I provided a response to Jeffrey Jay Lowder’s argument for naturalism from the history of science here. Lowder provided a reply to my critique here. Theologians in perpetual retreat? Lowder’s response is limited to one part of my rebuttal, viz. my observation that theologians have defended what I call transcendent agent (henceforth TA) models of divine […]
science
A critical look at Jeff Lowder’s Evidential Argument from the History of Science
In “What would count as evidence for naturalism?” I explained why the advance of scientific explanation does not count against a theistic (or Christian) understanding of the world and for naturalism. Given that the definition of naturalism is disputed, I focused on what I called the minimal claim of naturalism: (MCN): God does not exist, […]
What would count as evidence for naturalism?
One of the problems with those who describe themselves as naturalists (by which I mean as adherents to naturalism, not to be confused with outdoorsy types) is found in a persistent confusion as to what constitutes evidence for naturalism. In “See No Supernaturalism…” I made the following comment on the issue: When people stop explaining direct divine action […]
From Adam to Zorg: A Dialogue on Creation and Evolution
In response to my article on Young earth creationism and old things Walter asks: Now that we have established that YEC is a pile of baloney, could you point me to a prior post or article of yours that explains the biblical Fall as you understand it? Was there a single pair of humans that […]
The size of just about everything
One of my students sent me a link to a fascinating journey through the relative sizes of pretty much everything that exists all the way from quantum foam (which, it turns out, is even smaller than the foam of a rabid chihuahua) all the way up to the extent of the observable universe. Check it out.
Science is a fallible, flawed, and all-too-human human endeavor (but it is also the best thing going)
In “God vs. the flying spaghetti monster at the Society of Edmonton Atheists (Part 1)” I summarized the first part of my address to the SEA. However, the lecture was interwoven with dialogue and so rather than continue on with a summary of the lecture, I’m going to spend some time unpacking some points on the […]
Should you marry your theology to the latest science?
I’ve been slowly reading through Michael Shermer’s How We Believe in my spare time. It is a pleasant enough read, but has many noticeable weaknesses. Perhaps the biggest weakness is that Shermer is an advocate of the separation or two worlds model of theology and science (what Stephen Jay Gould called the “NOMA” or non-overlapping […]
Economists who buy lottery tickets: Reflections on Less Wrong
Faithful reader Robert asked me to respond to an article by Eliezer Yudkowsky of “Less Wrong” called “Outside the Laboratory.” The article deals with the rationality (and irrationality) of scientists. Robert Gressis added that he too would like to see my response, though “it seems like a massive undertaking.” Always up for a challenge, I […]
How should we interpret the religious skepticism of elite scientists?
There have been many surveys of the religious belief (or lack thereof) of scientists. While certain factors vary, the overall pattern is strikingly consistent: scientists on the whole are less likely to be religious than the general population. And elite scientists (e.g. members of the NAS or Royal Society; nobel laureates, etc.) are less likely to […]
The End of Christianity? A Skeptical Review (Part 12)
I was not very kind to David Eller’s first contribution to The End of Christianity. I shall continue my curmudgeonly ways as I review his second contribution, an essay titled “Is Religion Compatible with Science?” I shall begin my complaints with the topic. Why “religion”? Why not focus on Christianity and argue for the incompatibility […]
Intelligent design: The ultimate science stopper?
The Atheist Missionary’s claim: “The problem with ID is not that it is propounded by the Discovery Institute but rather that it dissuades research into biological origins by asserting a mile “0? without going any further.” Translation into general claim: “The problem with ID is that once you invoke an intelligent cause as the explanation […]
The tortured attempts to avoid intelligent design continue
Back to intelligent design for a bit. In my article “Intelligent Design, Unknown Intelligence, and a Ouija Board” I critiqued several of Joseph H. Axell’s claims culminating in his assertion that you cannot invoke intelligence as an explanation unless you have an account of the intelligence. Axell posted a long response on July 10. Other […]
Why denying intelligent design borders on insanity
Earlier this week I challenged The Atheist Missionary’s rejection of intelligent design and thus his position that it is illegitimate to make intelligent design inferences. I did so by posing the following scenario: The Atheist Missionary returns home on his birthday to see several dozen balloons taped to the side of his house forming a huge welcoming […]
Unintelligent arguments against intelligent design: A Primer
Earlier in the week a discussion of intelligent design arose in one of the threads. I was interested by the large number of really bad arguments that were produced and so I’ve decided to include them in this post along with the responses that David and I provided. What you see among the skeptics of ID are sound bites […]
