DBT01: Peter On The Bible & Germ Theory
Posted in Bible, DBT01, Science on | 2 minutes | 6 Comments →
Hey all. I don’t have anything new to post so I thought I’d shoot you over to Peter’s blog where he’s finally gotten around to confronting my claim that the Bible provided precisely what he asked for when he wrote,
…knowledge of the germ theory of disease contained in the Bible rather than left to be discovered by fallible scientists would have saved billions of lives. Why [God] didn’t do so, given that it would prove [God’s] glory and goodness beyond a shadow of a doubt, is unknown.” [see Point Three under the section, Is Suffering Necessary for Consistent Physics?]
So if you’re interested, go read Peter’s response. All I’ll say for now is that I’ve noticed Peter getting increasingly cocksure lately. True to the trend, before even hearing what I have to say in response, he concludes his response with,
…this is enough to say that Cl’s proof is busted. Looks like I did have a rational alternative after all — The Bible’s medical knowledge is nowhere near remarkable as Cl made it sound, and this alleged overwhelmingly compelling superargument turned out to really just incomplete research.
Hardly. The show’s just getting started! Although, I’ll give him one thing: my original argument was incomplete. After all, it came as little more than a closing thought at the end of my opening piece and I had a very short amount of words to do so. Soon—and by “soon” I mean sometime this week, not three months from now like it took Peter—I’ll post my “more complete” version of the argument.
We’ll see how “busted” my proof is then.
Peter Hurford
says...Sure thing. I look forward to it.
Also, I apologize for the cocksureness. I’m working on exercising more proper humility in my conclusions.
However, I did want to counter your attitude about how this argument “leaves me no rational alternative but to abandon atheism and acknowledge the God of the Bible”. Don’t you think that’s a bit cocksure too?
joseph
says...CL,
I agree that Peter’s posts have become more cocksure (starting from a low baseline), but you’ve said before that you enjoy a “rough and tumble approach”, and have made use of rhetoric. How do you divide a “cocksure approach” with rhetoric, and rough and tumble? Thete seems considerable overlap…
cl
says...Well, a “rough and tumble approach” simply means we don’t have to be all academic and stuffy. We can say stuff like, “that argument has more holes than a boxer’s mouth,” and not be considered rude or troll-like. That sort of “cocksureness” poses no threat.
However, when Peter starts using “because God doesn’t exist” as premises in arguments, I think that demonstrates a “cocksureness” that goes beyond a “rough and tumble approach,” a cocksureness that betrays a foundational tenet of honest intellectual discourse. What do we typically think of people who use “because God wrote the Bible” as premises in arguments? How is it any different to use, “because God doesn’t exist” as a premise, whether overt or implied?
That’s the type of “cocksureness” that deserves calling out, IMHO. Not tavern-talk (which is also different from genuine hating and assassination of character ala Stephen R. Diamond).
cl
says...Peter,
My above comment to joseph should clarify most of this.
Hmm… I’ll take that as genuine, and not sarcastic. Fair enough. I spoke my mind, there’s no need to belabor it (unless it continues).
Yes, but it’s cocksure about something we can actually demonstrate one way or the other (the validity of our arguments). When you go around saying, “God doesn’t exist,” that’s a different type of cocksureness, one that takes a belief and masquerades it as fact.
At least, that’s the difference as I see it.
joseph
says...CL
Thankyou CL, that goes some way towards clarifying your stance. Yes, if a theist were to use “because the Bible is true” as a premise it could be considered cocksure, it could be considered a short-hand way of signifying “What I believe is the bible is true”. Whether it’s cocksure or not seems to depend on the thinker in question, and how much effort they’ve made. As the best example I can think of if C.S.Lewis said “because we were absolved of our sins by Christ’s sacrifice” I would not consider him right, but given the effort he put in to reaching that conclusion I would not consider him cocksure.
As Peter Hurford is not C.S.Lewis I am in agreement that he has been somewhat cocksure, but as he has written far more than many outlining his conclusions, allows free conversation (which you noted in comparison to JT Eberhard, as you also do), and is willing to listen and adapt his arguments, I am not overly concerned.
Similarly with yourself.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...With such breastbeating, might one hope you would at least apologize to your readers for missing the deadline you had bragged about? (Or to Peter, for the now-false invidious comparison.)