Tag Archives: Debate

Podcasts

Audio clips and post-debate interviews from latest Dawkins debate

3 Comments

From the latest episode of the Unbelievable radio show.

The MP3 file is here.

Details:

Atheists Richard Dawkins, and AC Grayling recently squared up against Christians Richard Harries and Charles Moore for a debate on the motion “Atheism is the new fundamentalism”.

Justin Brierley reviews the debate with audio clips from the speakers and Q&A session, as well as interviews with those who attended, including AC Grayling and the Chair of the debate Anthony Seldon.

For the full debate visit http://www.intelligencesquared.com/

Justin has a lot of audio clips of the speeches and Q&A from the debate. This was a public debate. He also conducts post-debate interviews with one of the speakers, and some of the people in the audience. The people representing Christianity in the debate are totally useless. Justin also interviewed some “Christian” woman after the debate who is not even an orthodox Christian!

I think that in the UK, people are not really orthodox in their Christian beliefs. They seem poorly trained in theology and apologetics. I think that political correctness and multiculturalism has really weakened Christianity in the UK. At the end of the show Justin says that he will be focusing on the movie Expelled in the new year and so I hope they will get some good Christian scholars – not like John Lennox and Richard Swinburne!

Justin – if you’re reading this – please don’t put any more pastors on to defend Christianity. C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton types are not effective against the New Atheists. Please get Paul Copan, Keith Yandell, Craig Evans, Jonathan Wells, Stephen Meyer, Jay Richards, Guillermo Gonzalez, William Dembski, Darrell Bock, Dan Wallace, James Sinclair, and Doug Geivett instead. Or William Lane Craig, but that goes without saying.

My thoughts on why atheists are fundamentalists

I want to say a little something about atheists and the word “science”. Atheists don’t really value science, they value naturalism. Science is a method of inquiry that helps people to discover the way the world really works. Naturalism is a philosophical pre-supposition that says that every effect in the universe is the result of natural law and matter. And they cling to this pre-supposition as strongly as Muslims cling to their beliefs. There is no evidence that will shake them from their blind faith in the efficacy of naturalistic mechanisms.

Consider this quote from an atheist named Richard Lewontin:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.

When an atheist says that they like science, what they really mean is that they like naturalism (= materialism). When the progress of science demonstrates the need for a Creator of the universe, a Designer for the fine-tuning, an intelligent cause of biological information, etc., then atheists jump off the science bandwagon and begin to talk about how science is a very limited, tentative enterprise. They do this in order to save their religion of naturalism from being tested against scientific discoveries.

News

Russia attacks the religious liberty of Jehovah’s Witnesses

Leave a comment

Story here from CBS News. (H/T Andrew)

Excerpt:

Russia’s highest court on Tuesday upheld a ruling halting the activities of a regional branch of Jehovah’s Witnesses and banning dozens of its publications in what the group deplored as an unfair move.

Russian Supreme Court spokesman Pavel Odintsov said it rejected the group’s appeal of September’s ruling by a regional court in Rostov-on-Don. That ruling outlawed the group’s activities in the region, seized its assets there and labeled 34 of its publications as extremist.

I found a few more details here at a site called Forum 18.

Excerpt:

The texts considered extremist by the Rostov court are all published in the United States and Germany. They include the books “What Does the Bible Really Teach?” and “My Book of Bible Stories” as well as issues of the tracts “Watchtower” and “Awake!”. The court’s 56-page ruling, seen by Forum 18, gives three categories of alleged extremism located by expert analysts in the texts: 1) “incitement of religious hatred (undermining respect and hostility towards other religions)”; 2) “refusing blood” and 3) “refusing civil responsibilities”. Thus, from the book “Knowledge That Leads to Everlasting Life”, “true Christians do not celebrate Christmas or other festivals based on false religious ideas” appears in the first category; “out of respect for the sacred nature of life God-fearing people refuse blood transfusions” in the second; and “true Christians avoid false forms of idolatry, such as revering flags and performing anthems” in the third.

So what do I, an arch-evangelical Protestant Christian, think of this?

Well, I am against the Russian government, because I am for religious liberty, and even the religious liberty of groups that I don’t agree with. And I’m going to tell you why. I believe that everyone has a right to believe in anything they want to believe in, and it does not bother me at all that people disagree with my religion,and that they speak out against Christianity, or try to convert people away from Christianity. The state should not interfere with anyone’s free speech or religious liberty, including the right of individuals to say publicly they are right about religion and that others are wrong.

I think that people who reject orthodox Christian beliefs about God and Jesus will go to Hell for eternity. I don’t believe that people go to Heaven because of sincerity and good works. People go to Heaven because they have true beliefs about God’s existence, character and his actions in the world, – e.g. – Jesus death on the cross as atonement for sin. But my thinking that people are wrong doesn’t give me any justification for limiting their human rights, including the right to religious liberty, by using the power of the secular state.

I think we need to take a lesson in tolerance from God. God gives everyone space to try to respond to his revealing of himself to people in nature and in the Bible. He arranges the world in such a way that people who he foreknows will respond to him are placed in a time and place where they can respond to him. He does not force people to convert to Christianity by revealing himself so much that they lose their free will to reject him. And since God is not coercive, Christians should also not use state power to coerce others, either.

The Bible shows Jesus talking to people and being kind to them when they were suffering, as well as giving them evidence for his claims in the form of miracles. And that’s the way Christians should persuade others as well – except that we have to use miracles in nature and history, like the fine-tuning argument and the bodily resurrection instead. At no point does Jesus bring in the power of the state to squash the religious liberty of his opponents.

I am not worried about JWs tricking some Christian into becoming a JW either. If someone is able to trick a person into being a JW, then that person is obviously not concerned about the truth. No one becomes a JW because they think JW doctrine is true. It is extremely easy to disprove the beliefs of JWs factually – just take a look at their failed predictions about the end of the world. And Mormons believe in an eternal universe. That’s how you argue against a rival religion – with arguments and facts.

If the Russian government wants to rein in religions like Islam and Jehovah’s Witnesses, then they should be sponsoring debates between opposing scholars and showing them television. Have the different religion groups vote for the best scholar to represent their religion, and then have the scholars debate different topics. That’s just being fair! The state should not curtail religious liberty by using government power.

I wrote a post about this issue of people being afraid to talk about religion.

News

MUST-READ: Doug Axe defends intelligent design at science conference in Germany

4 Comments

Doug Axe got his Ph.D from Caltech and did post-doc research at Cambridge University, and published some of his findings in the peer-reviewed Journal of Molecular Biology. He was trying to see whether it is easy or hard to shuffle amino acids randomly in order to make functional proteins. Those JMB publications show that the number of functional amino acid sequences is tiny, compared to the number of possible sequences.

Doug Axe’s research likewise studies genes that it turns out show great evidence of design. Axe studied the sensitivities of protein function to mutations. In these “mutational sensitivity” tests, Dr. Axe mutated certain amino acids in various proteins, or studied the differences between similar proteins, to see how mutations or changes affected their ability to function properly. He found that protein function was highly sensitive to mutation, and that proteins are not very tolerant to changes in their amino acid sequences. In other words, when you mutate, tweak, or change these proteins slightly, they stopped working. In one of his papers, he thus concludes that “functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences,” and that functional protein folds “may be as low as 1 in 10^77.”

And now let’s see what he was up to in Stuttgart, Germany.

Story here from Evolution News.

Excerpt:

While there have been many events to discuss intelligent design sponsored by the scientific establishment this year, few have dared to invite an actual design proponent.

But on the 150th anniversary of On the Origin of Species, Biologic Institute Director Douglas Axe was invited to the National Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart, Germany, for a panel discussion titled Design without a Designer? where “the ‘bold generation’ of young thinkers turned up in droves, listening intently as the discussion went well beyond its advertised ninety minutes.”

Here’s the official description of the event (in German), and a translated excerpt:

On the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the first publication of Darwin’s theory, this high-caliber panel discussion between evolutionists and Darwin critics will consider the question of whether the evolution of life on Earth is based solely on blind and unguided natural processes, or whether there is non-religiously based, verifiable evidence of meaningful and purposeful acts of creative intelligence in the natural world. This meeting at the Stuttgart Museum of Natural History aims to contribute constructively and with clarity and objectivity to this important debate. A public debate between evolutionary biologists and evolutionary critics at this high level is very rare in Germany, and therefore can be expected to be a very exciting evening.

You can read more at the Biologic Institute. They even have excerpts from Doug’s opening statement. It’s short and to the point.

Excerpt:

William Dembski and Stephen Meyer have both framed the design argument in terms of functional information, meaning information that specifies a significant functional outcome.  Since this fits well with my own understanding, I offer the following three-statement summary of the design argument:

First: Living things contain within their genomes large amounts of functional information.

Second: The only cause known to be capable of generating large amounts of functional information is intelligence.

And third: It is therefore reasonable to infer that the functional information in living things must have an intelligent source.

Here we have not a pronouncement but an argument based on evidence and logic.  It is perfectly fair to argue against it, of course, but it is hardly fair to dismiss it as dogma.

I like this, because I am a software engineer. This is what we do.