The Warfare Is Mental

If Richard Dawkins Was An Historian

June 9, 2012

Sorry for the delay. I’ve been waiting for Peter to clarify himself, but I think I’ll just go ahead and post what I wrote last week.

I closed Round 1 of DBT01 by addressing Peter Hurford’s claim that, “knowledge of germ theory of disease contained in the Bible […] would prove God’s goodness and glory beyond a shadow of a doubt.” I supplied examples of Old Testament hygienic commands which I argued were consistent with Peter’s gauntlet, enough that he had no rational alternative but to abandon his atheism and acknowledge the God of the Bible. Peter proudly claimed that he “busted” my proof, but as we’ll see, he misrepresented my argument more than once and his response is chock full of irrelevant links suggesting that his history is on par with Dawkins’ philosophy.

Wow, I’ve Got A “Fan” Page!

May 30, 2012

Yep. Somebody actually made this. I’m kinda flattered. I wonder who it was?

DBT01: Peter On The Bible & Germ Theory

May 28, 2012

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.

And Your Point?

May 25, 2012

This morning I was a little disappointed by this article (because I thought it would be about something else). Do we really need “objective data” to tell us that the overwhelming majority of scientists accept the contemporary evolutionary narrative? What does establishing this fact prove? How does it advance the debate? Pre-Einstein, things weren’t much different: the overwhelming majority of physicists accepted the then-contemporary narrative for physics. So what? Did that make them correct? There’s always a consensus, and many a consensus is often overturned. It’s happened with the evolutionary narrative several times before (fossil records falsified Darwinian gradualism, shorebirds are not a basal evolutionary group, homology often fails at the embryonic level).

I guess I just get annoyed when consensus is invoked or implied as direct evidence of truth.

A Legitimate Question

May 19, 2012

Atheists are quite fond of claiming that science is the best method we have of uncovering truth, so why do they spend so much time using philosophy and logic to wage their assaults on religion? Consider your average (a)theist discussion. Almost invariably, they boil down to the so-called Problem of Evil, or the argument from divine hiddenness, or the cosmological argument, or some other non-scientific treatise. The only time I ever really hear science invoked at all is when the discussion turns to evolution or free-will.

What, if anything, can we infer from this state of affairs?

If You Can’t Beat’em, Call’em Names!

So some time had passed and I felt like trying again with JT Eberhard. I wrote JT, saying,

It’s been a few months, I’ve left your blog alone, are you ready for a real debate yet? Or are you content to continue engaging the “I feel God” arguments? LOL! Seriously, let’s do this. Even some of your own readers are capping on your current blogalog partner.

…to which JT responded,

Just For You, Greta!

May 18, 2012

So Greta Christina wrote this reaaaaallllly loooonnnng slog which can basically be expressed in the following sentence: in the marketplace of ideas, why should religion be immune from criticism?

My answer? It shouldn’t. Religion can and should be criticized like any other idea, and in my opinion, the religious should welcome this criticism. After all, I welcome criticism, because through criticism my beliefs are tested. If—like JT Eberhard—I were to shy away from criticism, then I would lose out on the opportunity to test my beliefs. If I lose out on that opportunity, I increase my chance of holding false beliefs. Therefore, criticism of religion is as essential as criticism of any other idea with far-ranging social implications.

So there you go, Greta. Your second straight answer.

Science: It Works!

May 15, 2012

…for completely robbing Earth of her natural resources, that is.

Atheists and skeptics—the faithful congregation of the First Church of Scientism—can often be found singing praises to their god, but we rarely hear them tell the whole story. The faithful are quick to chant, “science the best method we have of finding the truth,” but why don’t they also chant, “science is the leading cause of our destruction?” Why might that be? Is there a corollary between the religionist and the proponent of scientism in this regard?

Anyways. I’m back from vacation, hope you’re all well. Any suggestions for new posts?

I’m On Vacation

April 30, 2012

It’s already been in effect for a week or so, but I took a little vacation which means there won’t be many new posts until mid-May, if any at all. Although, I’ve been checking in periodically to read comments, so you might see some new responses there. Other than that, posting will resume when I get back and I’ll “see” you all then.

Atheists, Hypocrisy & Cowardice

April 23, 2012

I imagine nobody really cares too much about this—then again, the thread in question received over 120 comments so maybe I’m wrong—but either way there are some things that need to be clarified about the recent fiasco with JT Eberhard. First I’d like to post all of our emails that I could find:

← Newer Posts | Older Posts →