As many of you know, I was a guest on the KGOV program, Bob Enyart Live. Bob is the pastor at Denver Bible Church and host of the show bearing his name. If you missed the show you can listen to it here. Since the show is only half an hour, there were things I didn’t get to explain or talk about in the detail I would have liked. Further, since Bob is the host, he is obviously going to control the speaking time and thus I was left with less than he had, further added to the lack of time I had to explain and expand on my points. However, this is not way a swipe at Bob or the way he conducts the show, it’s the way it is with any radio show regardless of topic. The topics I wanted to address are: the discussion towards the end relating to my statement that design and beauty are subjective, that “Bob and Joel agreed that Christians do not assert that God came into existence with the writing of the Bible. Thus inconsistencies, even if they were shown to exist in Scripture, would not disprove God’s existence.”(Source: http://www.kgov.com), and that “being a person has more to do with the non-physical realm of ideas, logic, relationships, and reason, than it does with chemistry and physics.” (Source: http://www.kgov.com). I was going to tackle the Einstein quotation, but a comment left on a previous blog addresses the topic/point well enough that I don’t not feel that further elaboration is necessary.
1. Beauty and Design are subjective
“The eye may be useful, and apparently well adapted for vision, however it could also serve as a moderately good tetherball for some appropriately sized people or sophisticated mice.”
As previously stated, this discussion occurred toward the end of the show and left neither I nor Bob the sufficient amount of time necessary to address each other’s point to the extent they deserved. In an effort to state this correctly I will quote directly, both myself and Bob. Bob begins by claiming “there is a universe of extraordinary beauty and sophistication and obvious design”. To which I responded “…everything you just said, design and beauty, those are subjective claims”, to which Bob said “design is not subjective”. Here is where the discussion prematurely ended due to time constraints. Thus, this is where I’d like to begin my expansion of my claims and a refutation of Bob’s.
Bob and I agreed that beauty is subjective but disagreed with me about my assertion that design is. When it comes to object of human manufacture, this is true. However, to reverse the ‘watchmaker’ example, suppose one does in fact come upon a watch. One who is ignorant of clocks and watches and possibly the idea of time itself may derive a alternative idea of what the device, that we call a watch, is designed for. This may be stretching a bit, given we must assume the person finding the watch is more or less an idiot. Therefore, let us examine my claim only using examples to drive the point home. When I say design is subjective, I obviously do not mean it literally. What I mean when I say that is observations of some structure or object cannot lead one to infer design automatically or because something “looks complicated”, which is what Bob and most creationists mean when they say something is designed. Further, if design isn’t subjective then creationists should stop using the term as in the following sentence: “the eye looks designed”. The word “looks” has a contextual sense of subjectivity; its a word that, used in this context, implies that the viewer/speaker is offering his/her opinion of the observation, not stating a fact of any kind. However, one need not include the work “looks” in the statement; such is the case with Bob’s statement “there is a universe of extraordinary beauty and sophistication and obvious design”. He means design in the way I described above. This is, in fact, a subjective use of the word design. Bob used the eye example, like most creationists do. He says that the eye is designed for vision. That’s a subjective claim, because evolution wasn’t trying for an eye that has vision, per say. Vision is an incidental by product of the arrangement of the different “parts” of the eye working together. I will now attempt to drive home my point using my own example. Let us suppose we have an ordinary hammer. There are those that would say that a hammer is “designed” to drive nails into wood, or some other equally pliable material. Now, suppose further that we happen to find this same hammer used as an axle for a toy truck. Now, although the hammer works as an axle for the toy truck, it wasn’t designed for this purpose; or was it? The fact that it works as the axle for the toy truck might be used as evidence that the hammer was, in fact, designed for this purpose. However, this assumption is baseless and is flawed because it is fraught with the bias of seeing it work this way in this particular, specialized instance. To bring this back to the famous eye example brought up by Bob; the eye may be useful, and apparently well adapted for vision, however it could also serve as a moderately good tether ball for some appropriately sized people or sophisticated mice. So, to wrap up my point. The appearance of design can be and is, most of the time, quite deceiving. This is precisely because the human brain is wired such that it seeks out patterns and logically systems in things that may not have them at all, such as clouds. Therefore, it will also seek out a “reason” for something being the way it is; its design.
2. Biblical/Scriptural inconsistencies do not disprove God’s existence
“God is then, at best, reduced to a highly intelligent extraterrestrial capable of creating life on a planet and futilely attempting to affect that life by writing a book.”
This, on the surface, appears to be true. In fact, on some level it is. This is useful for getting out of the circular logic of “God wrote the bible, the bible asserts that God exists, therefore God exists”; for if God didn’t write the bible, then what it says about God’s existence is irrelevant to some degree and since it’s the not the foundation of the argument for his existence, one has broken free of the circle. However, Bob asserts that the bible is “the infallible word of the living God”. Starting with this premise, the following are also true (written in order of implication): God exists, God is perfect and thus infallible, God wrote the bible, the bible then is perfect and infallible as a prefect being cannot beget imperfection. Therefore, any imperfection, however slight, would ,at minimum, call God’s perfection into question. But, following the implications of this, we see that the following would then be true if any imperfection were discovered in the bible: God exists, God isn’t perfect or infallible, God wrote the bible, the bible isn’t perfect or infallible. Thus, we’re left with an imperfect, fallible God. What good is this? God is then, at best, reduced to a highly intelligent extraterrestrial capable of creating life on a planet and futilely attempting to affect that life by writing a book. In other words, God would be a super intelligent cosmic mad scientist bent on power, self satisfaction and the cessation of boredom. Of course, this doesn’t disprove God exists but it sure lends quite a bit of doubt. In fact, it creates enough doubt to make it more reasonable not to believe in such a deity. (Notice that this line of reasoning can be applied to all three monotheisms, not just Christianity.)
3. Being a person has more to do with the non-physical realm…than it does with chemistry and physics
“Then with this 60% of soul and spirit, shouldn’t all dogs go to heaven? “
This is hefty claim, even by theological standards. I’ll start by taking a tally of those things “about us” that are physical, aka comprised of tangible matter and energy. Our DNA, made of amino acids, which are molecules composed of atoms; our nervous system is made of nerves and energy in the form of electrical impulses which are generated by internal and external stimuli which are themselves are physical; lastly, and most importantly, our brain, composed of tissue, fluid and neurons which are themselves are physical matter. Further, these neurons “communicate” with one another via chemical and electrical signals, which are also physical. The brain receives information about the world via stimuli provided by the aforementioned nervous system and its various specific subparts (ie eyes, ears). So far, we’re looking like pretty material beings. However, Bob asserts that things like memories, personality, consciousness and ideas are non-physical and thus are proof of, at least, a realm beyond the purely material. I attempted to point out on the show that memories are stored in the brain via the chemical and electrical impulses that the neurons use to communicate with each other. Personality can be seen in what is commonly referred to the “animal kingdom” (though I don’t care too much for this distinction as it implies that we’re higher than animals when we clearly are animals). For instance, any individual of our closest evolutionary cousin the chimpanzee exhibits what we recognize as personality. To “move down” , so to speak, the “animal hierarchy” (again these terms are misleading) to our more distant relatives; dogs are said to have personalities of their own. Their owners tend to use words and emotional descriptors usually and generally reserved for humans. Some dogs also have a uncanny memory that we humans have attempted to harness via artificial selection. So if dogs have memories and personalities, shouldn’t they have, at least 2/3 of soul and spirit, as Bob claims we do because we have these properties. Then with this 60% of soul and spirit, shouldn’t all dogs go to heaven? No. They don’t because they haven’t accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior. Poor dogs. But I digress. The only property, as far as science can tell thusfar, that we have attained that is different from the rest of the animals that cohabit this planet, is consciousness. What is consciousness exactly? Its not easily defined, is it? Let us examine what it means, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. Consciousness is “The state or faculty of being conscious, as a condition and concomitant of all thought, feeling, and volition; ‘the recognition by the thinking subject of its own acts or affections’” and “The state of being conscious, regarded as the normal condition of healthy waking life”. What is conscious, you might ask? It is “having internal perception or consciousness: a. of a fact. b. of one’s sensations, feelings, thoughts, etc.” However, as far as science can tell us to this point, this is also a manifestation of the matter and energy of the brain; similar to memories and personality, described earlier. This leads to an interesting thought concerning the story of Adam in the bible. In the traditional bible story, Adam and Eve are walking around naked without a care in the world. That is until, according to the story Eve eats the apple and all the sudden they become “aware” of themselves. So one could in a sense posit that Adam and Eve weren’t conscious until this point. According to Bob consciousness is an important, if not the most important part of what he called the soul and spirit. So, Adam and Eve weren’t conscious human beings until they ate from the tree of knowledge. The last of the non-physical things Bob brings up is ideas. It is true that ideas are nebulous. However, what can be said is that not all ideas are 100% original. Ideas stem from combining, sometimes consciously and subconsciously, memories, stimuli, and logic. Thus, like the other things our brain does ideas are also is a manifestation of physical matter.
I hope this has helped clarify some of my points and my refutations of Bob’s points. This isn’t in anyway intended to be an attack on Bob Enyart, his show or anyone close to him. I don’t want this to be misconstrued as me “getting back at him” nor is it saying that I was shortchanged during the show in terms of time. This was simply an expansion of my views and thoughts on certain topics of the show I didn’t feel got enough explanation or attention.
January 11, 2009 Posted by Metro State Atheists | atheism, Bible, Center For Inquiry, Christianity, creationism, Events, First Century, god, Interview, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Jesus is Lord, Language, Metro State Atheists, Morality, New Testament, Newsletter, Old Testament, philosophy, Politics, religion, Rome, science, The Holy Bible, Uncategorized | Argument from Design, Artificial Intelligence, Bible, biblical, biblical history, Biblical Literalism, biblical truth, Bob Enyart, Christianity, Consciousness, creationism, Denver Bible Church, design, eye argument, God's Existence, God's Truth, ideas, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Jesus is Lord, Joel Guttormson, memories, scripture, Soul, Spirit, The Holy Bible, the new testement, the old testement | 3 Comments
“To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, God, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no God, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But a heresy it certainly is. Jesus told us indeed that ‘God is a spirit,’ but he has not defined what a spirit is, nor said that it is not matter. And the ancient fathers generally, if not universally, held it to be matter: light and thin indeed, an etherial gas; but still matter.” August 15, 1820 in a letter to John Adams
October 17, 2008 Posted by Metro State Atheists | Bible, Christianity, god, Poll, Qoutes, religion | Angels, atheism, Christian, Christian Nation, Church, Divine, Etherial Gas, god, God Is A Spirit, Heresy, Human Soul, Immaterial, Immaterial Existences, Jesus, John Adams, Light, Locke, Material Soul, Material Spirit, Materialism, Matter, Matter And Light, philosophy, Quote, Reason, religion, Soul, Spirit, Supernatural, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Quote, Tracy | 1 Comment
Metro State Atheists is an affiliate of The Center for Inquiry (CFI), Secular Student Alliance and American Atheists; Which are not-for-profit organizations uniting freethinking, skeptic, secularist, atheist/agnostic, and humanist students and student organizations.
Our purposes are:
- To encourage freedom from superstition, irrationalism, and dogma;
- To further the acceptance and application of science, reason, and critical thinking in all areas of human endeavor;
- Advancing the public understanding and appreciation of science;
- To challenge misrepresentations of non-religious convictions and lifestyles;
- To create a campus community for freethinkers and skeptics.;
- To counter all forms of religious political extremism;
- To defend religious freedom, promote freedom of thought and inquiry concerning religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals, and practices, and, to advocate, labor for, and promote in all lawful ways the complete and absolute separation of state and church;
- To defend individual freedoms and civil liberties for all persons, regardless of race, sex, gender, class, creed, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and disability and Fighting racism, sexism, ethnocentrism, and heterosexism;
- To unite freethinkers, skeptics, and humanists and consolidate campus resources to engage in such social, educational, legal, and cultural activity as will be useful and beneficial to the members of Metro State Atheists and to society as a whole;
- Exposing pseudoscience;
- Investigating claims of the paranormal;
- Safeguarding the freedom of expression and opposing censorship;
- Defending academic freedom;
- Challenging academic fads and orthodoxy;
- Debating the philosophy of science, skepticism, and theism;
- Exploring secular and humanist ethics;
- To collect and disseminate information, data, and literature on all religions and promote a more thorough understanding of them, their origins, and their histories;
- To encourage the development and public acceptance of a humane ethical system stressing the mutual sympathy, understanding, and interdependence of all people and the corresponding responsibility of each individual in relation to society;
- To develop and propagate a social philosophy in which humankind is central and must itself be the source of strength, progress, and ideals for the well-being and happiness of humanity;
We are also a member of College Atheists of Colorado.
- громкие мелодии для телефона скачать energystas.com/gromkie-melodi… 5 months ago
- скачать темы на nokia 7230 energystas.com/skachat-temy-n… 5 months ago
- игры на русском android energystas.com/8473.html 5 months ago
- root android 3.2 1 energystas.com/p-16451.html 5 months ago
- карты для андроид гугл energystas.com/7584.html 5 months ago
Metro State Atheists Calendar
July 2014 M T W T F S S « Sep 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
- AN ATHEIST’S GUIDE TO BECOMING RELIGIOUS
- The Historical Unreliability of Jesus: A Review of Robert VanVoorst's Jesus Outside The New Testament
- Are religious people schizophrenic?
- Thecla: Oracle, Prophet, Feminist Figure- Thecla and radical feminism in early Christianity
- 2012: Apocalypse Not
- One Nation Under a Spell: Christianity in America and Religion Around the World
- Epicurus: The Problem of Evil
- High Performance Liquid Chromatography and Gas Chromatography Coupling With Mass Spectrometry