The problem of good

Christians are often asked to defend God, from attacks using the problem of evil: If God is good, and all-powerful, why are there things such as earthquakes, meteors, and Alzheimer's? Why does God allow human-caused evils, like global climate change, child sexual exploitation, and war? These can be serious questions, and hard ones to answer. This area of thought is often called "the problem of evil." C. S. Lewis answered that problem in his The Problem of Pain.

There are, then, problems for Christians. However, there are corresponding problems, much less frequently discussed, for atheists, namely the problem of good. As N. T. Wright put it in his Surprised by Scripture: Engaging Contemporary Issues, if the universe is here because of mindless chance, how is it that there is so much in our surroundings to appreciate and cherish: leaf colors, rainbows, music, innocent laughter, beautiful human constructions, unselfish good deeds, uplifting literature, and much more?

Thanks for reading.

Stephen Hawking, famous doubter of God's existence (or importance) has died

This blog is normally reserved for the Sunspots column on Wednesdays, and one such was published earlier today. But the death of Stephen Hawking is important enough that I'm also publishing a link to a post, from a few years ago, which analyzes Hawking's thought.

Thanks for reading.

Sunspots 627

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:

Christianity: Benjamin L. Corey argues that a Christian pacifist, and/or a Christian who refuses to use a gun on others, is not, therefore, a coward.

FiveThirtyEight reports on a study that says that as much as 25% of the US population may be atheists, although most of them don't identify themselves as such.

Christianity Today analyzes the influence of theologian Reinhold Niebuhr on James Comey, the recently fired head of the FBI, and on other prominent public figures.


Computing: Pro Publica reports that some Trump properties, including Mar-a-Lago, used by the President and other important figures, have networks that could easily be hacked. Wired has more on this.

Open Broadcaster Software is a free tool for recording and live streaming video.

The Conversation argues that banning laptops on airplanes would do little to increase security.

Listverse discusses the origin of 10 fonts currently in use.

Politics: Scientific American reports that the Republican governors of Vermont and Massachusetts are seriously concerned about the current and future effects of global warming, and are urging the Trump administration to continue trying to slow it down.

FiveThirtyEight gives a thorough analysis of the likelihood of President Trump being removed from office by the Congress.

Science: The History Blog reports on a fossil Nodosaur.

Scientific American reports that plants may be able to hear.

Scientific American also reports on an apple-picking robot. (With video)


Image source (public domain)

Sunspots 609

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:


Christianity: Relevant reports that Christians are the most persecuted people in the world.

Sojourners has extracted excerpts from speeches from soon-to-be-ex-president Obama, on his faith.

Benjamin L. Corey points out that God didn't demand the death penalty for the murder of Abel. (I don't always approve of Mr. Corey's language, but his posts are always thought-provoking.)

Corey also points out that, even if you don't believe in Christianity, it's wrong to dismiss the Bible as a fairy tale.


Education: Listverse points out some troubling facts and trends in higher education.

Finance: The Associated Press reports that eight men are, in combination, as rich as half of the people in the world.

Health: Apparently, President-elect Trump is listening to the anti-vaccine movement, in spite of the lack of scientific evidence that vaccination is linked to autism, and may be going to do something about what he hears, according to Scientific American.

Scientific American also reports on warnings against cleaning out your earwax.

History: I don't expect this will change any holocaust denier's mind, but ListVerse has 10 facts that prove that the holocaust really happened.

Humor: (or something) Listverse reports on 10 surprising lost objects, including a city, a spaceship, and thousands of shipping containers.

An amazing construction of marbles, and other items. (Video, about 2 minutes.)


Politics: FiveThirtyEight points out that, barring unforeseen events, soon-to-be-ex-vice-president Joe Biden will be the only veep who served for two terms, and never cast a tie-breaking vote.

Image source (public domain)

Sunspots 608

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:

The Arts: From "The Writer's Almanac," a fine poem on fish.

Christianity: Benjamin L. Corey wishes that atheists would stop talking about Christians in some ways that aren't really valid.


Computing: Gizmo's Freeware evaluates some free video editing software.

Christianity Today warns against using "Jesus," "john316," and the like as passwords. They're too easy to guess.

And Christianity Today reports that Amazon's Alexa will read the Bible, or from a variety of daily devotionals, on command.

Food: Scientific American reports that eating certain foods makes men more attractive to women.

Health: Scientific American, and many more outlets, report that scientists are now recommending that all babies be exposed to peanuts.

History: Listverse reports on 10 interesting things found below present-day cities.

Science: Listverse reports on "10 fascinating wonders of Antarctica."

The BBC reports on research which may lead to growing our own dental fillings, rather than having them made of foreign materials, and put in by dentists.

Sports: Relevant reports on a 105-year-old cyclist.


Image source (public domain)

Sunspots 578

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:


Christianity: An articulate former atheist describes her process of coming to belief, in Christianity Today.

Ken Schenck on what the Bible says about bearing false witness.

The Environment: National Public Radio reports on a study of light pollution. 80% of North Americans can't see the Milky Way, because of so much light at night. We can't see it from our home. Can you?

Finance: Relevant and other sources report that HBO's John Oliver purchased (he says it's easy to do it) $15,000,000 "worth" of medical debt for about $60,000, and forgave all the debtors.

Health: The New York Times reports that the US is about 25th in the world in infant care.

Politics: Sojourners reports that Russell Moore, an important Southern Baptist, believes that Donald Trump is a lost soul, who should repent.

A woman writes, in Christianity Today, about being refused the use of women's restrooms, and other facilities.

Science: National Public Radio reports on our relationship with dogs. We may have domesticated dogs twice, or perhaps they domesticated us twice.

Listverse describes 10 groups of organisms that have been extinct for a long time. Like Trilobites, and lesser known creatures.

Science News reports that it may be possible to produce fully pluripotent stem cells from adult cells, thus making the use of embryonic cells unnecessary.

Sports: USA Today says that the first 14 LPGA golf tournaments of 2016 were won by young women -- under 23, until a week or so ago. The most recent one, a major tournament, which finished on June 13, was won by the youngest player ever to win a that major, in a playoff with another player who would also have been the youngest. Both are still teenagers.


Image source (public domain)  

Excerpts from Orthodoxy, by G. K. Chesterton, 60

These can be called the essentials of the old orthodoxy, of which the chief merit is that it is the natural fountain of revolution and reform; and of which the chief defect is that it is obviously only an abstract assertion. Its main advantage is that it is the most adventurous and manly of all theologies. Its chief disadvantage is simply that it is a theology. It can always be urged against it that it is in its nature arbitrary and in the air. But it is not so high in the air but that great archers spend their whole lives in shooting arrows at it—yes, and their last arrows; there are men who will ruin themselves and ruin their civilization if they may ruin also this old fantastic tale. This is the last and most astounding fact about this faith; that its enemies will use any weapon against it, the swords that cut their own fingers, and the firebrands that burn their own homes. Men who begin to fight the Church for the sake of freedom and humanity end by flinging away freedom and humanity if only they may fight the Church.

This is no exaggeration; I could fill a book with the instances of it. Mr. Blatchford set out, as an ordinary Bible-smasher, to prove that Adam was guiltless of sin against God; in manœuvring so as to maintain this he admitted, as a mere side issue, that all the tyrants, from Nero to King Leopold, were guiltless of any sin against humanity. I know a man who has such a passion for proving that he will have no personal existence after death that he falls back on the position that he has no personal existence now. He invokes Buddhism and says that all souls fade into each other; in order to prove that he cannot go to heaven he proves that he cannot go to Hartlepool. I have known people who protested against religious education with arguments against any education, saying that the child’s mind must grow freely or that the old must not teach the young. I have known people who showed that there could be no divine judgment by showing that there can be no human judgment, even for practical purposes. They burned their own corn to set fire to the church; they smashed their own tools to smash it; any stick was good enough to beat it with, though it were the last stick of their own dismembered furniture. We do not admire, we hardly excuse, the fanatic who wrecks this world for love of the other. But what are we to say of the fanatic who wrecks this world out of hatred of the other? He sacrifices the very existence of humanity to the non-existence of God. He offers his victims not to the altar, but merely to assert the idleness of the altar and the emptiness of the throne. He is ready to ruin even that primary ethic by which all things live, for his strange and eternal vengeance upon some one who never lived at all.

And yet the thing hangs in the heavens unhurt. Its opponents only succeed in destroying all that they themselves justly hold dear. They do not destroy orthodoxy; they only destroy political and common courage sense. They do not prove that Adam was not responsible to God; how could they prove it? They only prove (from their premises) that the Czar is not responsible to Russia. They do not prove that Adam should not have been punished by God; they only prove that the nearest sweater should not be punished by men. With their oriental doubts about personality they do not make certain that we shall have no personal life hereafter; they only make certain that we shall not have a very jolly or complete one here. With their paralyzing hints of all conclusions coming out wrong they do not tear the book of the Recording Angel; they only make it a little harder to keep the books of Marshall & Snelgrove. Not only is the faith the mother of all worldly energies, but its foes are the fathers of all worldly energies, but its foes are the fathers of all worldly confusion. The secularists have not wrecked divine things; but the secularists have wrecked secular things, if that is any comfort to them. The Titans did not scale heaven; but they laid waste the world.

Orthodoxy, first published in 1908, by G. K. Chesterton, is in the public domain, and available from Project Gutenberg. The previous post in this series is here. Thanks for reading! Read Chesterton.

Excerpts from Orthodoxy, by G. K. Chesterton, 59

"Christianity is the only religion on earth that has felt that omnipotence made God incomplete."

Here again we reach the same substantial conclusion. In so far as we desire the definite reconstructions and the dangerous revolutions which have distinguished European civilization, we shall not discourage the thought of possible ruin; we shall rather encourage it. If we want, like the Eastern saints, merely to contemplate how right things are, of course we shall only say that they must go right. But if we particularly want to make them go right, we must insist that they may go wrong.

Lastly, this truth is yet again true in the case of the common modern attempts to diminish or to explain away the divinity of Christ. The thing may be true or not; that I shall deal with before I end. But if the divinity is true it is certainly terribly revolutionary. That a good man may have his back to the wall is no more than we knew already; but that God could have his back to the wall is a boast for all insurgents for ever. Christianity is the only religion on earth that has felt that omnipotence made God incomplete. Christianity alone has felt that God, to be wholly God, must have been a rebel as well as a king. Alone of all creeds, Christianity has added courage to the virtues of the Creator. For the only courage worth calling courage must necessarily mean that the soul passes a breaking point—and does not break. In this indeed I approach a matter more dark and awful than it is easy to discuss; and I apologise in advance if any of my phrases fall wrong or seem irreverent touching a matter which the greatest saints and thinkers have justly feared to approach. But in that terrific tale of the Passion there is a distinct emotional suggestion that the author of all things (in some unthinkable way) went not only through agony, but through doubt. It is written, “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.” No; but the Lord thy God may tempt Himself; and it seems as if this was what happened in Gethsemane. In a garden Satan tempted man: and in a garden God tempted God. He passed in some superhuman manner through our human horror of pessimism. When the world shook and the sun was wiped out of heaven, it was not at the crucifixion, but at the cry from the cross: the cry which confessed that God was forsaken of God. And now let the revolutionists choose a creed from all the creeds and a god from all the gods of the world, carefully weighing all the gods of inevitable recurrence and of unalterable power. They will not find another god who has himself been in revolt. Nay (the matter grows too difficult for human speech), but let the atheists themselves choose a god. They will find only one divinity who ever uttered their isolation; only one religion in which God seemed for an instant to be an atheist.

Orthodoxy, first published in 1908, by G. K. Chesterton, is in the public domain, and available from Project Gutenberg. The previous post in this series is here. Thanks for reading! Read Chesterton.

Atheism doesn't have all the answers, and it can be a religion, say some prominent atheists

Michael Ruse is a prominent philosopher. His academic career has included a lot thinking about the relationship between Christianity and science. He has written a lot about the connection between Darwinism and ethics. In a recent article, he describes himself as "an atheist Darwinian evolutionist ..."

The article is about what Ruse sees as excesses by some other prominent atheists, and he names some of them: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Jerry Coyne, Edward O. Wilson. Actually, he calls these people, and they would probably agree, Humanists. These Humanists, and others, Ruse says, are too enthusiastic. In other words, they are actively trying to convert others to their views, and ignoring weaknesses of their position. At least some of these four, and others, are advocating a sort of religion based on science.

Ruse points out some serious weaknesses. For one thing, he says ". . . there is no simple line from evolutionary biology to the ethical life, and there is no guarantee that an alternative secular religion will lead us there." I agree. Ethics has to be based on something, and Darwinism doesn't provide such a foundation, whatever the scientific merits of Darwinism.

Another serious weakness is that science has limitations. Ruse says that science can't answer the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" or "Does life have a purpose." Indeed. The Humanists claim that those questions can be answered by science, or that they aren't important, which is ridiculous.

Ruse makes a powerful case, and it's more powerful because of his prominence, and his own atheism.

For more about Dawkins, see here and here.

*  *  *  *  *

In another article, Gary Gutting, writing in Salon, claims that Richard Dawkins has departed from ideas with firm foundations. The question Gutting considers is the question of whether God exists. Dawkins does not, I believe, claim to have disproved God's existence beyond all doubt, but he clearly believes that he has made some strong arguments against His existence. Gutting, a philosopher who apparently believes in God, himself says that "I myself think that there’s no argument that decisively establishes that God exists." But that's by no means the same as proving that He doesn't.

(Gutting is apparently a solidly competent philosopher, but he's not much of a biologist -- he seems to think that tortoises are amphibians . . .) 

Gutting concludes that there is a serious case to be made for theism. Therefore, either Dawkins doesn't understand that, or he does, and has chosen to pretend that there is no such serious case.

I conclude by quoting Hebrews 11:3 "By faith, we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen has not been made out of things which are visible." (World English Bible, public domain) My own belief is that Gutting is correct -- there is no decisive argument for the existence of a creator God. But I can logically and legitimately believe that He does exist, and so can you, even if Dawkins doesn't.

See also here.

I thank Jim Stump, of BioLogos, for pointing me, and other readers, to these articles.

Excerpts from Orthodoxy, by Gilbert K. Chesterton, 5

The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason. The madman’s explanation of a thing is always complete, and often in a purely rational sense satisfactory. Or, to speak more strictly, the insane explanation, if not conclusive, is at least unanswerable; this may be observed specially in the two or three commonest kinds of madness. If a man says (for instance) that men have a conspiracy against him, you cannot dispute it except by saying that all the men deny that they are conspirators; which is exactly what conspirators would do. His explanation covers the facts as much as yours. Or if a man says that he is the rightful King of England, it is no complete answer to say that the existing authorities call him mad; for if he were King of England that might be the wisest thing for the existing authorities to do. Or if a man says that he is Jesus Christ, it is no answer to tell him that the world denies his divinity; for the world denied Christ’s. Nevertheless he is wrong. But if we attempt to trace his error in exact terms, we shall not find it quite so easy as we had supposed. Perhaps the nearest we can get to expressing it is to say this: that his mind moves in a perfect but narrow circle. A small circle is quite as infinite as a large circle; but, though it is quite as infinite, it is not so large. In the same way the insane explanation is quite as complete as the sane one, but it is not so large.

A Christian is only restricted in the same sense that an atheist is restricted. He cannot think Christianity false and continue to be a Christian; and the atheist cannot think atheism false and continue to be an atheist. But as it happens, there is a very special sense in which materialism has more restrictions than spiritualism. Mr. McCabe thinks me a slave because I am not allowed to believe in determinism. I think Mr. McCabe a slave because he is not allowed to believe in fairies. But if we examine the two vetoes we shall see that his is really much more of a pure veto than mine. The Christian is quite free to believe that there is a considerable amount of settled order and inevitable development in the universe. But the materialist is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle.

Orthodoxy, first published in 1908, by G. K. Chesterton, is in the public domain, and available from Project Gutenberg. The previous post in this series is here.  Thanks for reading! Read Chesterton.

Sunspots 420

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:

Christianity: Todd Wood, a Young-Earth Creationist, but one who respects and is willing to listen to other views, examines the results of a poll of pastors, which indicates that over three-quarters of them are not convinced that their own view, whatever it is, is correct.

Computing: I am by no means a expert on Twitter, but Twitonomy seems to be a great tool for those who are, and it comes with a non-biased recommendation. Check it out!

Philosophy: He Lives quotes from rabid atheist Jerry Coyne, who admits that, in his own world view, there is no such thing as free choice.

Politics: An article, with photos, on the first integrated prom in a small Georgia town, in 2013. Not all proms are integrated yet.

Science: A site showing you how a dog's vision differs from that of most humans.

National Public Radio shows, and tells, about "pinkhouses," a high-tech way of growing plants efficiently indoors.



Image source (public domain)    

Were religious beliefs/was Islam responsible for the bombings in Boston?

In case you didn't realize it, some people would answer both of the questions above with a resounding "yes!" They would claim that militant intolerance, even violence, are the inevitable consequence of deeply held religious belief.

The Panda's Thumb blog, not exactly a friend of conservative Christian beliefs, at least beliefs on origins, has blasted biologist Jerry Coyne, who, in addition to being an important scientist, is a militant atheist, for his "yes!" responses, and given evidence to show that Coyne, and other people who want to make religious belief the root of all of violence, and other problems, are wrong. There are some pertinent links in the Panda's Thumb post.

Good for the Panda's Thumb!

The Panda's Thumb also posted a reaction to a believer in Intelligent Design, who claimed that "Darwinists" are incapable of showing proper compassion.

Most any tragedy can be used to reinforce our prejudices, and often gets used as such by people with a wide variety of such prejudices. Sigh. 

The Big Bang, second edition

I understand that there are conservative Christians who reject the idea of a Big Bang. I suppose that most of these, at least the ones who can give a good reason for such rejection, do so either because they believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old, or because, in their minds, the Big Bang is associated with evolution, which they reject.

As to the first, it is possible, indeed, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. (But see this post, and others, on a book by a believing Christian, scientist, and Bible scholar, David Snoke, entitled A Biblical Case for an Old Earth.) Even if the earth were only a few thousand years old, the Bible does not explicitly say that the universe is the same age as the earth. I don't see anything in the Bible that would rule out an ancient universe.

I also take two Biblical statements seriously. These are Psalm 19:1-4 and Romans 1:20, both of which tell us that one of God's ways of revealing himself to us is through what nature tells us. Much of what nature tells us, especially about things which are very small, very large, or very far away, or were very long ago, can come to us only though scientific findings. These findings may be mistaken at times, but they should certainly not be rejected out of hand. There is good scientific evidence that there was a Big Bang, and that it took place a very long time ago.

The Big Bang was not proposed as some sort of anti-God crusade. On the contrary, the first good evidence for a Big Bang was discovered by accident, by scientists who weren't looking for such evidence. The Big Bang, as an explanation for the origin of the universe as we know it, is taken by some scientists, even unbelieving scientists, as evidence for the existence of a divine Creator. For example, here's what the late Robert Jastrow wrote, about the discovery of evidence for the Big Bang, in his book, God and the Astronomers:
For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. (New York: Warner Books, 1978, pp. 105-106.) Jastrow, according to the Wikipedia article on him, was not a Christian, but an agnostic. However, he believed that science had no explanation for what came before, or caused, the Big Bang, and acknowledged that the Judeo-Christian religions do have an explanation, namely that an eternal God began the universe with a supernatural act, or acts, such as the Big Bang. When the Big Bang theory was first proposed, as Jastrow indicated, there were scientists who were pretty upset about the idea, because there was no good explanation for what caused it, or what, if anything, came before it. There still isn't an explanation that has been proved experimentally, although there have been attempts at such explanations, most notably by Stephen Hawking.

Acceptance of the idea of a Big Bang was slow. The evidence for a Big Bang is good, considering how long ago it would have happened, and the idea is accepted by most scientists. The evidence for it, to me, is an important part of God's revelation to us.

As to the connection to evolution, there is no direct connection. In the first place, evolution, like any controversial subject, should be defined before it is discussed at all. This, unfortunately, happens only rarely. In the second place, evolution is a biological process. The Big Bang was a physical process.

What Christians should be concerned about, even if they have the wrong name for it, is not evolution, but naturalism. That's what most conservative Christians really mean when they say that they don't believe in evolution. (There is good evidence, generally accepted, for at least some types of evolution. The most ardent Young-Earth Creationist scientists believe that humans evolved into more than one race, or ethnic group*, since the time of Noah, for example.) Naturalism is the idea that there are natural, as opposed to supernatural, explanations for everything. It is, therefore, a form of atheism. Naturalism is believed by many scientists, and others, although there is no definitive evidence for it. The most prominent naturalist is Richard Dawkins, a competent biologist, but also a popular writer, crusading against Christianity and other religions. But even Dawkins does not claim that he has disproved God's existence, which, if he had, would prove naturalism.

The Bible begins with a statement that, if true, destroys naturalism: In the beginning, God created . . . Genesis 1 doesn't tell us when, why, or how. It does tell us that there was a Who. Naturalism says that there wasn't, and isn't, any Who. Christians believe that there was, and is. Undoubtedly, some people who believe in naturalism do so because, if it were true, it would mean that there are no Divinely created moral laws, and they want to believe that there aren't any such.

If someone says that the Big Bang event proves that there is no God, they are mistaken. There is no such proof. On the contrary, supposing that God started the universe with a Big Bang makes good sense. If someone says that evolution, however defined, proves that there is no God, they are similarly mistaken. There is no such proof. On the contrary, God may have used natural selection, the Big Bang, or both, as part of His method of making things like they are now. Knowledge and prior planning like that would be as wonderful, or more so, as creating every type of atom, and every type of living thing, from scratch.

It's not the Bible, but the movie, God's Not Dead, was generally well-received by the conservative Christian community. (The more recent movie, Do You Believe? was made by the same group, and there was also a God's Not Dead 2.) See here for my review of God's not Dead. In that review, I point out that the fictional main Christian character accepts the ideas that God used the Big Bang, and evolution to bring the world to its current state, in his defense of the existence of God.

As Hebrews 11 puts it: 3 By faith, we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen has not been made out of things which are visible (World English Bible, public domain).

Some Christians, and others, claim that atheists/naturalists have no ground for finding purpose and meaning in life, or in existence. This article claims they do, indeed, have reason for meaning and purpose.

This post is revised from a previous one, now removed. Thanks for reading.

Notes

The paragraphs beginning "It's not the Bible," and "Some Christians, and others," were added on February 3, 2016.

*Note added, December 23, 2015. This originally was "type," rather than "race, or ethnic group." As I understand it, that original wording led to the first comment below. Sorry for the confusion that caused.

Note added, August 1, 2013. Commenter Laginestra (see below) points out that the Big Bang theory doesn't actually describe the origin of the universe, but the early development of the the universe. In other words, it doesn't specify where the universe, if it began with a big bang, came from. The universe had to be present, in some form, before there could have been a big bang. However, most people, including me at times, don't realize that, or don't make that distinction. Stephen Hawking is one scientist who has attempted to explain the origin of the universe. I thank the commenter for that important distinction.

Added, May 17, 2014. Here's a good article on the history of the discovery of the evidence for the Big Bang. The article also considers the possibility of multiple universes.

Added, May 29, 2014. Here's a good article the history of the idea of a Big Bang. Fred Hoyle, apparently an atheist, believed in a steady-state universe, one which didn't need some sort of start, apparently for religious reasons. (He was anti-Christian and anti-Jewish.) Hoyle is responsible for the term, "Big Bang," which was meant to be a mockery of the idea.

On January 23, 2017, the post was slightly edited for English usage mistakes.

Why Strict Atheism is Unscientific

There's a fine post, on the topic of the title, "Why Strict Atheism is Unscientific," at the BioLogos forum, including a splendid quotation from Carl Sagan. It's brief, readable, and important.

Read it, if you wish to. Blessed Christmas.

Skepticism and Atheism

The Skeptical Zone has a most interesting post, which argues that atheists are most likely deceived. The argument is based on logic.

More criticism of Jerry Coyne from The Panda's Thumb

The Panda's Thumb is a prominent blog, mostly devoted to attacking the Intelligent Design (ID) movement. In my opinion, the ID movement is in need of some criticism.

Jerry Coyne, who has solid academic credentials as an evolutionary biologist, is a self-proclaimed atheist, and a militant one at that -- he wants to stamp out religion entirely. A few days ago, I wrote about a post on The Panda's Thumb that criticized Coyne. The author argued that it is possible for Christianity, or at least a belief in the supernatural, and a belief in evolution to co-exist, and gave two examples, one of them Darwin himself, of important evolutionary biologists who believed so. (I think it is possible for a believing Christian to believe that much or all of the variety in living things came about through natural selection, but that's another story.)

That same author, Nick Matzke, has written another post on that blog, again about Coyne. In this one, Matzke refers to another blog, where an upcoming article by Coyne, in which he argues for his program of eliminating religion from North American life, is criticized seriously for using poor methodology.

Come on, Coyne! You aren't an expert in religion, philosopher, or other fields! And you have proved this.

Thanks for reading.

The Panda's Thumb on accomodating evolution and Christianity

The Panda's Thumb is a prominent, and important, blog, authored by many people, mostly scientists. Its most common theme is attacking the Intelligent Design movement. (I am not a fan of the ID movement myself. I do believe that there is a Designer, who did some designing. See here.)

A recent post in the Panda's Thumb, seriously criticizes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist and self-proclaimed atheist. According to the Wikipedia article on him, which is linked to in the previous sentence, "He claims that religion and science are incompatible. . ."

Nick Matzke, criticizing Coyne, points out that two of the most important evolutionists ever did not make such claims. One such was Theodosius Dobzhansky, who famously wrote "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution." The title of that article is often used today, in writing about origins, even though the article is nearly 40 years old. When I was a graduate student in genetics, I was urged to read Dobzhansky's Genetics and the Origin of Species, and I did. It was an important book.

The other evolutionist was no less than Darwin, himself.

Matzke does not claim that either Dobzhansky or Darwin believed in a personal God, or in Christ's redemptive work, simply that they believed that there could be accomodation between a belief in evolution by natural selection and Christianity -- belief in one does not have to negate belief in the other. He merely claims, with solid documentation and appropriate quotation, that Coyne's claim about incompatibility is a real stretch.

Thanks for reading. Read Matzke.

An Atheist converted, in answer to prayer

MR. MOODY'S FAITH, IN PRAYER. A REMARKABLE ANSWER. Mr. Moody, on his return from England, while conducting a prayer-meeting in Northfield, Mass., gave this illustration of the power of prayer to subdue the most unlikely cases of sin and unbelief: "There is not a heart so hard that God cannot touch it. While in Edinburgh, a man was pointed out to me by a friend who said, 'Moody, that man is chairman of the Edinburgh infidel club.' So I went and sat down beside him, and said, 'Well, my friend, I am glad to see you at this meeting. Are you not concerned about your welfare?' He said that he did not believe in a hereafter. I said, 'Well, you just get down on your knees and let me pray for you.' "'I don't believe in prayer.' "I tried unsuccessfully to get the man down on his knees, and finally knelt down beside him and prayed for him. Well, he made a good deal of sport over it, and I met him again many times in Edinburgh after that. A year ago last month, while in the north of Scotland, I met the man again. Placing my hand on his shoulder, I asked, 'Hasn't God answered the prayer?' "He replied, 'There is no God. I am just the same as I always have been. If you believe in a God, and in answer to prayer, do as I told you. Try your hand on me.' "'Well,' I said, 'God's time will come; there are a great many praying for you; and I have faith to believe you are going to be blessed.' "Six months ago I was in Liverpool; and there I got a letter from the leading barrister of Edinburgh, telling me that my friend, the infidel, had come to Christ, and that of his club of thirty men seventeen had followed his example. "How it happened he could not say, but whereas he was once blind, now he could see. God has answered the prayer. 'I didn't know how it was to be answered,' said Mr. Moody, 'but I believedit would be and it was done. What we want to do is to come boldly to God.'"

Moody was D. L. Moody. In those days, atheists were often referred to as infidels, apparently even by themselves.

Quotation from Various (2004). The Wonders of Prayer A Record of Well Authenticated and Wonderful Answers to Prayer (Kindle Locations 3862-3875). Public Domain Books. Kindle Edition. Revised by D. W. Whittle, F. H. Revell, 1885. Also available from here.

Bertrand Russell's world-view

Such, in outline, but even more purposeless, more void of meaning, is the world which Science presents for our belief. Amid such a world, if anywhere, our ideals henceforward must find a home. That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar . . . system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the débris of a universe in ruins—all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built. (Bertrand Russell, "A Free Man's Worship," in Mysticism and Logic and Other Essays, 1918. Public domain, Project Gutenberg edition.)

In other words, there is no real purpose to the universe and no after-life. A clear declaration of atheism, by an atheist.

A Friendly Letter to Skeptics and Atheists, by David G. Myers

I recently read A Friendly Letter to Skeptics and Atheists: Musings on Why God is Good, and Faith Isn't Evil, by David G. Myers. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008). Myers is a psychologist.

I have read a few books by atheists, and apparently Myers has, too. I don't know if most atheists have bothered to read good books by Christians. I doubt if many, or even any, have read Myers. From my perspective, that's unfortunate. Myers, from my perspective, understands atheism well, and although he makes no arguments that demolish such a point of view completely, he does show that intelligent, bible-believing Christianity, which is respectful of science, can hold its own in a discussion with atheism.

Myers quotes liberally from Richard Dawkins. He discusses some of the misconceptions of Christianity held by atheists, or -- let's be fair -- some of the eccentricities of some Christians. To Myers, the Bible does not require that Christians deny descent of organisms with modification, that they be prejudiced against people of other faiths, that they believe that the soul is separate from the body, or, even, that they oppose same-sex unions, provided that these relationships are between individuals who have a long-term exclusive commitment to each other. Some Christians are going to disagree with Myers on some things, I am sure. I'm not sure that I agree on the last point myself. (He says, correctly, that the Bible doesn't deal with such relationships when it mentions homosexuality, but it doesn't necessarily follow that such relationships are approved by God.) But most of Myers' ideas should be no problem for most educated Christians.

His main thrust is that a lot of atheistic attacks are on positions that Christians don't hold, or that they don't need to hold. I believe that he is correct in that.

I found the book to be well written, and easy to read. (It's only 152 pages long, and that includes an index and notes.) I recommend it to any Christian who is dealing with atheism. I also recommend it to any atheists who may read this.

Thanks for reading. I have posted previously on some of the writing of Richard Dawkins. Here's one such post.