Skip to content

Monthly Archives for April 2007

Global warming is even worse than Gore says!

It’s apparently even spreading to Mars: Climate Change Hits Mars

Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.

I’m thinking this just has to be our fault – as far as I know, Mars doesn’t even have fossil fuels of its own. So if burning fossil fuels is the cause of global warming, and if there are no fossil fuels on Mars (or living creatures to burn them), then logically it follows that our use of fossil fuels must also be responsible for Mars warming.

Of course, some people have another idea:

The mechanism at work on Mars appears, however, to be different from that on Earth. One of the researchers, Lori Fenton, believes variations in radiation and temperature across the surface of the Red Planet are generating strong winds.

In a paper published in the journal Nature, she suggests that such winds can stir up giant dust storms, trapping heat and raising the planet’s temperature.

So let me get this straight: Increases in temperature due to increased radiation (i.e. heat) are causing winds, which cause dust storms, which in turn traps heat.

Well, that’s logical too. sort of.

;-)

Written on 30 April 2007 by me under Humor and/or Sarcasm with 1 Comment

Proof of Darwinism

In keeping with the spirit of yesterday’s post, I am pleased to offer this brilliant alternative viewpoint (I really could care less about being “fair and balanced” but am all in favor of humor) from Totally Baked:

Cartoon Darwinist

Written on 24 April 2007 by me under Humor and/or Sarcasm with 1 Comment

Proof that God exists

It was right here all the time – or, at least since the 70s: proof that God exists! I’ve spent a lot of time recently reading people’s arguments for and against the existence of God, and I’ve not been that impressed by many of them. I’m surprised that none of them have stumbled on this argument before, it’s so obvious.

Today I was listening to a non-random, eclectic mix of music, which just happened to include Argent’s God Gave Rock and Roll to You. Some of you will remember Rod Argent as the keyboardist from The Zombies (“She’s Not There,” “Time of the Season,” etc.). Argent had one big hit with “Hold Your Head Up,” and 3 Dog Night had a minor hit with a cover of “Liar” (which was done better by Argent). “God Gave …,” written by Argent member Russ Ballard, was covered by people like Petra and later by Kiss.

Anyway, as I was listening to the song, it occurred to me: rock music proves the existence of God! Just consider some of the original lyrics:

Love your friend and love your neighbour
Love your life and love your labour
No, it’s never too late to change your mind
Don’t step on snails, don’t climb in trees
Love Cliff Richard but please don’t tease
It’s never too late to change your mind

God gave rock ‘n’ roll to you, gave rock ‘n’ roll to you
Put it in the soul of ev’ryone
God gave rock ‘n’ roll to you, gave rock ‘n’ roll to you
Save rock ‘n’ roll for ev’ryone

Of course, there will be those who will claim that the rock & roll in our souls evolved from some African tribal chants or something, but seriously, what more proof do you need? We were obviously designed for rock music. And to think that fundamentalists condemned rock & roll as demonic!

So, c’mon, feel the beat and join in: God gave rock ‘n’ roll to you …

Rock on!

Written on 23 April 2007 by me under Humor and/or Sarcasm with 2 Comments

The evolution of morality

Mid-afternoon yesterday two well-dressed men knocked on my door; my suspicion that they were Jehovah’s Witnesses was quickly strengthened when one of them asked my thoughts on the decline of our society’s morality (and confirmed when they handed me a couple issues of The Watchtower). This is an interesting question – not something most people ask when they knock at your door. They were a bit shocked when I told them I didn’t think there was a decline in morality; anyone who knows anything about history can see that sin is prevalent throughout the ages.

The timing of this question, however, was interesting, just a few days after the Virginia Tech shootings. Understandably, this raises the issue of morality and what is happening in our society; a certain amount of self-examination is probably required. Now, I’m not going to address the incident itself, but rather, something which I find much more concerning: the new materialism’s views on morality.

In the April 19 edition of the New York Times, Op-ed Columnist David Brooks wrote a column entitled The Morality Line, in which he stated:

In short, the killings at Virginia Tech happen at a moment when we are renegotiating what you might call the Morality Line, the spot where background forces stop and individual choice — and individual responsibility — begins. The killings happen at a moment when the people who explain behavior by talking about biology, chemistry and social science are assertive and on the march, while the people who explain behavior by talking about individual character are confused and losing ground. And it’s true. We’re never going back. We’re not going to put our knowledge of brain chemistry or evolutionary psychology back in the bottle. It would be madness to think Cho Seung-Hui could have been saved from his demons with better sermons.

Brooks refers to Evolutionary Psychology, which is a pseudo-science – a theoretical approach to psychology attempting to use hypotheses such as natural selection to explain our mental processes as adaptations. It’s more debated than even evolutionary biology, but it’s all the rage in some circles, including those sometimes known as the New Atheists. Morality is not, then, based on any universal, absolute morality (which could suggest the existence of a deity), but has evolved in order to best serve humanity.

Richard Dawkins, one of the more notable New Atheists, wrote an essay a couple of years ago for Edge.org’s The World Question Center in answer to the question What is your dangerous idea? A quote:

Retribution as a moral principle is incompatible with a scientific view of human behaviour. As scientists, we believe that human brains, though they may not work in the same way as man-made computers, are as surely governed by the laws of physics. When a computer malfunctions, we do not punish it. We track down the problem and fix it, usually by replacing a damaged component, either in hardware or software.

But doesn’t a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused’s physiology, heredity and environment. …

Why is it that we humans find it almost impossible to accept such conclusions? Why do we vent such visceral hatred on child murderers, or on thuggish vandals, when we should simply regard them as faulty units that need fixing or replacing? Presumably because mental constructs like blame and responsibility, indeed evil and good, are built into our brains by millennia of Darwinian evolution. Assigning blame and responsibility is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live.

At times Dawkins sounds like a character straight out of A Brave New World, or perhaps The Matrix. If we – body, mind and [what we perceive as] soul – are simply the product of the random, materialistic process of evolution, then what do we say about morality? Sam Harris tries to argue that materialism can provide a moral foundation, but the logic breaks down. If I read Dawkins right, there is no morality, only biological, mechanical function.

A dangerous idea indeed…

Written on 21 April 2007 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt, Random Thoughts with 6 Comments

Return to Fahrenheit 451

A rather humorous (if it wasn’t so scary) story is being played out at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. It seems that the Discovery Institute, a group which promotes Intelligent Design, was scheduled to present a conference entitled “Darwin vs Design.” The event was co-sponsored by the University’s Christian Legal Society. However, some of the Darwinist professors wrote to the school’s administration, asking that the event be shut down. (In case you missed it, this is Southern Methodist University.)

As you would hope to expect, people charged the opposing faculty with attempted censorship. Opinion articles and letters have since been traded in the school’s newspaper, including two articles by some of the opposition faculty. Anthropology professor Ronald Wetherington first wrote a piece entitled Freedom of Speech vs. License in which he claims essentially that censorship is okay, as long as you can characterize the material as “license” rather than “free speech.” In other words, if you believe the point of view is wrong, you can censor it (although then it’s technically not censorship).

Subsequently, biology prof John Wise wrote an opinion piece that simply collapses the whole notion of free speech. Wise states, “It turns out that even scientists have a First Amendment guarantee to the right to express themselves, and not surprisingly, some of us even exercise this right.” See? It is okay to call for censorship of someone else’s opinion, because it’s just exercising your own freedom of speech…

For years, Christians have been accused (and often rightly so) of supporting the censorship of opposing viewpoints. History will show that often it is that opposing viewpoint that shatters the consensus notion of truth. The need to control the opposition is based in insecurity; otherwise, why bother? If the truth is so obvious, why get your boxers in a bunch?

It would seem that the tables have, or are being, turned. Why are Darwinists so seemingly afraid of Michael Behe and the other IDists? And, why resort to politics (censorship) as an escape, rather than simply restating truth?

Did I point out that this is happening at Southern Methodist University?

(thanks to Lawrence Selden for reporting this and providing the links to the SMU articles.)

Written on 13 April 2007 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt, The Freedom of Speech Awards with 1 Comment

And now for something really, really important

I’ve been talking about Darwinism, faith, atheists and theology for a long time now, so it’s time to get down to something really important: movies. Or, to use a more intellectually acceptable term, film.

I have two new favorite movies, that I could – in my current mood, anyway – watch over and over again. While they are not necessarily on opposite ends of the spectrum, they are at least on different colors of the spectrum. Okay, so that analogy didn’t work that well. I will say this: I’m guessing that one thing they share in common is that the critics (you know, the guys who only like the depressing movies they show at Cannes….) probably hated them. (That’s how I usually know I’ll like a movie. oh, excuse me- film.)

The first movie is M. Night Shyamalan’s Lady in the Water, listed by Variety Magazine as one of the 10 biggest bombs of 2006. Regardless, the movie is absolutely fantastic; it is, in my not-so-humble opinion, one of Night’s best films. And, it’s not just me – our whole family loved it, including our younger son, our own critic-in-residence. The plot is very tight, and the more you watch it, like with all of Night’s movies, you find more little things that connect. And, it’s a good plot; I was a doubter when I heard the premise of the movie (it’s based on a bedtime story he made up for his kids), but he makes the bedtime story a plot within a plot, and even provides some commentary on the larger plot from within the movie itself. It is, however, the characters that really make this story. This is one of the best collections of quirky characters I can recall. They are well-developed, wonderfully cast, and – as you’d expect – all essential to the plot. It’s funny, it’s entertaining, it’s captivating, and it reiterates Shyamalan’s basic theme about purpose.

The other movie – that I may go watch in a minute – is Nacho Libre, starring none other than Jack Black. Now, I haven’t been a JB fan – School of Rock was mildly amusing, but it’s not something I can watch over and over (although my older son does…). Nacho Libre is another movie by the Hess brothers, who brought us Napoleon Dynamite. Nacho is, in some respects, Napoleon Dynamite with Spanish accents; it has the same slow, deliberate feel, with many similar characters. Being in a Hess movie is good for Jack Black; I saw how good an actor Black can actually be. And, in spite of what you might think about Jack Black playing a monk, the movie is quite reverent. As with Lady, the characters are wonderful, especially that of Steven, the near-homeless thief who become’s Nacho’s best friend, and who is an atheist (“I don’t believe in God; I believe in science“). It’s another movie that the whole family can enjoy (and, coincidentally, it’s also about purpose).

So there you go – two no-miss family movies for your viewing enjoyment. Oops, I meant films.

Written on 12 April 2007 by me under Random Thoughts, Reviews with 2 Comments

Can a Fundamentalist be a good paleontologist?

I came across an interesting NY Times article from a link on Uncommon Descent, one of the more infamous ID blogs, about paleontologist Marcus Ross, currently a professor at Liberty University. Ross received his Ph.D. from the U of Rhode Island, hardly a “young Earth” type of school. As the article explains, his doctoral dissertation was on the disappearance of some species of marine reptiles 65 million years ago, even though he personally holds to a “young Earth” position. No matter which side of the issue you are on this does seem a bit oxymoronic.

Now, let me say up front that I have my own prejudices, and have a hard time taking seriously anyone who would be associated with Liberty U, the school founded by Jerry Falwell. It’s true – I hear “Liberty U” and I immediately think, “wacko fundamentalist.” I can’t help it; Falwell has done such a great job of developing that reputation over the years.

However, it seems that this is all the better for exploring the question about whether someone with extremely conservative theological views can be an impartial scientist. Based on the Times article, it would seem that this might be the case. Dr. Ross, so far, seems to be able to deal with the data, even if it doesn’t seem to mesh with his presuppositions.

Now, if we can get a few of these folks together with a few neo-Darwinists who are also able to set aside their materialist presuppositions, perhaps some of the wrinkles could be ironed out of the evolution v ID debate.

Anyway, the NYT piece is interesting, and at least worth a read.

Written on 09 April 2007 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt with No Comments

The Absurdity of Easter

Today is Easter, at least the date we celebrate it in our tradition. For Christians, although many don’t really get it, Easter is where the rubber meets the road, so to speak. The Apostle Paul writes in 1 Cor. 15:14-19:

And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. … And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

There you have it in a nutshell; all of the claims of Christianity, the good moral teaching, etc., etc., are all fluff, if in fact Jesus was not raised from the dead on the day we now call Easter. The origins of the name and so on are another story that is quite irrelevant; the issue is whether the event happened, not how it came to be named or calendared.

All of the radical, “fundamentalist” atheists who are trying to disprove Christianity only have to focus on this one thing, according to Paul’s own testimony, which we accept as part of the Word of God. That’s it; this is the line in the sand.

Why would anyone stake an entire religion on this one, absurd claim? It really is, of course, absurd from a “common sense” standpoint. Seriously – the thought that God Himself became incarnate, died and then rose again is absurd. Camus has nothing on God when it comes to absurdist theater. Here, I guess, I’m sounding rather Kierkegaardian, but I think he had a glimpse of something: when compared to man’s ability to reason, God can be quite absurd. Now, I know many theologians who will take issue with that, and I think alot of it has to do with semantics. But, here it is from God’s own word, as spoken through Paul:

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength. – 1 Cor. 1:18-25

Now, this does not mean that the Christian faith is irrational; far from it. The historical basis for the resurrection is quite strong, as strong as many things that we accept. In fact, we accept many historical accounts that do not stand up near as well as this story. Yet, to rest an entire belief system on something so seemingly unbelievable – we have to ask ourselves, “why?”

And of course, this is “it” for the Christian: this is essentially all we have to do, to believe in this event, in order to “be saved,” go to heaven, be “right with God” or whatever other terminology you wish to use. Certainly a religion could do better; perhaps add in a few rules or things to achieve – and many religions indeed have. So again, why this simple resurrection story?

The very simple answer – which understandably frustrates people – is that this absurd tale is simply true. The “faith” part of the equation, as I mentioned earlier, is not that we have to make a faith-leap to believe the story. What takes real faith is to believe that this death and resurrection is simply enough for us to be forgiven.

In the words of the ancient liturgy, “Christ is risen! Christ is risen, indeed!”

Written on 08 April 2007 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt, Spiritual stuff with 2 Comments

The Illogic of Sam Harris

I have earlier linked to a recent article by Sam Harris entitled God’s dupes which is subtitled, “Moderate believers give cover to religious fanatics — and are every bit as delusional.” Some atheists seem to be distancing themselves from Harris, and this article is probably a good example of why this is so. While Harris has plenty of attitude, he doesn’t seem to have a good grasp on logic.

Harris states, “The truth is, there is not a person on Earth who has a good reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead…” Now, on its face this is a ridiculous statement, which has to be based solely on Harris’ presuppositional belief that there is no god, and therefore no one can possibly have good enough reason to believe in one. If he would just say this, then we could all just accept this as his opinion. I can disagree with him based on my own presupposition that God exists, and therefore everyone has a reason or reasons to believe. However, it appears as though his appeal here is to reason and logic, so it needs to be evaluated on that level.

The mystery person known as Mike Gene over at Telic Thoughts has a bit of fun with this, pointing out the obvious problems with making such an outrageous claim. Follow the last link and read it for yourself.

The big issue here is, as MG points out, is that Harris has apparently established his own subjective standard for what is a “good reason.” He is no doubt aware of the plethora of books and articles written on the reasons for faith – some more subjective (such as Francis Collins’ The Language of God), and others more objective from people like Josh McDowall and Lee Stobel. You or I might not buy all of their arguments, however many of them would qualify as “good reasons.”

For example, in spite of the many liberal theologians and others (I almost said “crackpots” but I’m trying not us resort to using pejorative language to show how fair and balanced I can be) who try to pass off the Gospels as little more than myth, there are a number of very good reasons to believe they are accurate, contemporary accounts of the ministry of Jesus. Richard Bauckham has written a recently published book, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, that provides “good reasons” to believe that these were actually eyewitness accounts. For an interesting review and summary of the book, you can read A. E. Harvey’s review at Times Online. (So much to read, so little time…) As I said in my Easter post, the historical basis for the resurrection is quite strong.

So, back to Harris. The thesis for this article is that religious moderates are just as bad as religious extremists, because they support the basic theme that extremists distort and abuse. A quote:

Christian moderates, by their lingering attachment to the unique divinity of Jesus, protect the faith of fundamentalists from public scorn. Christian liberals — who aren’t sure what they believe but just love the experience of going to church occasionally — deny the moderates a proper collision with scientific rationality. And in this way centuries have come and gone without an honest word being spoken about God in our society.

What’s wrong with this picture? Or, what’s right with this picture? Can anybody not see the flaws in this thinking? Why, then, can’t Harris? He might just as blame everyone who flies the major airlines for the 9-11 attacks.

Harris drifts a bit in his article, moving onto another illogical argument, that because atheists can change their lives for the better, too, the changed life of a Christian is not evidence of God’s existence. Now, a changed life may not be objective proof – given that there can be other factors – does not mean it is not evidence of God. Just because deer tracks can be faked does not mean that most deer tracks are evidence of a deer.

Harris also states, “there are better reasons to help the poor, feed the hungry and defend the weak than the belief that an Imaginary Friend wants you to do it. Compassion is deeper than religion. … It is time that we acknowledge that human beings can be profoundly ethical — and even spiritual — without pretending to know things they do not know.” Here again, Harris relies on his presuppositions about what everyone else (in his opinion) cannot know. Just because he doesn’t know my middle name doesn’t mean that other people don’t know it. There is no way to prove what all other people do not know – it is at best a presumption based upon a presupposition as to what cannot be known.

Unless of course Sam Harris is omniscient and therefore a god … but then, he couldn’t be an atheist.

Written on 07 April 2007 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt with 2 Comments

The Great Debate: the existence of God

As is typical, the secular media has one again turned to issues of religion during Passover & Easter season. CNN’s Anderson Cooper report did a couple of segments on “What is a Christian?” and various cable channels have done some kind of nod to religion. It’s only fitting, as a recent Newsweek poll found that 91% of people surveyed said they believe in a god. So, there’s definitely a market for stories on religion.

Newsweek, which has regular articles concerning issues of faith, has done an interview-style debate (it’s not a debate so much as a discussion) between the Purpose-Driven author Rick Warren, and atheist author Sam Harris. It’s actually very good, and is well worth reading.

Now, I’m not a big Rick Warren fan; I once considered writing a series of posts pointing out the theological problems in The Purpose Driven Life, but decided that I didn’t have the energy. I’m definitely not a fan of Sam Harris, whose writing often goes way off the deep end, combining bad logic with outlandish, unreasoned statements. However, this little conversation was interesting: Warren represented Christianity rather well and succeeded in not succumbing to what has been the typical irrational, fundamentalist rants that so often make the headlines.

Harris, on the other hand, was controlled and soft-spoken; even the moderator mentioned the difference between Harris’ written and in-person personas. When Warren commented that he thought Harris’ books were angry, Harris responded, “I would put it at impatient rather than angry.” Later, he commented, “To some degree the stridence of my writing is an effort to get people’s attention.” It seems to me that Harris may be one of those people – and I’ve known several over the years – who come off as tigers behind a keyboard, but shrink to pussycats when they are forced to communicate face to face. This is obviously conjecture on my part, but when comparing the 2 personas it certainly seems the case. Sam Harris the writer often seems downright obnoxious. However, I happened to like the Sam Harris in the interview.

I still think that Harris has problems with his logic, and the fact that he seems more anti-god than pro-anything is part of the problem; his responses are largely based on his perceptions of what others believe, which based on his anti-faith worldview he cannot understand. So, even well-intentioned, he will wind up arguing against “straw-gods.”

But, read it for yourself.

I also noted that Rabbi Gellman has some rather zen-like thoughts about the debate, which if nothing else, are entertaining. He seems to ignore or just dismiss the exclusivist positions of both Harris and Warren. I think he is partially right, however, in that often the God Debate centers on facts rather than truth. Only in recent years has truth been relegated to mere facts, and the result is that no one sees the forest for the trees.

God – and therefore, truth – is perhaps not just the Great Debate, but is rather The Debate. I have faith, however, that God Himself is not debating anything at all.

Written on 07 April 2007 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt with No Comments