Monthly Archives: September 2013

Commentary

Atheist philosopher of science Bradley Monton discusses intelligent design

5 Comments
Philosopher Bradley Monton
Philosopher Bradley Monton

About Bradley Monton:

I’m a philosophy professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder. I work in philosophy of time, philosophy of religion, philosophy of science (especially physics), and probabilistic epistemology.

There’s an interview with Dr. Monton in Salvo magazine’s new issue, which is on science and faith.

The interview has more about his credentials:

Bradley Monton • Associate Professor of the Philosophy of Science at the University of Colorado • BA in Physics and Philosophy from Rice University • PhD in Philosophy from Princeton University • Author of Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design

And here are the interview questions:

  1. What makes you take intelligent design (ID) seriously?
  2. Why do you think some scientists refuse to take intelligent design seriously?
  3. You write in your book that you don’t fully endorse intelligent design. In your opinion, what are some of the weaknesses of ID?
  4. Then why can’t you fully support intelligent design?
  5. So what are the strengths of intelligent design?
  6. What do you think about the multiverse theory—this belief that there are actually an infinite number of universes out there, making the complexity of our own universe more likely and less special?
  7. Do you think intelligent design should be taught in public schools?
  8. Do you teach your own students about intelligent design?
  9. Do you think academic freedom is limited for non-tenured proponents of intelligent design?
  10. How have other academics responded to your writings and statements on intelligent design?
  11. You’ve written that intelligent-design arguments have made you less certain of your atheism. What would it take to make you abandon it altogether?
  12. So what sort of scientific evidence would be compelling enough to change your mind?
  13. Are there other atheist scientists out there who believe that intelligent-design arguments hold some merit?

Here’s my favorite question (#12) and the answer:

So what sort of scientific evidence would be compelling enough to change your mind?

It would be evidence for mind as a fundamental feature of the universe. As far as I’m concerned, God would have to be a purely mental entity, not connected to physical reality in the way that we are through our bodies. So if we could discover some kind of evidence that mind is fundamental, then that would go a long way toward making me a believer. And if we could find evidence that the physical world isn’t causally closed—that not only is mind a fundamental entity, but it likewise plays a causal role in the structure of the world—then that would also be compelling evidence for the existence of God. Now, if it is found that mind plays a role in our brain processes alone, that by itself wouldn’t make me believe in God, though it would certainly make me more open to the idea. But if we were to discover that mind is intervening in other places in the world besides our brain processes, then that would pretty much be the smoking gun.

Yeah, I think there is good evidence for a non-physical mind, both from science and philosophy.

I think a lot of Christians who grew up with young-Earth creationism are startled to find that there are non-theistic, non-Christians scholars who take ID seriously. I think if I were a smart young-Earth creationist like Paul Nelson or Marcus Ross, I would try to create common ground with scholars by discussing intelligent design with them.

 

News

Republican senator Mike Lee introduces bill to cut taxes on parents

Leave a comment

National Review reports on a new tax cut plan from Republican senator Mike Lee.

Excerpt:

Today at AEI, Senator Mike Lee of Utah introduced an idea that’s been missing in Congress for a long time: A conservative tax-reform plan that aims to improve opportunity and reduce the bias against families inherent in the U.S. tax code.

It would significantly simplify how individual income taxes work, and result in a large tax cut on families with children, especially married ones: The system would be reduced to just two brackets — 15 percent on all income below $87,850 (at which the rate currently jumps from 25 percent to 28 percent) and 35 percent on all income above that. Most interestingly, though, it would provide much more compensation in the tax code for raising children: “The centerpiece” of the plan, as Lee put it, is a $2,500 tax credit per child under the age of 16, which would reduce what parents owe in income taxes dollar-for-dollar, and if that’s reduced to zero, what they owe in payroll taxes, too. (The tax code currently provides a combination of a tax deduction for children, which only reduces the amount of one’s income that’s subject to the income tax and isn’t, for most couples, nearly as valuable per dollar, and a smaller tax credit.)

That represents a significant tax cut on a lot of middle-income earners, but a number of tax expenditures (deductions and credits) would be eliminated, and some would be smartly restricted — the mortgage-interest deduction, for instance, would be capped at $300,000 in principal, as Lee says, “focusing the deduction on the families and communities who need it the most.” He highlights a “new charitable deduction that would be available to all taxpayers,” which would be available to people who don’t currently itemize their deductions (lower-income Americans, for one). The “marriage penalty” would be eliminated, because the bracket sizes would now just be doubled for married couples (preserving a “marriage bonus” for many couples).

[…]The plan hasn’t been scored for its revenue effects, but it seems likely, overall, to reduce the receipts of the federal income tax slightly. Over the long term, though, while this isn’t the main intent, a rise in fertility and increased investment in raising children should go a ways to reducing America’s long-term fiscal gap (AEI’s Jim Pethokoukis likes to refer to such an idea as a “human-capital tax cut” — while, again, it’s about fixing a distortion in the tax code and not adding one, at the margins it’s a big tax cut for having children).

So often on this blog, I post articles critical of Democrats, but not much about what Republicans want to do. Here’s an example of what Republicans want to do.

News

Nancy Pelosi: forcing workers to work fewer hours gives them “freedom”

Leave a comment

The video above shows a typical Democrat reaction to Obamacare’s side-effect of forcing workers from full-time to part-time work. Let them eat cake!

You don’t need to get paid for 40 hours per week, do you? It’s freedom to follow your passion – you don’t really need the money and work experience, do you?

The College Fix explains how students working their way through college feel about having their workers hours cut to comply with Obamacare.

Here’s an example from their article:

Emily Klug, 22, a psychology and sociology major at the College of the Ozarks in Branson, Mo., is another Obamacare victim.

Klug’s university offered her a work-study program over the summer, which she turned down in order to accept a full-time summer job for a national retailer. This would have allowed her to pay for the coming year of college, as well as save for grad school. Shortly thereafter, Klug learned that her employer had modified their policies: she would only be allowed to work part-time.

“Their maximum limit happened to be the same one as the Obamacare classification for full-time,” she told The Fix.

She spent the summer working 20 to 25 hours weekly, unable to save for grad school.

“I’m not happy with it,” Klug added, regarding the Affordable Care Act. “I feel that it’s unconstitutional, and an infringement on my rights. I’m not looking forward to either buying insurance or paying the fine. I will probably be paying the fine. It’s my personal choice. That’s what I object to most in Obamacare – my personal choice is removed.”

Yes, but you get free condoms!!1! It’s so worth it! Maybe you could find another job. A job that uses a lot of free condoms!!! You’re free to pursue your passion. It’s about wellness! And if you have an unplanned pregnancy, then abortions and single mother welfare are free! Just follow your heart.

OK. And it’s not just off-campus work that’s being affected, it’s on-campus work, too.

Investors Business Daily explains.

Excerpt:

If one job category stands out for bearing a heavy price from ObamaCare-related cuts to work hours, it might be adjunct college faculty.

Among 313 employers now on IBD’s ObamaCare Employer Mandate List Of Cuts To Hours, Jobs that have cut work hours or permanent staff, or shifted to part-time hiring, there are 54 colleges and universities that have scaled back the hours adjunct faculty may teach.

The list also includes 80 public school districts that have cut hours or outsourced the job functions of teacher aides, cafeteria workers and other employees.

Still, the inclusion of a number of community college systems such as Maricopa, Ivy Techand Dallas County means that cuts in adjunct faculty hours now extend to nearly 200 college and university campuses attended by about 1.6 million students.

All over the country, adjunct teaching loads are being limited to nine credit hours — just below the 30-hour threshold at which Affordable Care Act employer penalties hit. That’s the equivalent of nine hours per week in the classroom and 18 hours of work preparing, grading, etc.

In lean budget times, many schools became heavily dependent upon modestly paid, part-time faculty members who were ineligible for health benefits. Now, faced with providing the same type of generous coverage offered tenured professors or cutting hours, many see little choice but to cut.

Of a dozen employers added to IBD’s list on Sept. 25, nine are colleges and universities. Of those, eight put new restrictions on adjunct hours. Several also cut work hours for students, a step backward for helping future grads emerge with manageable levels of student loan debt.

They told me if I didn’t vote for Obama, then college students would have a harder time paying for college. And they were right!

Related posts