Skip to content

Monthly Archives for June 2007

Behe right, Miller wrong?

Today at Uncommon Descent: “Junk” DNA may not be junk at all. From a June 13 article posted on Science Daily, the the ENCyclopedia Of DNA Elements (ENCODE) consortium (which, by the way, appear to be real scientists, not those ID people) has just published a group paper and 14 companion papers indicating a need to rethink what we presume about DNA. The Science Daily article states, “The new data indicate the genome contains very little unused sequences and, in fact, is a complex, interwoven network. In this network, genes are just one of many types of DNA sequences that have a functional impact.”

As the Uncommon Descent post points out, in 1994 Ken Miller wrote, “the designer made serious errors, wasting millions of bases of DNA on a blueprint full of junk and scribbles. Evolution, in contrast, can easily explain them as nothing more than failed experiments in a random process…” I’ve seen this “junk DNA” argument tossed around again and again by those wanting to simply dismiss people like Michael Behe.

Behe, on the other hand, proposed in Darwin’s Black Box that what was called “junk” DNA might not be junk after all, once we know more. Apparently Behe was correct.

Written on 14 June 2007 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt with 4 Comments

Review: Letter to a Christian Nation

I just read Sam Harris’ Letter to a Christian Nation. I thought I should, as it was more or less addressed to me. Not that this in itself means anything, as I either shred or ignore much mail sent my way. However, the idea that anyone would spend $16.95 to read a letter addressed to them made me quite curious, to see if it was worth it. So, rather than buying a copy of my own, I snagged it from our local library.

First of all, I want to say that I do have a certain amount of compassion for Mr. Harris; after he wrote his book, The End of Faith (which is still on my reading list), he apparently got deluged in hate mail from people calling themselves Christians. I say “calling themselves Christians,” based on 1 John 4:8: “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.” If I were Sam Harris in this situation, I would tend to think that these hate letters confirmed my conclusions, and this would justify my charging $16.95 for this very short, little book which could be read in 30 minutes. And, whether he makes any sense or not, I’m guessing he made a fair amount of cash for what appears to be a weekend’s work, which should help him to feel better. (I’m a bit jealous, actually; perhaps I should write a similar “letter to a Christian nation” from a Christian’s point of view… hmm… I started out joking, but I’m starting to think it’s a great idea….).

So, Harris’ first point is made, and it’s valid. Many Christians are jerks who don’t act like they’ve ever read – or at least believed – the Bible. The New Testament is clear what a Christian should look like, or at least try to look like. It’s a shame, but it’s true: some of the worst advertisements for Christianity are people who say they’re Christians but don’t have a clue what that actually means.

However, the rest of Harris’ book is, for the most part, pure nonsense. As it’s a letter, he’s under no obligation to be accurate, logical or coherent. (Again, this would be the perfect book for me to copy…) He uses as many logical fallacies as I’ve ever seen in 90-some tiny pages, and it would be a great exercise to go through the book and analyze it from this perspective. Perhaps the most glaring example of faulty logic is to use various specific groups to make general attacks (which he does admit to, to some extent). He shotguns Christians, sometimes referring to fundamentalists, sometimes to Catholics, and so on. This lets him bounce around, blasting away, without ever actually making an accurate shot. For fellow atheists and other non-believers, its all good fun, as they say. However, it means Christians will be generally dismissive of what he has to say.

There are a number of things he alleges, such as conservatives wanting to “preserve cervical cancer as an incentive toward abstinence” that is simply ludicrous; someone might have made such a stupid statement, but this is not typical Christianity. He really should have taken the time to mention names, if he’s going to toss out bizarre examples like this.

A few other statements I noted:

  • “Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world.” Now I don’t know what he means to prove here, but atheism certainly is a worldview, and it definitely has an influence on how you’d live your life.
  • He alleges that “we know on the basis of textual evidence” that the New Testament writers wrote in such a way to fulfill prophecies of the Old Testament. He can believe this fairy tale if he wants, but it’s simply not the case.
  • He states that if the Bible actually had prophecy, it would predict something like the internet. This shows how clueless he is about the Bible; even clear-thinking atheists could see past this.
  • He also makes the case that science “represents our best efforts to know what is true about the world.” and says “The core of science … is intellectual honesty.” From what I’ve seen of the more vocal anti-God scientists, I would have to conclude that I haven’t seen much in the way of real science from them…

His letter is full of ranting and hand-waving with very little in the way of logic or reason. He also manages to really offend Muslims, which probably got his name added to a list that also includes George Bush and Salman Rushdie. Of course, I have to say that I would agree with some of his statements there.

He does start his conclusion rather well: “One of the greatest challenges facing civilization … is for human beings to learn to speak about their deepest personal concerns – about ethics, spiritual experience, and the inevitability of human suffering – in ways that are not flagrantly irrational.” However, he then proceeds to talk about his desire to see religion eradicated from the world. It would seem that Sam Harris has a lot to learn about how to actually communicating with people he disagrees with.

Now, perhaps it’s time to start writing my own letter …

Written on 11 June 2007 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt, Reviews with 4 Comments

Food for thought: Evolution and the long-necked giraffe

From page 48 of The Evolution of the Long-Necked Giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis L.) – What do we really know? (Part 2) by biologist and genetic mutations expert Wolf-Ekkehard Loennig of the Max Planck Institute for Breeding Research:

In the first part of the paper we have come to the conclusion that the assertions on the evolution of the long-necked giraffes by Ulrich Kutschera, Richard Dawkins and Kathleen Hunt do not have a scientific basis. This is also true for macroevolutionary propositions of Mitchell and Skinner and others, which have been discussed in the second part. Although an absolute negative proof is nearly or completely infeasible, nevertheless the scientific data that are available to date on the question of the origin of the giraffe make a gradual development by mutation and selection so extremely improbable that in any other area of life such improbability would force us to look for a feasible alternative.

Yet biologists committed to a materialistic world view will simply not consider an alternative. For them, even the most stringent objections against the synthetic evolutionary theory are nothing but open problems that will be solved entirely within the boundaries of their theory. This is still true even when the trend is clearly running against them, that is, when the problems for the theory become greater and greater with new scientific data. This essential unfalsifiablity, by the way, places today’s evolutionary theory outside of science, one of whose defining characteristics is that theories can only be considered to be scientific if they are falsifiable, and when they set forth criteria by which they can potentially be falsified.

Just food for thought.

Written on 10 June 2007 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt with 2 Comments

What if God was one of us?

If God had a face what would it look like
And would you want to see
If seeing meant that you would have to believe
In things like Heaven and in Jesus and the saints and all the prophets

And yeah yeah God is great yeah yeah God is good
yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah

What if God was one of us
Just a slob like one of us
Just a stranger on the bus
Trying to make his way home

- One Of Us, Eric Bazilian

(Note on the above song credit: the song was a hit for Joan Osbourn, but written by Eric Brazilan of the Philadelphia-based band, The Hooters. A “hooter,” by the way, is another name for a melodica, an instrument that the band featured.)

So, who is this God of the Bible? Is he the scary, wrathful “dangling sinners over the pit of Hell” kind of God that Jonathan Edwards ranted about, or is he “a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness” (Jonah 4:2)?

There’s a basic rule of interpretation that will really help us here, and that is to start with what is the most clear, and interpret that which is less clear in light of what we know. Keeping in mind that both Testaments speak of the unchanging nature of God, we know that we should see the same God throughout the Bible – but where to start?

I believe that the book of Hebrews holds the key:

In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. Hebrews 1:1-3a

If Jesus, then, is the highest revelation of God, this should be our starting point. And, we see that Jesus himself made a similar claim:

If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him. … Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. John 14:7,9

Now, most people like Jesus. As gods go, he is hands down the best. Antony Flew, the famous ex-atheist, but who is still not a Theist, said in an interview, “Well, one thing I’ll say … is that, for goodness sake, Jesus is an enormously attractive charismatic figure.”

The people who didn’t like Jesus, of course, were the religious power-mongers of his day. He tended to snub those who we would call self-righteous, and chose to hang out with the sinners. Far from dangling people over hell, he healed people without requiring repentance (though he certainly advised in favor of repentance), forgave sins without being asked, and on the cross even asked the Father to forgive those participating in his crucifixion, “for they know not what they do.”

He also chastised the Jews for keeping the knowledge of God to themselves and for holding religion over people’s heads. He chastised the rich and the self-righteous. If you look through the Gospels at those whom Jesus criticized and those whom he accepted, I think you’d come up with a rather interesting par of lists with the headings “sheep” and “goats.”

So far, he appears to be the original Working Class Hero. But, here’s where people begin to have issues: he claimed to be “the truth” and “the only way.” He made it clear that you accepted Jesus’ Good News – or you missed the boat. At this point, you can hear a Jarjar-like exclamation, “how rude!” So, Jesus turns out to be this extremely nice guy with the only “words of life,” which at times can be rather harsh. As it turns out, Jesus offended everybody, as the Gospel tends to do. Jesus’ moral teachings are welcome on one hand and offensive on the other. Jesus, after all, claimed to be God. As CS Lewis argued, you cannot just accept Jesus as a heckuva nice guy; he either was God as he claimed, or he was a flake. You either, then, have to accept Jesus at his own word, or come up with some hair-brained theory to explain how his words were altered by wacko followers.

In spite of ridiculous arguments that Jesus never existed (as was made by one of the atheists in the recent debate against Ray Comfort), the evidence for Jesus is sufficient for any reasonable person not to doubt it. And, as far as that goes, the evidence for the physical resurrection of Jesus is also quite sound. Quoting Antony Flew again from his interview with Dr. Gary Habermas, “The evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity, I think, from the evidence offered for the occurrence of most other supposedly miraculous events.”

Considering the best scholarship on Jesus and the Bible, we have to conclude that the four accepted Gospels are authentic and aside from a few questionable passages (which by the way, are noted as such in most versions of the Bible), we can accept them as historically reliable; it really makes no sense to doubt them. So, again we are faced with dealing with the person of Jesus of Nazareth, who claimed to be God.

But what about God in the rest of the Bible? Certainly we have to address the total picture of God as revealed throughout history – for that is essentially what the Bible is about. However, until we get past Jesus, there’s no point in dealing with anything else. Again, Jesus is the highest revelation of the Biblical God that we have, and we must start here, and then interpret the rest according to what Jesus has revealed.

This is not a cop-out by any means, meant to avoid dealing with the Old Testament. It is, rather, a challenge to deal with Jesus.

Written on 09 June 2007 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt, Theological Musings with 4 Comments

Tell me all your thoughts on God

Tell me all your thoughts on God
Tell me, am I very far?
- Counting Blue Cars, Dishwalla

When talking about issues of religion, faith and questions of God, it is of utmost importance to consider our view of God. This seems patently obvious, but I doubt that most people, even Christians, really have a good, solid grasp of what they believe about God, or how they even arrive at their concepts of God. Many people have vague, mythological, and outright bizarre notions of who God is, that are not only inconsistent with the Bible, but may be inconsistent with their own beliefs. For example, it has been a focus (too much, in my opinion) of some counseling methods that our view of God is directly related to our relationship with our fathers. Then, many people are influenced by their theological upbringing, especially those raised Catholic or Fundamentalist/Holiness traditions.

For many people, there is a major confusion about God as they see a contradiction between the God of the Old Testament (the mean, vindictive, warrior God) and the New (the nice, loving, “meek & mild” God). Or, they see Jesus and the Father as “good God, bad God.” However, both the Old and New Testaments are clear that God does not change. Malachi 3:6 says, “I the LORD do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.” James affirms “Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.” It’s odd to me that as the issue of God is so terribly important (to both believers and serious atheists), people don’t take the time to at least try to figure out who God really is. Of course, I suspect that many people actually like the confusion, as it allows them to believe whatever they want. “Virtual reality” is not something limited to computers – people have been creating their own virtual realities for thousands of years.

So, how are we to figure out who God is? And perhaps more importantly, can we figure out who God is?

I am currently reading Victor Stenger’s God: The Failed Hypothesis, which, by the way, is really trying my patience; it is one of the most ridiculous books I’ve tried reading in some time. My point in mentioning this, however, is that as he begins he presents various philosophical arguments for the non-existence of God, that he seems to accept without question. Most of these arguments are good examples of “straw God” arguments – they present a God that no one claims to believe in, and disproves their existence. It’s all fairly foolish, and I’ll talk about them at some point. Of all of the arguments against the existence of God, I haven’t heard one which actually deals with the God of Christian Orthodoxy.

Now, there are differing viewpoints within Christian Orthodoxy about God, which is to be expected. My son, Isaiah, believes that this is one of the more convincing things about Christianity. If someone wanted to make up a religion, they’d make it a whole lot tighter than Christianity is (this, by the way, tends to explain fundamentalism). Like science, theology is a journey toward knowledge. However, that’s not to say that there aren’t things we can know, and proper methods to use.

Stay tuned for more…

Written on 08 June 2007 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt, Theological Musings with No Comments

Offensive Grace

I have been very surprised that what is turning out to be a common “hot button” with atheists with regard to Christianity is the concept of grace. Actually, more than surprised – I am just shocked. I never would have thought that anyone (besides those legalistic types we refer to as Pharisees) would be so angered by the thought that someone else thinks they’re getting forgiven for free. One example comes from The Great Blasphemy Challenge Debate, where one of the atheists – I think it was Brian – went off on the subject. If you find it online somewhere, it’s worth watching, just to hear the emotion when the subject is discussed.

Grace is obviously offensive. Should I be shocked? As I mentioned, I’ve known legalists – those who insist that there’s some kind of point system, or that you get saved for free, but to stay saved you’ve got to work for it – who are outright grace-haters. I understand this – it’s all explained in the famous story we call the Prodigal Son: the older son gets ticked that the prodigal gets welcomed back with open arms. However, to those who don’t believe there’s a point system in the first place, why should they care? If there’s no God to do any law-giving or forgiving in the first place, and then no absolute moral code to break, therefore there are no sins to be forgiven from. What, then, does it matter that Christians claim to be forgiven for sins that don’t exist? Interesting, isn’t it?

Of course, there also seems to be a complete misunderstanding of the Gospel; there’s apparently some belief among atheists that Christians believe that because they are forgiven, they are now free to sin. On one hand, of course, the atheists may understand this better than many Christians. Paul works through this in Romans chapter 5, where his argument for grace comes to the point where sin increases, grace increases all the more. There is no sin (except that gnarly old unforgivable one) too big for God not to forgive. However, if we turn the page to Romans 6, we get to where Paul asks the obvious question, “should we then sin more to get more grace? God forbid!” For you see, the Christian teaching is that sin is tantamount to slavery – it is the opposite of freedom (which, of course, we get along with grace). So, “free to sin” is an oxymoron. Now, we do have some oxymorons out there who can’t seem to figure this out, but they are actually quite rare.

Paul teaches this clearly, as does John in 1 John 2:3-6:

We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The man who says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God’s love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.

It is clear Christian teaching that yes, we are forgiven, once and for all (no indulgences or penance required). It is also clear Christian teaching that we are to “be perfect, as the Heavenly Father is perfect.” That, of course, is really what grace is all about – the power to actually live up to the forgiveness we’ve received.

So, perhaps a better presentation of the Gospel would make it less offensive… or, perhaps not. As Paul also says in 1 Cor. 18 & 19,

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.”

The Gospel does have that offensive aspect to it, especially the way Paul puts it:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. Romans 1:18-20

He goes on, before he gets to the grace part, to point out how we all have sinned, yada yada. Now maybe we’re getting somewhere… to get to grace, we have to get through the part where we actually need grace – and that means accepting who we are as sinners, and accepting who God is as not just the lawgiver, but as forgiver as well. It’s like accepting an Altoid from someone – it means admitting you’ve got barn breath.

So, grace is offensive… but given the option, I’d rather have it. Altoid, anyone?

Written on 05 June 2007 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt, Spiritual stuff with 5 Comments

The journey of Antony Flew

Antony Flew (Dawkins and Harris notwithstanding) had been probably the most well-known atheist over the last 50 or more years (he’s in his 80′s now). I say “had” because in 2004, he indicated that he had changed his mind with regard to atheism, and had come to believe that there must be some form of a god. While still not (as far as I know) being a Theist, Flew is now a Deist.

What changed his mind was science; in an interview with Dr. Gary Habermas, Flew stated, “I think that the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries. … I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it.” He became convinced, through various advancements in things like DNA research, “Big Bang” cosmology and fine-tuning arguments, that there must be an intelligent designer.

Not surprisingly, in a way that only he can, Richard Dawkins has suggested that Flew’s mental abilities are not what they used to be. I suspect this in large part is due to Flew admitting that part of what convinced him was Michael Behe’s books. (What is surprising is that Dawkins admits in the same speech that the “fine tuning” argument would not be “a wholly disreputable” reason for a belief in a supernatural deity. Go figure.) However, if you read just a small portion of any of the post-atheist interviews with Flew and compare them to Dawkins’ writings, I suspect that it would be Dawkins whose mental abilities would be suspect.

Flew states that he would rather there not be an afterlife, that he’s lived long enough already. He was not inclined, at least in 2004, to become a Theist. However, he had some other interesting things to say, including some thoughts on the question of the Resurrection of Jesus:

The evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity, I think, from the evidence offered for the occurrence of most other supposedly miraculous events.

The entire interview is well worth reading. You can also find some interview clips on YouTube (as well as the Dawkins clip I referred to earlier).

Written on 05 June 2007 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt with No Comments

My summer reading list

I went to Borders yesterday and bought Victor Stenger’s God: The Failed Hypothesis. I’ve been wanting to read it for myself, although I really hated spending money on it. As I set it on my desk, I noticed a partial stack of the other books I’ve recently acquired. It looks like I’ve got a busy summer ahead of me. Here’s at least a partial list of my good intentions:

I Sold My Soul on eBay, by Hemant Mehta. Sent to me by my friend Mike, this is the story of the author, an atheist, selling the opportunity on eBay for the highest bidder to take him to church. Jim Henderson, from Off The Map, was the highest bidder. I’ve wanted to read this, and look forward to seeing what Hemant has to say.

Looking for God Knows What, by Donald Miller. A gift from friend, this appears to be another interesting, as well as humorous, look at the American Christian experience. I took it to church one Sunday (I often bring something to read as the sermons are often devoid of content), but I had to stop due the tendency to laugh out loud.

Evil and the Justice of God, NT Wright. I love NT Wright, as anyone who knows me knows.

The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins. I have a hold on this at the local library; apparently it’s in high demand. I’ll review this as soon as I’ve read it.

The End of Faith, Sam Harris. I’ve read enough by Harris to know his basic arguments, but want to at least skim the book, and will post on this one, too.

Letter to a Christian Nation, Sam Harris. Might as well read the set.

Surprised by Joy, CS Lewis. I read this many years ago, and a friend suggested I reread it. It will probably serve as my “back-up” book, and kind of a “palate-cleanser.”

The Hidden Face of God, by Gerald Schroeder. On loan from my father-in-law, this is an interesting book that is subtitled How science reveals the ultimate truth. Schroeder is an MIT-educated Israeli (Jewish) with education & experience in both biology and physics. I’m a few pages into this, and I am really appreciating the Jewish philosophical slant of this book.

This list, of course, doesn’t include the handful of novels that I’ve accumulated. Among those I intend to read are a few classics, such as Frankenstein and Phantom of the Opera.

Now, I just need some free time.

Written on 04 June 2007 by me under Random Thoughts with 2 Comments

PZ Myers on “Playing God” & support for ID

I just had to toss this in… I just ran across Myers’ May 30 post, Playing God, in which he discusses a Newsweek article on recent efforts to create life in the laboratory. Myers says:

These fellows and others are confident (and rightfully so, I say) that they’ll soon be able to take advantage of molecular technology to build a microorganism from scratch: type a desired sequence into the computer controlling the DNA synthesizer, load up the device with some A, T, C, and G and a set of enzymes, press a button, and a little later you’ve got strands of DNA with your genes written onto them.

And, Myers concludes: “It’s physics and chemistry. Get the recipe right, and that’s all that matters.”

This certainly sounds like Intelligent Design to me, which is possibly why he titled his post Playing God. Unless, of course, he is implying that the biologists working on these projects are non-intelligent beings. ;-)

I will say that occasionally Myers at least shows signs of a good sense of humor.

Written on 04 June 2007 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt with 1 Comment

A Parable

Long ago, in a place far, far away, some great thinkers discovered a cave. This was not just any cave, this was a great cave, much better than the one Plato had found. This cave was truly magnificent – it had natural ventilation, its own natural light source, essentially everything you need (it’s a parable, okay? Work with me on this) to live. These great thinkers began to study the cave, and learned more about the cave than anyone could have imagined; they became exceptionally knowledgeable about the cave and developed wonderful theories about how the cave worked, and even how the cave came to be.

Many of these great thinkers liked the cave so much, they decided they would never leave. After a period of time, some of these cave-dwellers started to believe that the cave was its own closed system, and that the stories about the world outside were just myth and make-believe. After all, everything they needed was in the cave, and nothing that they learned from the cave told them of an outside world.

However, there were those who claimed to live in the outside world. They were considered fools by the great thinkers of the cave. None of this information was given any credence whatsoever, as it was empirically impossible to verify from within the cave. Any information that claimed to originate from or speak about the outside was classified as heresy and became an object of ridicule by the great thinkers.

Then there were those who appeared to be great thinkers, who worked and studied in the cave shoulder to shoulder with the great thinkers. However, pseudo-thinkers also claimed to have experiences in the outside world, and even claimed that this mythological outside world actually accounted for life inside of the cave! Obviously, these were the biggest fools of all; to look at the evidence of the cave, and then claim it spoke of an existence outside of the cave! The pseudo-thinkers then tried to spread their strange ides among the populace, challenging the teachings of the great thinkers whenever possible. But, the great thinkers controlled the cave education system, and began to work to silence the pseudo-thinkers and deny them tenure. If reason and logic failed, censorship was the only alternative.

But there was life outside of the cave, and lots of it. There would be periodic reports of goings-on in the cave, to which the outsiders would listen to politely, then turn to one another and yawn, “whatever.”

Now, this little parable is not to annoy or vex anyone, or to oversimplify an issue, and it certainly isn’t a perfect analogy. All I mean to do is illustrate a point with regard to a paradigm known as philosophical materialism. PM, in general terms, is a worldview that presumes that there is nothing which is not of the material world or which is not, given the proper methods and tools, observable and measurable. In this worldview, all issues of faith, revelation or non-measurable experience is inconsequential, and to some, it is outright dangerous.

My proposition is that those adopting a paradigm of philosophical materialism are in less of a position to comment on the world than those who are at least open to other forms of knowledge; science is not the only way to know things. Logic would have to say that someone who chooses only to look at a portion of information is limiting what they know. That does not mean that PMists can’t be experts in their own limited fields, just that they greatly limit their ability to see “beyond the cave.” On the other hand, those who choose only to know spiritual things are not qualified to address issues of science; but, they may prove to have chosen more wisely.

If nothing else, we can revisit Pascal’s Wager, and ask which is wiser: to choose to limit all consideration to only that which is scientifically verifiable, or to at least consider all of the potential interpretations of what is observed? The odds don’t look good for philosophical materialism.

Written on 03 June 2007 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt with 5 Comments