« Sproul & Meyer Discuss ID | Main | Is Religion Dying? »

March 04, 2010

Comments

Wow, that is so amazing. How is it that we read the Bible so many times and miss things like this? Thanks, Greg, for making this point so succinctly.

So, God is incapable of creating miracles that would convince skeptics? Didn't realize that God was so limited.

James Spiegel's new book "The Making of an Atheist" suggests a similar idea, that the atheists real problem isn't the evidence, but moral rebellion, which prevents them from clear thinking about things like God, the nature of morality, human nature,etc.

Joe,

>>"Didn't realize that God was so limited."

Is that what you gleaned from the post...? Yikes.

I don't think you realize what you don't realize. Neither will you, I suspect, ever.

Joe,

It's called free will.

Joe,

There will come a time when the reality of God is undeniable. But it is not God's desire that we merely come to recognize his existence. God wants us to freely choose to put our trust in him and to respond to his goodness with love. And so he woos...

Free will?

I think it's more like bondage of the will.

The natural man is a slave to sin.

Oh, I see. God is capable, but God chooses not to use His powers. Well, that's not the skeptic's fault, that's just God's choice.

I've thought about something like this before. I remember wondering how the nation of Israel, in Exodus, could keep falling away from God after He kept performing all these miracles...water from a rock, manna, pillars of fire/smoke, etc.

Then I realized that we still do the same thing today. We get these signs and evidence that clearly show God's glory and still turn a skeptical eye on Him.

Great post!

There was a blog a while back about how skeptics move the goalpost whenever you offer them evidence so that no evidence is ever enough. Now it seems that we're moving the goalpost for them by saying, "You wouldn't believe even if you DID see a miracle."

Couldn't you say the same thing about arguments? Couldn't you say, "you wouldn't believe even if I DID give you a sound argument"? If apologists used that kind of tactic, apologetics would be done for.

The fact is, both arguments and miracles have caused people to believe, but they don't always cause people to believe. Peter used arguments to persuade a crowd in Acts 2, and Jesus used a miracle to convince Paul. So I don't think we can just assume that a skeptic wouldn't believe if they saw a miracle or heard a good argument.

Joe is obviously clay, apropos to the above adage.

Sam,

>>"...Now it seems that we're moving the goalpost for them by saying, "You wouldn't believe even if you DID see a miracle."

Don't think so. The point here is that the skeptics DID see first hand. Your saying something different by adding the "if." What you are proposing is the accusation sans miracle.

The blog post is not talking about the same thing you are...

...The miracle has occured and been witnessed. What followed was not mere unbelief, but the planning of a crucifixion.


Joe,

>>"Well, that's not the skeptic's fault, that's just God's choice."

In many cases, the skeptic cannot help but deny time and time again. He has been given over to his own understanding, and cannot access further understanding. Feel free to blame God for this too. Lay what you will at His feet.


David, I may have misunderstood Greg's intent, but your explanation completely ignores the first paragraph, which I thought revealed Greg's intent. What do you think Greg meant when he said, "This kind of person overestimates himself"? What did he mean in the third paragraph from the bottom when he said, "Don’t count on it"? Is he not moving the goalpost on behalf of the skeptic?

No, he is not moving the goalpost, he is just stating the facts. For most people miracles would not convince them. Simply because miracles happen everyday and some people just choose to deny or overlook them.
Creation itself is a miracle. People come back from clinical death, people are completly healed from critical diseases, saved from certain death in accidents and some people still make excuses, deny, or overlook the evidence for the miracles. So moving the goalpost is not the issue. The issue is Satan...the ULTIMATE LIAR!

"Joe is obviously clay."

"In many cases, the skeptic cannot help but deny time and time again. He has been given over to his own understanding, and cannot access further understanding."

And maybe the skeptic is simply right to deny time and time again. Maybe the believer is just wrong.

Easy enough to say I'm clay if it makes you feel better to do so. The argument that disbelief in something is the skeptic's fault or that it's due to the skeptic's blindness or clay-like nature is a classic way for believer to feel better about himself or herself. It's a rhetorical trick, and such language is found in many religious texts.

The believer would prefer to avoid considering the possibility that the problem is that the belief is not well-supported or that it relies on extraordinary claims or that it relies on the words of flawed humans or that it is irrational and/or is just plain wrong. Instead, it feels better to conclude that the problem is obviously that the skeptic is blind or clay or lacking in some other way. Better to attack the skeptic, than to question one's own beliefs. That way, not only does the believer feel good because he or she thinks they're right about something, but one can feel superior as well, because the skeptic is blind clay. (And in Christianity, one has the pleasure of knowing that the skeptic will be eternally tortured.) Certainly, all of this is better than considering the possibiity that the believer is simply wrong.

I think that Sam has the right idea when he says "I don't think we can just assume that a skeptic wouldn't believe if they saw a miracle or heard a good argument". While I obviously can't say that this is true for everyone, I'll bet if you asked almost any given skeptic about what it would take to change his or her mind, they could give you some very specific examples of the kinds of evidence that would make a difference. That is, they could tell you exactly what it would take before they would believe in a given god. The fact that the particular evidence doesn't exist, or the fact that we don't get the miracle we need, may be due to the inability of a god to produce it or to the decision by that god not to produce it or it may be that the god in question does not exist. Who knows?

The point here is that the skeptic can be convinced if the evidence is there. If there is a set of possible observation, which if made, would lead to belief, then the skeptic is not clay nor would it be accurate to say "I don't think you realize what you don't realize. Neither will you, I suspect, ever."

So, may I ask, what would it take to convince you that the Greek gods are real?


"The issue is Satan...the ULTIMATE LIAR!"

Indeed. Did you know that the belief that Jesus rose from the dead was planted in the heads of Jesus's followers in order to lead them to believe in false gods?

Greg, this is really frustrating. You are taunting the non-elect.

Greg >> You think if God just did a miracle it would change your rebellious heart? Don’t count on it.

Greg, within your worldview, what exactly would change that so-called rebellious heart? Is there something that the skeptic can do, of his own power, that is going to cause a change? Under you views, what can the skeptic do?

Under what power do you believe that your own rebellious heart was changed? What insight, quality, or power do you posses that a skeptic does not?


Greg >> As one wag put it, a skeptic with such an experience would not seek God, he’d seek a psychiatrist.

So? If you had an experience that seemed liked you had been visited by aliens, would you A) seek after them to learn more, B) seek a rational explanation for your experience, C) question your sanity, or D) other?

Is A better than C?

Greg >> Oh so true. The sun melts butter…but it hardens clay.

And the butter had no choice but to be butter, and the clay had no choice but to be clay. They are what they are. Can clay turn itself into butter?

I fail to see the point. Can someone clarify for me?

Please explain your argument/points that "the belief that Jesus rose from the dead was planted in the heads of Jesus's followers in order to lead them to believe in false gods"
There is plenty of points/arguments (on this website) that STRONGLY support the fact that Jesus rose from the dead. So I am just a little lost on the point you are making.

"There is plenty of points/arguments (on this website) that STRONGLY support the fact that Jesus rose from the dead."

Ah, you see, that's just what Satan wants you to believe. What the alleged witnesses experienced was all illusion and deception created by the greatest liar in the universe.

Here are 2 questions:

(1) If an atheist sees a miracle, would she believe that God exists?

(2) If an atheist sees a miracle, would she freely choose to enter into a love relationship with God?

These questions are different. I think the answer to (1) is obvious: it depends on which atheist we're talking about. Some atheists, upon seeing a miracle, would believe that God exists. Other atheists would not believe that God exists even if they saw a miracle.

The answer to (2) is less obvious, but I think that it is the same answer as the first: some atheists are such that they would freely choose to enter into a love relationship with God if they saw a miracle, while other atheists wouldn't so choose even if they did see a miracle.

So I think that neither a general "yes" nor a general "no" is correct for either of these questions.

One might ask why God would not use His powers to make His existence known to those atheists who would, upon believing that God exist, choose to enter into a love relationship with Him.
Well, let "Willing Atheists" be those atheists who would freely choose to enter into a love relationship with God were they to come to believe that He exists. Here is my hypothesis: God brings all Willing Atheists to belief in God's existence before they die; and God has (unknown-to-us) reasons for waiting a long time before bringing some Willing Atheists to belief.

Philosophically speaking, there is no physical manifestation that can prove that God, as He is described in the Bible, exists.

Consider: God is described in the Bible as omnipotent. How would any physical manifestation prove that there is an omnipotent being (let alone God)? Should God lift Mt. McKinley and toss it around like a tennis ball? Highly impressive. But does it prove that there is an omnipotent being? No. It only proves that there's a pretty darn 'nipotent being. It, thus, falls well short of proving that there is a God.

God could, of course, create belief in an unbeliever (I think He does that all the time). But that's not the same as proof.

Now, if a being showed up and started tossing Mt. McKinley about, some of us would probably just accept that the being doing that is God if he claimed to be so. For a lot of people, an engineers' or lawyers' proof of something is good enough. But some would not. Some might wonder whether the being calling Himself God was, in fact, just a very powerful space alien.

It's important to recognize that, philosophically speaking, the doubters would be within their rights given just that evidence.

Now, I believe that there are sound philosophical proofs for the existence of God, but they are all a priori to one degree or another. Oddly enough only theists seem even mildly interested in such proofs. They generally don't tend to impress, or even interest, atheists.

Atheists, instead, claim to want a Mt. McKinley tossing 'proof' for the existence of God. Such 'proof', as already noted, would never really prove anything. Moreover, it would probably not convince the atheist after all. He would fall back to claiming that the miracle worker is an alien or some such.

A, I agreed with you all the way until the last paragraph. There seems to be an obvious Biblical counter-example in Matthew 11:21//Luke 10:13, which says, "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes." Here we have it on the authority of Jesus himself that if Tyre and Sidon had seen the same miracles that Chorazin and Bethsaida saw, they would have repented. God knew those cities would have repented if shown the proper miracles, yet God did not show them those miracles.

So here is my hypothesis: God does not intend for everybody to repent. Whether by argument, miracles, or some kind of enlightenment, God sees to it that everybody repents whom he intends to repent.

I'm reminded of the the following:
Luke 11:29 When the crowds were increasing, he began to say, “This generation is an evil generation. wIt seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.
And...
Rom. 1:20-25 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
BillNav

WisdomLover, if Jesus claimed to serve the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and to be sent by that God, and then Jesus was raised from the dead, wouldn't that be adequate proof that the God Jesus served existed? It seems like it's either that, or it's a demon trying to trick Jews into abandoning true Judaism, or it's just a huge coincidence that whatever raised Jesus from the dead had nothing to do with the claims Jesus made before he died.

If it turns out that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is always described as being omnipotent, etc., and Jesus' resurrection proves the existence of that God, then that would be adequate to infer that God is omnipotent, etc. The resurrection alone doesn't prove omnipotence since omnipotence isn't necessary to perform a resurrection, but it seems like omnipotence would still follow, at least inductively, from everything else Jesus' resurrection would entail.

I suppose a person could say something like, "Well yeah, that proves that Jesus' God--the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob--exists, but maybe all those people were mistaken to think that God is omnipotent.

That raises a question for me. It's possible for you and I to both believe in the same person, but to have different beliefs about that person. For example, maybe you and I both believe that Bob exists, but you believe Bob is 67 years old, and I believe Bob is 73 years old. Of course the law of identity would suggest that if the properties of my Bob differ from the properties of your Bob, then we are not talking about the same person, but it seems at least possible that we ARE talking about the same person only ONE of us is wrong about some property he has.

So at what point do you say that we are talking about different Bob's? Would you say that Jews and Christians are serving different Gods just because the Jewish God is one person and the Christian God is three persons? Or would you say they are serving the same God, only one of them is mistaken about how many persons God is? What about Christians and Muslims? Are Allah and Yahweh the same God, only one of us is wrong about that God, or are they different gods? What about Mormons and Christians? Where do you draw the line? What about Calvinists and Arminians? Even THEY have different beliefs about God, but does that mean they're actually serving two different gods? How different do the beliefs have to be before you'd have to say you're talking about two different Gods rather than the same God?

WL,

I hearby solemnly promise that if Mt. McKinley is tossed, I will not claim that an alien did it.

Thanks for your thoughts Sam, I think those verses refute my hypothesis.

Sam-

I think your argument from Abraham, Issac and Jacob is a perfectly good lawyer's argument for the Deity of Christ. Especially if you have a prior argument for the existence of a good God. As I said, some of us do accept the miraculous works of Christ as sufficient. But as you admitted, there's at least the alternative that Christ could be a devil deceiving us.

It could also, per Star Trek, be a mischievous member of the Q continuum. And there are other alternatives as well. Some atheists might say that any explanation of the life and works of Jesus (given that the Bible truly reports them) is preferable to the God hypothesis.

From a philosophically rigorous perspective, the atheist will always have room for unbelief about Jesus. And, as long as we limit ourselves to empirical arguments, the atheist will also always have room for unbelief about the existence of God.

Your questions about when you are making a mistake about the properties of the same individual vs. when you have a case of mistaken identity is, of course, very difficult and very interesting.

I have no offhand answers for your questions (which is probably good, because they don't really call for offhand answers). I do think it matters that God spoke to the Jewish prophets and to the Christian apostles, but not to Muhammad. Part of the reason I would say Jews and Christians worship the same God us that they both worship the One who spoke to them, and the same God spoke to both.

Let's remember that the story of Lazarus could be just a story. Would skeptics reject a miracle if they really saw one? We don't really know because we're not sure a true miracle has ever happened.

Sam,

>>"What do you think Greg meant when he said, "This kind of person overestimates himself"?

That human tendency is self-serving.

>>"What did he mean in the third paragraph from the bottom when he said, "Don’t count on it"?

To be careful where you place your trust.

A rebellious heart is not changed from the outside in (i.e. what one sees based on the conditions he sets for his proof test), but from the inside out. The absolute first step is humility. A die-hard skeptic who says, "Show me first and I'll change my mind" is making demands prematurely - perhaps a priori. Humility is the ultimate prerequisite here...followed closely by acknowledging a flaw in the self - one's sinful nature. God wants to be sought.

By first showing a repentant spirit, we acknowledge we need Him. The skeptic Greg is referring to will abstain from such notions of humility and repentance. Witnessing a miracle may change one's mind, but not necessarily one's heart. The heart has to be ready to move in that direction. What Greg's skeptic lacks is this inclination. He is only making demands, which puts him among the vain. It is the religion of secular humanism.

I think the poit of this blog is that we can't ASSUME that miracles can convince atheist and that atheist are wrong in thinking that God needs to do a miracle to prove to them that he exists. The point is that their rebellious hearts are what's driving their unbelief, not empirical evidence.

I can't accept the idea of the Judaen leaders comparing with modern skeptics. The Judaen's had political and personal power at stake.
Lazarus was the third of three "signs" that were performed right under their noses in a short span of time. This one resulted with many Pharasees going over to Jesus' side. They didn't question the truth of the miracle. They had to remove a threat to their control.
In the New Testament narrative, I think that the gentiles fit the profile of the modern skeptic much better. I would never presume the kind of wickedness of the Sanhedrin in a modern skeptic.
I think modern skeptics need to see more than just an ontological argument. They need to see the hope and life of Jesus practiced, lived, and celebrated They need to see Jesus in us.

If anyone could provide evidence for a miracle in the first place Id be impressed. (just in case you missed the earlier thread, evidence = independent corroboration from an outside source, or a direct, methodologically rigorous, repeatable empirical demonstration) One step at a time huh?

"Even miracles can be denied or dismissed." There is a good reason for that. Because no one has provided any evidence for a miracle.

EtA

Speaking as a skeptic reading this fascinating blog, I'd suggest that diversity of opinion represented here suggests anything but a Miracle, and instead suggests lots of different types of human reactions to the report of miracles. This is the exact kind of thing we would expect, given the diversity of human learning, thinking, etc, and the exact kind of thing that isn't rhetorically in the Bible, where the reactions to the miracles are clearly not historical but literarily imagined for this or that audience's benefit. "Blessed are those who have not seen and still believe." Did Jesus really say this? Of course not, some author stuck that in the Doubting Thomas Episode.

The Miracles in the Bible are not what I find hard to believe. I find it hard to believe the lack of diversity in the reactions to them. Given the fact that most of western history has fanatically attested to miracles it never saw (Like the entire Middle ages!) it seems very unlikely that Peter could have been privy to the kind of Miracles Jesus reportedly did, and react that way to them, especially given the fact that there are believers on this blog who are willing to believe without the benefit of seeing anything real!

Thanks for making me think.

EtA,

>>"(evidence = independent corroboration from an outside source, or a direct, methodologically rigorous, repeatable empirical demonstration)

Do you think it should (or should not) be necessary for a prosecuting attorney to prove motive (since motive is not something that can be tagged and placed on an evidence table?)

What would you deem as "proof" to adequately establish that a motive was geniune and real? In many instances, it is required that motive be proven. Is this really ever possible, or is motive always just a belief that can never actually be proven...like the elusive miracle?

Proving a motive would seem impossible by your standards for evidence, since there can be no "independant outside corraboration"...otherwise it would be "inside" since a source would have to know something intimate about the crime to serve as witness; and you can't empirically test for such.


...yet, proving motive plays a major role in a successful prosecution.

How can this be?

David Hawkins

Ive got a degree in Law as well as Natural Sciences. And you need to hoist on board that comparison between lawyers and scientists are mostly clumsy and inept.

Whilst the law (and indeed maths) talks of proof, science does not. Science talks of evidence and theories become more and more robust as evidential layers are put down. What scientists try to do is falsify the theory.

So what happens in law courts is IRRELEVANT to an investigation into miracles. Its that simple. The comparison is inappropriate.

EtA

The more I think about it, what is unbelievable is the unbelief in the Bible, given the magnitude of the miracles, and what we have seen of Human Behaviour.


The Christian Believers on this blog have more belief than Peter and the Jews. That is a logical assumption of the rhetoric of the Bible, and it's very destructive and intolerant.

We are asked to believe not only in something that occurs outside our shared common human experience, but then to believe that someone was privy to such an experience and still didn't believe. I don't believe that at all.

Unbelievable Unbelief indeed!

>>So what happens in law courts is IRRELEVANT to an investigation into miracles.

On the contrary, science is equipped to study repeatable, naturally-occurring events. Law courts are equipped to examine singular, past events caused by persons.

Since a miracle is a singular (not repeatable) past event caused by a person and not a force of nature, it seems to me that the tools of law courts are much more appropriate.

Here is a very interesting link from noblindfaith.com that really gets to the heart of the thing. have some patience and read the whole article. http://noblindfaith.com/writings/WhyDoesntGodShowHimself.pdfthing.

First, science is perfectly capable of studying singular, historic events.

Second, miracles are not caused by persons, they are caused by gods.

Third, when was the last time a court of law allow "miracle" as an explanation for events?

Fourth, when was that last time a court ruled that a given party's interpretation of alleged historical events was wrong because that party was blind or clay or didn't realize what the party didn't realize or because the party in question had a rebillious heart? Since when has that been an acceptable legal argument?

>>"Ive got a degree in Law as well as Natural Sciences."

I think that is wonderful. Sounds like you have a great work ethic.

I've been seeing a few here lately with a compulsion to post their credentials when their "cage gets rattled" a little. I think that is..how did you put it elsewhere? ...Oh, yes...amusing.

Is your idea that others may cower at the thought of disagreeing with you?

Or is it like wearing a badge on the outside of one’s suitcoat and walking among the commoners?

>>”And you need to hoist on board that comparison between lawyers and scientists are mostly clumsy and inept.”

I think you are saying my comparison is “clumsy and inept.” I keep re-reading it, and something isn’t flowing well with this remark. At first I assumed perhaps a typo and a subject/predicate agreement issue…then I remembered that you have a self-described “absolute understanding” of the English language. So, I am confident the problem I am having with reading it smoothly is my own fault. Nonetheless, I think I get your meaning. ;)

>>”Whilst the law (and indeed maths) talks of proof, science does not. Science talks of evidence and theories become more and more robust as evidential layers are put down. What scientists try to do is falsify the theory.”

And where have you been the past 30-40 years?

This is one of my favorites of yours, EtA. The “idea” and “purpose” of science is a pure thing. But you have to remember that those who practice it are human beings. And human beings often have agendas, ideologies, are driven to manipulation (or being manipulated) if it means a possible grant, possess egos, and many times have the ideologies and agendas of others to answer to (or to meet).

And you say at the end: “What scientists try to do is falsify the theory.”

I get the purity of this statement…but I think you must live in a scientific utopian bubble where ethics and honesty reign supreme...where data is considered from more than one ideological perspective...or better still, none at all. I really wish your statement here was as true in practice as it is in notion.

Scientists have been black-balled, threatened, canned, denied tenure or ostracized by their colleagues, boards, and “big science” in general for not even going that far, but for merely asking more questions.

This would mean scientists are trying to falsify the likes of the theory of man-made global warming and macro-evolution...stuff that would tank their careers. Right now, actually following your letter of science would be admirable, but the deathnail for some. If you think that is actually going on in the world of science, it's just naivete. When I first read that line, I thought it was part of a stand-up routine.

David Hawkins

The badge wearing is merely to assert that I know wtf I am talking about. I like arguing. Isn't that evident from my education? So I dont like people cowering - I like them challenging me.

I have said elsewhere that science attempts to mitigate against subjectivity, tries to be as objective as possible through good experimental design, peer review etc. It might not be perfect but it works. Science doesn't progress smoothly, it works in fits and spurts.

"This would mean scientists are trying to falsify the likes of the theory of man-made global warming and macro-evolution."

AGW I dont know much about. Evolution is tantamount to a fact. So evolution is tricky to falsify, but if someone managed it they would go down in history. But attempts to falsify are what goes on whether you understand it or not.

What is absolutely clear is that scientists dont go around trying to PROVE things. People that waft around statements like that dont understand the very basics of science.

EtA

"Scientists have been black-balled, threatened, canned, denied tenure or ostracized by their colleagues, boards, and “big science” in general for not even going that far, but for merely asking more questions."

Oh dear, I see someone has confused the propaganda in "Expelled" with fact.

Joe,

>>"Oh dear, I see someone has confused the propaganda in "Expelled" with fact.

Aside from reality, is there anything else you have sacrificed for your worldview?

Honestly, Joe, I am concerned you have become a casualty of your ideology.

Wise up.

Please, please do not allow your ideology to persuade you to exchange what is really going on out there for a snappy inaccurate quip on an internet blog.

Aside from the goings-on at my own alma mater...(which I will not offer up as fodder for this exchange), here is a sample if you are inclined to find out more:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/iowa_state_professor_who_was_d.html

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75620

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57974

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1823996/posts

http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/court-to-decide-whether-intelligent-design/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/school-defends-its-decision-to-teach-intelligent-design-508580.html

http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2009/02/10/intelligent-design-belongs-with-darwin-in-classrooms-political-correctness-does-not.html


And here's a sample for you.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html

I'm familiar with that case.

I don't see your point in posting it, though. Unless you are demonstrating that the "design supporters" were defeated (surprise, surprise)...and that there are two sides to the issue?? We know that, don't we?

Mine was a direct response to your "propaganda" accusation - insofar as you contrasted it with "fact" - suggesting my assertion was not true.

(Any further comments I might add right now would be based on my speculations of your intent, so I'll pause.)

Links to Wingnut Daily? No ideological bias here, right?

You don't see my point in posting the Kitzmiller transcipt? Didn't one of the links that you provided mention the Kitzmiller case directly? Well, if nothing else, the transcript is an answer to that link. Other links were about science education and about what is science and what is not science. Well, the Kitzmiller case also explains why scientists are very reluctant to allow religion into the science classroom and why they consider ID/Creationism unscientific.

By the way, did John Marshall lose his job over his comments at Columbia? Did he lose any grants? Was there any penalty at all for what he said? How exactly was he black-balled, threatened, canned, or denied tenure? So people strongly disagreed with hime. BFD.

As for the Iowa State case, I happen to be very familiar with the extraordinary effort required to get tenure in a science department at a major university. GG failed miserably, he failed to get grants, he failed to mentor students to PhD degrees, he failed to publish a signficant number of pubs out of research done at ISU. He failed, failed, failed to do the job he was hired to do, and if you weren't so blinded by your own ideology, you'd be able to understand this.

"Aside from reality, is there anything else you have sacrificed for your worldview? Honestly, Joe, I am concerned you have become a casualty of your ideology. Wise up."

If you understood the Iowa State case, then you'd understand the hypocrisy of your comment. I'm not the first to notice that you seem to have a problem with pots and kettles. Like many Christians, you like to cloak yourself in a false mantle of "humility". Take a look at the language you've used to describe me. Now I've sacrifice reality to my worldview? Now I'm a casualty of my ideology? There's no humility here, just a smug, self-righteous arrogance. Honestly, the worst thing about Christianity is Christians.

Joe,

>>"Honestly, the worst thing about Christianity is Christians."

In many instances, this is the case. We are sinners too.
That's why we encourage the lost to look to the perfection of Christ as the standard.

Sorry for getting you (and EtA) in a twist.

>>"There's no humility here, just a smug, self-righteous arrogance."

Are you sure your not confusing Hawkins with Dawkins here? :D jk


P.S. - Do you think it is alright for a college to deny a science degree to a student who has completed all the course work, but maintains that the universe was designed...when graduation rolls around?

"Do you think it is alright for a college to deny a science degree to a student who has completed all the course work, but maintains that the universe was designed...when graduation rolls around?"

Umm, you have an example in mind"?

Hi, EtA.

Science would have absolutely nothing to say about a miracle if one were to occur. You should know this, you know, with your credentials and all : )

That full link on No Blind Faith website is: http://noblindfaith.com/writings/WhyDoesntGodShowHimself.pdf

Or just go to the main page and go to the "Writings" page.

The comments to this entry are closed.