[superlucky20]

"Life is explained by Darwin. Cosmology is waiting for its Darwin. (In other words, the discovery of a materialistic origin of the cosmos is not a question of "if" but "when." Such unwavering faith would make a born-again proud.)"

Oh, Regis. What has faith got to do with this statement? You seem to mistake Dawkins' "unwavering faith" with yours: professing the existence in a contradictory, unknowable and ultimately unprovable being known to many as God. I think what Dawkins implies with this statement is that science has consistently (I repeat, consistently) provided answers to most of the problems (the rational ones, of course) that approach us humans. Finding a proper explanation for the origin of the universe will be no different. Finding a proper explanation for a contradictory, unknowable and ultimately unprovable being is a waste of time.

[Regis Nicoll]

Dear Superlucky--Note that Dawkins' embrace of the multiverse is "professing the existence in a contradictory, unknowable and ultimately unprovable" phenomenon. Name it what you like, but it spells F-A-I-T-H.

[Alan Klaus]

The Apostle Paul tells us that faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen. I think of Stephen's faith when he witnessed the substance of things hoped for: heaven open revealing Jesus at the throne of God. Stephen full of the Holy Spirit.

[Bill Ross aka WoundedEgo.com]

"Slave stealing" in 1 Timothy (a Fourth Century pseudepigraphon, refers to the practice of stealing someone else's slave. Paul, in Philemon, did not want to be guilty of this so he asked the slave's owner to give him to him. Paul needed an extra hand. In this small epistle Paul makes it clear that he condones human slavery.

http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

[Frankie Valdez]

The main reason for people not believing in the Christian faith is given in Rev. 3:16. It seems as though many Christians fail to read and and understand this passage in the bible. If all Christians would remember this one Scripture passage and take it to heart no one would be able to dispute the existence of the one true God.

[Alan Klaus]

We receive the Spirit of truth from Christ Jesus by faith of hearing: “For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” One of my favorites. Words have meaning and mixed with faith we have insight from the author of eternal salvation.

[superlucky20]

Regis, Dawkins does seem to "believe" in the multiverse as he has stated the concept many times. But to say that it is unprovable or unknowable is sweeping. To say that it is contradictory is stretching my statement too far. Dawkins at least sponsors "beliefs" that are ultimately testable and falsifiable. The concept of God specifically the Christian version seems immune to any of these rigors, whereby obvious contradictions (e.g., in the Bible) are glossed over and any attempt to put the concept to scientific scrutiny is discouraged. Falsifying your beliefs does not seem to be an option for any of you.

[Lee]

superlucky20, it's simply not true that we Christians discourage scientific scrutiny of the concept of God. It's just that all the attempts to do so have been filled with logical contradictions and lack of evidence, and only "true believers" would follow any of them. The last serious attempt to explain away God was made by Charles Darwin, and even many of his devoted followers are now admitting that Darwinism doesn't hold up scientifically. A person must truly be emotionally committed to Darwinism to believe in it in spite of its scientific shortcomings. The same goes for multiverses - it's a theory in search of evidence.

So we favor rigorous investigation of our beliefs. It's just that we would have to "believe" too much to accept any alternative to the God hypothesis. Most of us don't have enough faith to be atheists.

[superlucky20]

Lee, Darwin was not trying to explain the existence of God but first and foremost tried to find out how the diversity of life came about. Saying that Darwinism (I think you mean evolution) does not hold up scientifically is very, very misleading. The scientific community is unanimous in accepting the general concept of evolution.

If the Christian church (or any religion) would be willing to put itself to a scientific investigation, it must be willing to disown any of the beliefs that are found unviable, i.e., presume falsifiability. But I don't think it will be willing to do that. There is too much at stake. And so the protective bubble remains erected.

[Lee]

superlucky20 (and boy, I wish you atheists would use real names instead of aliases), Darwinism was and is an attempt to show how non-supernatural processes could create the same phenomena (including the diversity of life) that were formerly ascribed to God. (Regis Nicoll has some brilliant articles on this topic that I highly recommend you read before you post again.) And you'll also find that the scientific community is far from unanimous in its acceptance of anything but microevolution. Stephen Jay Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium, to pick one example, was in fact an attempt to account for the embarrassing gaps in the fossil record.

And as we've discussed at (extreme) lengths in other threads, Christianity is extremely willing to undergo investigation, and is founded on the basis of evidence. However, the investigation cannot be strictly scientific (although all kinds of science contribute enormously), but rather historical. Think of it as "CSI: Jerusalem", if you will, with the scientific data helping to develop an accurate reconstruction of a particular event, but science itself unable to completely reconstruct the sequence of events. For that, you need the techniques of history.

And many of us are quite willing to disown any beliefs that are disproven. (I challenged another atheist to disprove the resurrection of Jesus, and thereby nullify my faith. That person declined, by failing to respond.) There might be some people at The Point or among the posters who believe that, say, the Shroud of Turin is authentic, but if you can show that it is in fact a medieval forgery, it won't matter to me at all. I'm actually this week reading a book that examines the evidence for and against the story of Jesus as presented in the Bible (crucifixion, resurrection, virgin birth, etc., etc.). It's one of many books like it that I've read, and there are many more that I haven't got to yet.

A simple reading of the history of Christianity will easily show that it is far from a cohesive unit able to decide what will and will not be investigated. In spite of Dan Brown, there's no conspiracy out to silence anyone. So feel free to investigate. Many have, and they've published their works. Tolle lege.

[superlucky20]

Lee, thanks for the insight. I will be looking into the points you raised. I feel that finding historical and scientific evidence for the validity of the divinity of Christ (e.g., his resurrection, the virgin birth, the miracles) would be slim to none and we'll end up with the same argument: my sources are better than your sources.

And so the search for truth continues. I was indeed a Christian once (Roman Catholic, born and raised) and I slowly and surely got away from them. So far, they haven't been any closer in getting me back.

[Regis Nicoll]

Dear Super--As Lee has rightly indicated the validity of Christianity rests primarily on historical versus scientific evidence. If you are interested, I've written a short piece, "He is Risen" (http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=6343) to demonstrate that the historical evidence for the resurrection is "beyond reasonable doubt" and sufficient for reasonable faith.

[dave]

Ladies & Gents,

I pray for Richard Dawkins, specifically and by name, each and every morning. I used to be an atheist like him, until, one day, a Christian minister challenged me to use my engineering skills to investigate whether or not the resurrection of Jesus was a fabrication or a fact of history. Consequently, I read many books about the Bible before reading the Bible itself (i.e. why read it if is not credible?). In all, I spent seven years researching his challenge, and concluded that the resurrection of Jesus is in the "fact of history" category. And I believe that anyone, if they start from nothing, and make an honest search, will come to the same conclusion I did (I’m sure superlucky20 will appreciate that =>). Although, you might want to save yourself a few years' time and read the following: Who Moved the Stone by Frank Morrison (with a chapter on 'the book that refused to be written, since he originally intended to write a book refuting Christianity's nice fairytale ending to the Gospels. =>), A Ready Defense by Josh McDowell, and Jesus among other gods by Ravi Zacharias. Also, The Bible and Islam will be a very helpful insight. In the final analysis, Christianity is just one dying begger helping another dying begger find a loaf of bread...the Bread of Life, Jesus.

Grace, Peace, & Love to you all. =)

[Lee]

Protestants will be happy to take you, superlucky20. :-)

If I may, I'd recommend that you begin with Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ". (He's no relation to me, by the way. :-) ) He gathered the historical and scientific evidence for Christianity with a hypercritical eye, as a atheist, and documented his journey of discovery. And since he was trained as both a lawyer and an investigative reporter, he relentlessly attacks the validity of sources.

I hope you'll keep us informed of what you find. Many Christians, myself in particular, are sympathetic to your situation - having been there ourselves.

[Steve (SBK)]

Always a pleasure to hear stories such as yours, dave.
God Bless.

[superlucky20]

Regis, I read your recommended reading "He Is Risen" and frankly I was unimpressed. I was expecting better evidence, the tangible ones, but that will be too much too ask. As I've said before it think it will be impossible to find such evidence 2000 years after the fact if it ever occurred at all. It would be like finding tangible evidence that Muhammad went to heaven on a steed. So we have to rely on other sources.

Much of the evidence you show relies on the actions of the apostles after the resurrection of Jesus. I find this evidence circumstancial. Jesus' followers doing bold and wondrous things after the resurrection does NOT automatically mean that Jesus rose from the dead. There is NO correlation. Did the disciples have to see Jesus rise from the dead before they did something heroic? Did Jesus have to visit them in the flesh and ask them to inspect his wounds before they bravely propagate their faith? No. It as simple as someone telling them about the (supposed) event. They didn't need to lug around their forensic equipment and painstakingly investigate the tomb to convince themselves. Someone just has to say "He is risen!" and the other to say "Hallelujah!" And anyone today who takes word for word what a 2000 year old text has to learn to be a bit more discriminating. When a text claims of virgin birth, dead rising from the grave, multiplying bread and fish and other supernatural (non-trivial) events, expect a bit of exaggeration and midrash.

Lastly, you noted the passages of Josephus about Jesus, infamously called the Testimonium Flavianum. These sections are spurious to say the least and the apparent contradictions you noted in Josephus' manner of writing serves not to vouch for the fortrightness of the document but to show that it is indeed a fraud! I looked it up in Wikipedia.

Thanks for trying anyway. Cheers.

[Regis Nicoll]

Hey Super—You were expecting “better evidence” for the resurrection? Funny, trial lawyers, like Irwin Hinton have said that they could think of no stronger evidence for its historicity. You were also hoping for “tangible” evidence? There is precious little tangible evidence of any ancient history. All that exists for Caesar’s Gallic Wars is 10 manuscripts. Compare that with over 5000 extant manuscripts of the New Testament. If by “tangible evidence” you mean conclusive proof, you are asking for something that does not exist for historical events. All one can do is establish proof beyond reasonable doubt with multiple attestation and reliable first hand accounts. And that‘s where the unexpected actions of the apostles enter in. While you correctly note that those actions don’t prove the resurrection, they do prove that the apostles actually believed it. Even if they hadn’t personally witnessed the post-resurrected Christ (which most of them had!), they could have readily verified it with any number of living eyewitnesses. It is incredible to the extreme that a band of cowards would chose to die for something they either knew to be false, or could have easily gotten multiple eyewitness testimony before being subjected to torture and death. As to the Josephus quote, admittedly, it is a subject of controversy. However, there is no consensus, the Wikipedia article notwithstanding (which, by the way, is missing more citations than it lists) that it is a fraud. Rather, in “Josephus and Modern Scholarship”, Louis Feldman notes that 4 scholars regarded the passage as entirely genuine, 6 as mostly genuine, 20 accept it with some interpolations, 9 with several interpolations, and 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation.

[Steve (SBK)]

Wikipedia! Now there's a text we can trust. *wink*

[superlucky20]

Exactly, Regis! As I said before, tangible evidence is lost and I do not think that it will ever be procured. That's why I do not believe that Jesus made miracles and came back from the dead though Jesus may have actually existed. Ancient history may point to the existence of a person or an event but the details as written should always be taken with a grain of salt. That said, I do not believe that people should give supreme effort and devotion for a concept that has a probability of NOT being true. And the probability I believe is great. Why? The life of Jesus as presented by the New Testament has supernatural events or miracles that occur very frequently. The apostles even after Jesus' death has the same ability. The Catholic church afterwards also has a glut of miracles by its saints a few centuries onwards. But now, where are they? Where are the miracles: the raising of the dead, the exorcism of the evil spirits, the manipulation of the forces of nature? People treat miracles with suspicion nowadays; even the Catholic church creates fact-finding committees for the smallest (and scientifically plausible) miracle cure claims in Lourdes. Does it seem unusual (or ironic) that claims of this nature have dropped precipitously after the development of science and communication? Isn't it possible that claims of this nature are caused by ignorance, ineptness or plain dishonesty? That is why I claim that religion is continually being made "bulletproof" against science: because despite protestations that religious people are willing to put their beliefs to the test, they are not willing to accept that their beliefs have even the slighest and minute iota of the possibility of being remotely wrong. The conclusion is already made before any course of action is formulated. The buck stops there. Are any of you willing to accept that claims of the Resurrection is a product of hearsay, wishful thinking or dishonesty as the claims of Mohammed rising to heaven on his favorite horse possibly are? Yup, I don't think so.

[Regis Nicoll]

Dear Super--Who says that miracles are a thing of the past? I would argue that miracles are as prevalent today as they were in the first century. I give a brief recounting of one such event in my own life in A Light Encounter (http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=7009). Problem is, when the malignant tumor mysteriously vanishes overnight, a driver emerges unscathed from a twisted vehicle, or someone has a heavenly vision, the naturalistically-inclined person will chalk it up to a yet-to-be discovered principle of the natural world, coincidence, or hallucination. His conclusion is not demanded by the evidence, but by his faith that the physical world is fully explainable apart from the supernatural. You insist on “tangible evidence” for things of a historic nature, yet where is the tangible evidence for the numerous gaps in the naturalistic account of history, beginning the “multiverse?” Hint: there is none! Even Richard Dawkins acknowledges that without a limitless number of chances for nature to “get it right” our Goldilocks universe would not exist. The multiverse is one of the many just-so stories (like the quantum vacuum, virtual particles, memes, emergence and macro-evolution) that, despite lack of evidence, are plumped for and inoculated by the gate-keepers of science orthodoxy to ensure that, to use your words, it is “bulletproof.” Look closely, and you will see that the suit of armor is nothing but patina.

[superlucky20]

You talk as if there is a conspiracy among scientists against religion. There is none. It just seems that way because, generally, religion-inspired "science" doesn't warrant its attention. Some of it just don't hold up by itself and others are just plain ridiculous. Scientists (the real ones) don't formulate hypotheses by first consulting the Good Book and seeing if it doesn't contradict. They follow a logical process and if it clashes with the beliefs of some, too bad.

And who told you that the theories you described above are bulletproof? Nothing in science is bulletproof. The multiverse theory is not bulletproof. Even the whole theory of evolution is not bulletproof. Because NONE of these are perfect; it can be improved upon or even scrapped depending on the circumstances. Every (real) scientist knows that, even Dawkins. He'll be the first to disown the multiverse theory if it is proven invalid. As Daniel Dennett once observed: "That is the ethos of science: the price you pay for the authoritative confirmation of your
favorite hypothesis is risking an authoritative refutation of it." Religion couldn't even approach this level of intellectual honesty. But religion through the years did change (some say "improved") but only through overwhelming social pressure and not by its own initiative (e.g., slavery, women's rights, government, various views on scientific matters).

I could go on and on about the matter but this is getting too tedious. Thanks for your time.

[Regis Nicoll]

Dear Super—Multiverse theory is NOT bulletproof? Well, what else would you call a theory that is without empirical evidence and beyond falsification…other than a wishful machination? You gotta hand it to materialistic scientists for successfully conjuring, and selling, a theory that can’t be disproved. So I think it’s safe to say that Dawkins will not have to abandon the multiverse based on evidence. But even IF the multiverse could be falsified, you can bet that the likes of Dennett and Dawkins wouldn’t disown it without another NATURALISTIC theory to take its place. This despite, as I write in “More Trouble for Naturalistic Origins” (http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=2688), the looming problems identified by prominent members of the scientific community.

The examples you cite (abolition, suffrage, etc) to suggest that religion has fundamentally changed over the years, actually prove just the opposite: that the eternal principles of justice and human dignity contained in Scripture were used to awaken the moral conscience of societies that had drifted from those ideals.

[superlucky20]

And you propose a RELIGIOUS theory to take its place? Please feel free to do so. Lord knows many have tried. Yes, even if the multiverse theory is (currently) without empirical evidence and beyond falsification (as you say) like the existence of God theory, adoption of that theory doesn't expect one to give glory to the Multiverse, follow its ten commandments and pay your tithes to the Church of the Multiverse. That's what bothers me about belief in God: you claim that it is true (the Absolute Truth) but you can't prove the existence of God in any reasonable manner and all sorts of rituals, creeds and mumbo-jumbo are ATTACHED to the said belief in the God you can't prove exists. What I'm saying is that it's not enough to believe in God (which you can't prove exists) but you also have to follow some peripheral sets of rules which supposedly came from a God you can't prove exists. Are you reading my frustration? Do you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth?

Also, the last I read the Bible, slavery is still not condemned, women still are not allowed to speak in church and have authority over their husbands, hares still chew the cud and the Earth is still flat, firm and immovable. The Bible hasn't changed for millenia, it's your (and society's) views and perceptions that changed in spite of the Bible. The taboo in homoseuality is next to go, in spite of the Bible's prescription of stoning the ones involved.

[Regis Nicoll]

Dear Super—So let me get this straight. It’s not a matter of which theory (the multiverse or Intelligent Design) is true or BEST explains the rational structure and complexity of the universe (not to mention the phenomena of human thought, aspirations, morality, and spiritual impulse), it’s a matter of which is most agreeable to YOUR sensibilities—presumably, one free from rituals, creeds and “peripheral sets of rules.” Frankly, you sound like author, Thomas Nagel, who once confessed: “It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God…I hope there is no God...I don’t want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and is responsible for…the overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind.” And some folks insist that religious belief is non-cognitive!

You seem indignant that Christianity has condoned, if not promoted, injustices like slavery and female subjugation. But the bigger question is why these bother you? Are they, and things like rape, cruelty etc. matters of personal opinion or is there some moral absolute in play here? Unless it’s the latter, you have no basis to criticize any action no matter how heinous you feel it to be. Aren’t you a least bit unsettled that a naturalistic narrative which you cannot prove means that there are no universal standards to discern virtue from vice?

As to scripture and its stance on slavery, you might want to check your bible one more time. Paul’s first letter to Timothy to be exact, where he writes: “We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for *slave traders* and liars and perjurers.” Putting slave trade in the same category as patricide, matricide and murder is a pretty strong condemnation, no?

On the issue of women; sadly many folks have misused some of Paul's teachings to "put them in their place." However, they do so in ignorance of Jesus’s teaching and in the Pauline context of the male/female partnership, where Paul exhorts husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church. In fact, most of Paul’s letters end with commendations to church leaders, many of who were women he mentions by name. The bottom line is that Christians have done some awful things in history; but they have done so in spite of, rather than in light of the teaching and example of Jesus.

[Lee]

Regis, in another thread I asserted that those who reject Christianity in favor of atheism do so for non-rational (i.e., emotional) reasons. It appears (as you elucidate in your reply extremely well) that superlucky20 is another example (along with Thomas Nagel, Dawkins, Hutchins, and the rest). The Point has yet to encounter a single example of rational disbelief (meaning disbelief that is not based on emotion, disbelief for reasons which cohere with reality, and disbelief that is logically consistent with itself).

And I do not believe :-) that we'll ever encounter one.

Thanks for your excellent posts.

[Jason Taylor]

What I would like to know about is:

If the cliche is true and religion causes people to kill each other, it therefore follows that the first nation to adopt atheism as it's official philosophy has doomed itself to subjagation.

And if people don't need religion to kill effectively then what is the point?

[Jason Taylor]

Lee, Darwin was not trying to explain the existence of God but first and foremost tried to find out how the diversity of life came about. Saying that Darwinism (I think you mean evolution) does not hold up scientifically is very, very misleading. The scientific community is unanimous in accepting the general concept of evolution.

If the Christian church (or any religion) would be willing to put itself to a scientific investigation, it must be willing to disown any of the beliefs that are found unviable, i.e., presume falsifiability. But I don't think it will be willing to do that. There is too much at stake. And so the protective bubble remains erected.
--------------------------------------

Science is limited to the natural world. And given that the chief complaint against IDers is that they are "tresspassing" one might point out that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Metaphysical propositions are judged differently. The notion that the scientific method is valid at all is neither provable nor falseifiable as you have to prove your mind is capable of interpretation just to start. The proposition that the scientific method is universally valid(which is in essence what demanding that the scientific method be applied to religion must mean)is at least equally difficult. You cannot prove the validity of the scientific method with the scientific method. For one thing you would have to prove the validity of your proof.
Moreover what is the scientific method? "Observation and Experiment"? But most of science depends on the authority of other scientists. And what about history? If religion must be tested by the scientific method why not history? Yet history ultimatly depends on the records of people come before. In other words it depends on authority. And all that assumes that observation is superior to authority. But does this not depend on who is observing?
In short to demand that everything accepted as true be subjected to the scientific method is impossible. To do so you have to start by subjecting the scientific method to the scientific method.

[superlucky20]

Regis, let me clarify some things here. First thing first, we ALL accept or reject concepts by OUR personal sensibilities and I did apply that to the "theory" of the existence of God. You applied that to the theory of the Multiverse. You don't believe things on the basis of what OTHER people believe, but we "adopt" or "disown" what other people believe (or their rationalizations for their beliefs) and make it our own. As such, I try to find the "best" beliefs and I take full responsibility for believing such beliefs. BUT I do not have the FINAL say regarding the truth of such beliefs. What do I know?

However, this is where I was misread. I did not "adopt" the theory of the Multiverse FOR THE REASON that it was free of rituals and such like religion is. (I used "adopt" in quotes because actually, I am ambivalent about the theory itself because (1) I confess I do not know much about it and (2) I am too lazy to study the proofs for it. Theoretical physics is not my strong suit.) My scant knowledge of the formulation of scientific theories notwithstanding, I know that there is no provision for the Church of Multiverse and other religious-like assumptions from the theory. If it did, I would be very surprised.

I wanted to prove a point regarding the "theory" of the existence of God by framing it alongside the much disputed theory of Multiverse. They are both essentially non-falsifiable and unprovable, as you say (at least for the Multiverse theory). Yet no further statements of fact come out from the Multiverse theory than what is warranted. For example, there are other "worlds" as stated in the Multiverse theory but NO scientist would state as FACT that there is another world where trees are all made of sugar. One could ASSUME that from the Multiverse theory but WE DON'T KNOW if that world does exist. I then juxtapose the "theory" of the existence of God. The Christian religion (among many) is tied to it and is the basis for essentially all its beliefs and dogmas. Yet a theist would state as FACT that the Resurrection, miracles, heaven and hell are real but would be UTTERLY UNABLE to show proofs (visions and hallucinations are not proof) for the ultimate theory where all that is hinged upon, the existence of God. What I am trying to say (again and again) is that the foundations of the scyscraper that is religion are built on quicksand, as opposed to a tepee that is the Multiverse theory. (I'm trying to say that there are too many unfounded assumptions of FACT for religion as opposed to the Multiverse theory; I could be misread again.)

Another point. As for the morality of the Bible, (to make a long story short) what I am trying to say is that it's outdated not essentially "evil" or "corrupt". The morality of the people in the Bible is not the same with our morality as ours with the morality of ancient Mayans are. Why, I ask, should we emulate the morality of such people? We know better now. Some scientific insights in the Bible are just plain wrong. But that's understandable, the ancients just don't know so they speculate. Why, I ask, should we base our concept of the universe (that includes God) on the "insights" of such "confused" people? We know better now.

[Jason Taylor]

"Another point. As for the morality of the Bible, (to make a long story short) what I am trying to say is that it's outdated not essentially "evil" or "corrupt". The morality of the people in the Bible is not the same with our morality as ours with the morality of ancient Mayans are. Why, I ask, should we emulate the morality of such people? We know better now. Some scientific insights in the Bible are just plain wrong. But that's understandable, the ancients just don't know so they speculate. Why, I ask, should we base our concept of the universe (that includes God) on the "insights" of such "confused" people? We know better now."

For us to know "better" there would have to be an objective basis that given people approximate to a greater or lesser degree. In other words you are confusing "morality" with "custom". Morality is the "better" that we know or don't know and if it exists it is immutable. Custom includes differing interpretations of morality some of which come closer then others.

[Lee]

superlucky20 wrote: "Yet a theist would state as FACT that the Resurrection, miracles, heaven and hell are real but would be UTTERLY UNABLE to show proofs (visions and hallucinations are not proof) for the ultimate theory where all that is hinged upon, the existence of God."

I haven't yet seen a sound refutation to the kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God. ( http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html ) William Lane Craig continues to successfully defend it. ( http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/existence.html )

Am I missing something?