Pursuit of the truth requires more than imagination: it requires the generation and decisive elimination of alternative possibilities until, ideally, only one remains, and it requires a habitual readiness to attack one's own convictions.
The genetic fallacy is an informal logical fallacy that is committed when someone argues that because an idea or organization have checkered origin, this somehow discredits its current status even though elements of its origin no longer are present. A common example of the genetic fallacy occurs when "anti-evolutionists" claim that evolution must be false because Darwin was racist. The truth value of evolution has no bearing on whether or not Darwin was racist, so this line of argumentation is fallacious.
A very recent example of this fallacy is very openly displayed in by anti-choice Christians who are launching a national campaign called "Defund Klanned Parenthood." Christians are alleging that the founder of Planned Parenthood supported the KKK, therefore Planned Parenthood should not receive federal funding,
Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, states;
"We are launching 'Defund 'Klanned' Parenthood' to expose the reality that Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger, was a racist who supported the agenda of the Ku Klux Klan, spoke at their events and wanted to reduce the number of African-Americans.
"We are calling upon the members of Congress, who have given billions of public money to Planned Parenthood over the years, to defund this group whose roots are racist, bigoted and extremist.
"Our tax dollars should be given to groups that have embraced human rights, equality and justice for all. They should not be given to organizations founded by racists who embraced the agenda and philosophy of the KKK."
This post is a bit disorganized, but hopefully you can follow along. I should update this at some point.
I've recently been watching debates, reading what historians have to say, and considering historical arguments for Jesus' resurrection. Christian apologists claim that historians have agreed on a list of various facts surrounding Jesus' death, ministry, and influence that the best explanation for all of these facts is that God raised Jesus from the dead. The people presenting this sort of argument are using a form of inductive argumentation known as abduction - argument leading to the best explanation. I find this line of thinking about Jesus to be critically flawed in many areas. I need not deal with these minimal facts if I can show that the methodology is seriously flawed, but I will anyway and offer naturalistic explanations to account for these minimal facts.
Here is a sample of the "minimal facts" from Gary Habermas:
1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. He was buried.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
7. The resurrection was the central message.
8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
9. The Church was born and grew.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).
Flawed Methodology:
Objection One)
Can a miracle from a specific source ever be the best explanation?
A miracle, by definition, is a very improbable occurrence and an event that happens despite natural laws. We know, for example, that humans can not traverse oceans with water-walking abilities. We can get a large group of people and ask them to walk on water and all will almost certainly fail. We can look at what we know about human anatomy, the density of water, and other justified background assumptions to come to the conclusion that the probability of a human walking on water is very, very, very low. If we presented some information surrounding a specific person who went to the ocean, was not found, and had followers claim he/she walked on water (this is essentially what the minimal facts advocates are doing, but I'll go more in detail later), a miracle would not be the best explanation because water-walking is tremendously unlikely. We might offer some other naturalistic explanations/alternative hypotheses to better explain the information we have. A naturalistic explanation is always more probable that a supernaturalistic one. Even if the naturalistic explanation is very unlikely, it's still more likely than the occurrence of a miracle.
The appeal to "the best explanation is a miracle" may commit an informal logical fallacy known as an argument from ignorance. The inability to come up with a plausible naturalistic explanation does not warrant a supernatural conclusion. Why shouldn't we just say "I don't know" instead of jumping to supernatural conclusions?
Can a miracle be assigned to a specific source? How we we possibly arrive at the conclusion of "God raised Jesus from the dead" rather than "Advanced alien technology raised Jesus from the dead?" Can we say that God is more likely to raise Jesus from the dead than advanced alien technology (or some other source)? Even if the miracle happened, how can we say what caused the miracle?
Objection Two)
People are trying to use a historical method to come to theological conclusions. They can't possibly do this and they can't have it both ways.
Historians can't tell you what certainly happened in the past because we are unable to replicate events concerning people that have happened. (And forget the notion of absolute certainty. Don't even go there.) Historians can determine what probably happened in the past. In order to do this, historians want to collect a great deal of evidence from many sources who are disinterested and contemporaries at the time of these events. Historians want to take data from reliable sources and must sift the myths and exaggerations. We can take information from the Iliad, for example, to learn about geography and some other facts, but must discount the supernatural claims and the myths associated with the story.
Those who use the minimal facts approach are using the conclusions of historians to reach a theological claim, but this is unwarranted for several reasons. Theology simply is not history. The claim "God rose Jesus from the dead" is not a historical claim, but rather a theological claim that historians can't make. Historians deal with the natural world and the probable, not some sort of supernatural realm and the improbable (miracles). Historians can't reach the conclusion, while doing history, that God raised Jesus from the dead.
Dealing with the minimal facts:
Minimal Facts One and Two: Jesus died by crucifixion and He was buried.
These facts have nothing to do with whether or not Jesus was raised from the dead. There are many other facts about Jesus such as "Jesus was a male, Jesus was put on trial by Pilate, etc," but none of these have anything to do with whether or not Jesus came back from the dead. No matter how Jesus died (he could have been hanged, drowned, suffocated, etc), he still could have been raised from the dead. The method of death and the subsequent burial has nothing to do with this. The burial might as well be put with the empty tomb (which is admittedly the most contested of the facts).
Minimal Fact Three: His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
This makes sense and is very plausible. Jesus' disciples were part of his travelling ministry and were very close to Jesus. The disciples were, as most people would be, stricken with grief when someone whom they really loved died. If the disciples believed that Jesus would be raised from the dead/he was God, they be quite distraught when they learned that their messiah was to be killed. This fact, though, has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus was raised from the dead.
Minimal Fact Four: The tomb was empty.
Minimal facts advocates claim that since Jesus' tomb was empty, he must have been raised from the dead, but this is jumping to a conclusion with supernatural content. This fact is the most contested by historians and if false, the entire enterprise seems to unravel. Here is a naturalistic explanation that while improbable is still more probable than "a miracle happened."
- Followers of Jesus raided the tomb and took the body so that people believed he was raised from the dead. While doing this in the dead of night while guards were not around (do guards patrol tombs, anyway?), the followers were eventually found and killed. All of the bodies were then put into a common grave and the body of Jesus was never found/identified.
Might this have happened? Probably not...but this is still more probable than "a miracle happened."
Minimal Fact Five: The disciples had experiences in which they believed were literal experiences of a risen Jesus.
It is important to note that this is what the disciples believed had happened. It's very plausible to come to a conclusion that this is what the disciples thought had happened. People who love others dearly can believe that they are speaking with those who are deceased and actually do (although they don't get any responses). The site I linked above notes that "there is no such thing as a grief hallucination in the DSM-4," but this doesn't matter because a grief hallucination (or any hallucination, really) need not be indicative of a mental disorder. People have hallucinations when they use drugs, are waking from sleep, etc. Hallucination need not be a negative term.
Imagine, for a moment that a wife and husband had been married for sixty years and the wife recently lost her husband and was not able to tell him a secret she had held throughout their entire relationship. The wife might really believe that she sees her husband and may "have a conservation" with him talking about the secret. This account is very plausible and can be linked to the disciples' visions. Imagine that the disciples were in a crowd of people and starting talking "to the air" and others thought that they were actually speaking to Jesus. News spreads, stories evolve, and eventually you get "the disciples literally spoke to a risen Jesus." Changing of stories within religious traditions is quite common. Buddhism, for example, has evolved over centuries and has many elements that were not included in the "original version." The Buddha stayed silent regarding various metaphysical questions such as the afterlife, but later traditions believe that by following the Buddha's advice, there actually are answers (while some believe that there are no answers). Regardless, stories change and traditions evolve.
One tradition in Syriac Christianity alleges that Jesus had a twin brother. Imagine that after the crucifixion Jesus' twin brother (if he indeed had one) appeared to many and he was mistaken for Jesus. In some of the Gospel narratives, people didn't really even know who Jesus was and mistaked him for John the Baptist. Perhaps someone else looked like Jesus and Jesus didn't have a twin brother, but people thought that they saw Jesus after he was crucified. This is a plausible explanation of how people"saw Jesus."
Some minimal facts advocates may object and say that groups of people saw Jesus, so they can't all be wrong, but this is a fallacious appeal to the masses. Just because many people believe something doesn't mean it is true. The Book of Mormon, for example, starts with a signed witness testimony of people who believe that the events in the book are true. Millions of followers of recently deceased Sathya Sai Baba believe in his miracles. Can they all be wrong? Of course they can. The idea of evolving stories and embellishments can easily account for a plausible explanation of the disciples' visions.
Minimal Fact Six: The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
Doubters frequently become bold proclaimers. So what?
Minimal Facts Seven + Eight : The resurrection was the central message + They preached the resurrection message in Jerusalem.
This is an interesting claim, but it also leads us to a "so what" conclusion. Followers of Jesus, after they realized their messiah died, could have tried to make sense of what happened by looking to old scriptures and even what Jesus said. Even if Jesus said that he was going to come back from the dead, this doesn't mean that because people believed he came back from the dead we're warranted in believing that he actually did. The resurrection might "make sense" of this fact coupled with others, but it's certainly not the simplest explanation because it requires a supernatural explanation and another supernatural entity. "Jesus was raised from the dead by God" raises more questions that the conclusion answers. Preaching a message also doesn't entail that it is true.
Minimal Fact Nine: The Church was born and grew.
The fact that the Church was born and grew can be explained without its central ideas being true. Look at groups today like Scientology, Seventh Day Adventists, and Mormons...
Minimal Fact Ten: Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
So what? This doesn't entail that the resurrection happened.
Minimal Fact Eleven: James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
This is essentially the same as fact 6 and can be dealt with using the same explanation that I offered.
Minimal Fact Twelve: Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).
Paul did not literally see Jesus, but rather had a vision on the road to Damascus. The New Testament also talks of other "appearances" like these regarding Elijah and Moses. Are we really going to believe that the literal bodies of Moses and Elijah also appeared to people and equivocate appeared?
Afterthoughts...
The minimal facts approach is inadequate to arrive at a conclusion of "God raised Jesus from the dead." Minimal facts proponents want to use historical information to reach a theological claim, but this is not operating within a historical framework/approach. Historians can't say that God raised Jesus from the dead because this is not a historical claim, but rather a theological claim. A miracle, as I previously noted can't be the best explanation for events because it is, by definition, the least probable occurrence.
Even if Jesus did raise from the dead, how can we even possibly establish that the Christian god raised Jesus from the dead? Is this conclusion more likely than "advanced technology made a clone of Jesus or fooled people" or "advanced technology left a body double of Jesus on the cross and teleported him back after wiping his memory of the teleportation?" My explanations of alternative supernatural claims may seem really funny, but I want to demonstrate a point. Even if a miracle happened, we can't establish its source. Adding God to the picture, just like adding advanced technology, is making the explanation even more unlikely because, as I previously mentioned, more questions are raised than are answered.
Even if all of my naturalistic explanations are very unlikely, they are still more likely than "God raised Jesus from the dead." If we see some facts relating to a series of events and can't come to a conclusion, we should say "I don't know" instead of positing supernatural entities and explanations that raise more questions than they answer.
There are also various problems with the historicity of the Gospels, problems with eyewitness testimony, contradictions in the New Testament, etc, but I won't go into this in this post.
The "God raised Jesus from the dead [GRJD]" hypothesis is not simple. It requires an extra entity, God, along with various supernatural elements such as a supernatural realm (Jesus went to Heaven).
The GRJD hypothesis is not conservative. It goes against what we already know about death. People who are dead for three days simply don't come back. Bodies that have begun decomposition don't animate and come to life.
The GRJD hypothesis isn't fruitful. It doesn't make predictions that can be verified.
The GRJD hypothesis doesn't have good explanatory power because it raises more questions than it answers. Why was Jesus the only person raised from the dead? How do we know God exists (Saying that we know that God exists because Jesus was raised from the dead by God would be begging the question)? How did a dead body come back to life? How does the supernatural/non-physical effect the physical? Why wouldn't this event happen at some other time so that we would have good reason to believe it/why did this happen in such a remote place before advanced technology existed? How do we know God, rather than someone or something else, raised Jesus from the dead? Although the GRJD hypothesis would explain the minimal facts, we have many more questions to consider (and we need good reason to accept this claim rather than "It would explain all of the facts." Aliens made a body double of Jesus and teleported him to the people after one of the bodies died would also explain the facts, but would also raise more questions than it answers.
Naturalistic explanations that I have offered are more likely explanations that are more simple, conservative, fruitful, and has more explanatory power. Even if I don't have a good explanation for the minimal facts, we're still not epistemically justified in saying a miracle happened and bridging the gap from "I don't know" to "God did it." Miracle proponents can't possibly distinguish between possible sources of miracles and thus can't assign a specific entity, such as God, to a miracle; even if a resurrection happened, how can we know that God did it? As Arthur C. Clarke said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Encountering some real objections that directly address my post:
Objection 1: All of nature's operations does not count against a miracle because a miracle does not undermine natural laws. Hume was wrong on two counts here because God's action in history, which would be extraordinary and not assumed to be impossible given that nothing is being undermined, acts upon established laws, and probability theory shows that an extraordinary event does not require extraordinary evidence. For instance, You can have five decks of cards and I can predict exactly which three you will pull next. All that is required here for evidence is to show the cards, which is not so extraordinary. Therefore argument to the best explanation can indeed include a supernatural explanation without being classified as ignorant.
A further problem here is just how much evidence would one need to not call a miracle an ignorant explanation. If it is never acceptable as an explanation then it would seem that one can never use a supernatural explanation even if there's a robust supernatural context one can posit and approach it with. According to you, such a context could NEVER be established.
I never claimed that miracles violated the laws of nature, but rather claimed that the probability of someone walking on water, for example, is very unlikely given our background assumptions. In the case of being raised from the dead after being dead for three days, we have never verified this phenomenon/seen this happening. Even if Jesus was raised from the dead by God, the percentage of people who have been raised from the dead is close to zero. Whether or not a miracle violates the laws of nature is a red herring.
This commenter uses a false analogy when he mentions predicting the next three cards from a deck of five decks of cards. The chances of predicting the cards, assuming that you are not cheating, is quite low, but not as low as someone being raised from the dead. Unlike the GRJD hypothesis, predictions of cards are not supernatural events and do not go against what we know about the world. The commenter says "all we would need to do is show the cards" to confirm the prediction, but this is much different than what the minimal facts advocates are doing. Showing the cards would confirm that the prediction is correct. No abduction is used here. We aren't even using minimal facts! In the card prediction example, the entire process is naturalistic and no supernaturalistic explanation is given, much unlike the GRJD hypothesis.
If the precautions were not taken, the best explanation would be "This person was more likely to be cheating rather than really guessing.
More, but not necessary....
The commenter says that the confirmation of this prediction/event would not require extraordinary evidence because one would just need to show the cards, but he's missing more information here that would need to be shown to establish that this happened (and this certainly can happen by chance if people tried long enough and the reshuffling of the cards was instant or very fast - it would be inevitable). I'm not quite clear if the commenter is proposing a one-shot guess or a guess over many tries, but if someone were to establish that it were a one shot guess done by one person at one time without cheating, there would need to be extraordinary evidence and precautions that would give us good reason to believe that this actually happened. Here's an example: various expert dealers would inspect the cards to make sure that they aren't marked, shuffle all of the cards outside of the guesser's vision, deal the three cards outside of the guesser's vision, and record the results by sealing them in an envelope and giving them to an uninterested party. The guesser would then type his prediction on a computer system that was brought in by a disinterested party that was verified by computer experts (so that there is no cheating involved) that was saved before the cards were revealed. All of this could be shown on live TV, viewed by a panel of skeptics and experts so that they ensure that there was no cheating, etc. Regardless of all these precautions, if enough people made predictions, a correct prediction would be inevitable.
The commenter says that, according to me, a miracle could never be a justified explanation. The commenter asks just how much evidence would we need to not call a miracle a result of an argument from ignorance. The evidence presented for the GRJD hypothesis is supplemented by very little evidence that is not good evidence (as I mentioned above) to warrant a conclusion that a miracle happened. "How much evidence would we need to establish that a miracle happened" is an interesting question. Even if miracles happened, as I mentioned, we still would not be able to establish exactly what caused this miracle. Was it God? Was it Satan? Was it advanced alien technology? The minimal facts advocates not only claim that Jesus raised from the dead, but rather that GOD raised Jesus from the dead. Can we honestly say that "God raised Jesus from the dead" is more or less likely than "Satan raised Jesus from the dead?" I mentioned this after objection one, but will now go back and add this to objections.
Objection 2:
Historians do the work of saying which historical facts are most likely. The more diverse the historians and the more of them that agree make the proposition in question more likely. The conclusion to explain historical data however is not the work of historians, but the work of philosophers. I've seen Bart Ehrman make the same claim as you do, but he is an historian trying to do philosophy, which ends up being quite flawed given his ignorance of modern probability theory. He is to be respected as far as his contribution to the data, but his inference must draw on the best philosophy, which is a leap beyond historical instruments.
It's possible to raise an objection like this to anything by saying something like, "Computer scientists aren't doing computer science when they are fixing a computer because they are using abduction when they decide what is probably causing a problem with the computer. The conclusion to explain computer data is not the work of the computer scientist, but the work of philosophers." It's quite easy to see why, when "computer scientist" is added, this objection fails. Historians and computer scientists do derive explanations of data when they consider data and while this may be inductive reasoning, they're working within their own field when they do so. The philosopher need not step in to make this conclusion.
From the Wikipedia page on historian:
The process of historical analysis involves investigation and analysis of competing ideas, facts and purported facts to create coherent narratives that explain "what happened" and "why or how it happened".
The April portion of the Nepatized! book tour has concluded. The signings were very successful, entertaining, and busy. Many came to chat with me and author Kenny Luck including "Duke From Dallas" of WILK fame :)
The first stop of May's tour will be at Northern Light Espresso Bar in Scranton from 7PM to 10PM. While this isn't a bookstore, copies of Nepatized! will be available for you to purchase...or you can bring your own copy to have it signed. If you can't make it to this signing, feel free to buy your copy on Amazon or both Barnes and Noble locations in Wilkes-Barre and Borders in Dickson City.
Nepatized and author Kenny Luck have been in the media recently during the book tour (click on the following links for the stories):
Since 2008, Northeastern Pennsylvania has been the crossroads for presidential politics, the national media, and, above all: Fraud. Dominating the headlines are stories of greed and controversy; news reports that reveal the corrupt, the immoral, and the idiotic. With so much attention given to the region in recent years, it inevitably leads one to ask: Who and what defines us?
NEPATIZED! investigates the most recent scandals, controversies, and corruption in Northeastern Pennsylvania. With more than thirty interviews by local politicians, media figures, and activists, this book takes a critical look at some of the people and events that have redefined the region. Lou Barletta’s anti-minority rage; Bishop Martino’s divinely-inspired bigotry; and Steve Corbett’s cacophonous diatribes are all part of, what the author calls, “a spectacle of unequivocal idiocy.”
With wit and intellect, author Kenny Luck’s fact-filled expose explores the region through the people who have helped to mold it: Lackawanna County Recorder of Deeds Evie Rafalko McNulty, former WILK host Kevin Lynn, Filmmaker Josh Fox (“Gas Land”), Political Scientist G. Terry Madonna, Union Leader Michael Milz, Blogger Dan Cheek, and King’s College student Justin Vacula tell the recent story of Northeastern Pennsylvania in their own words, their roles in shaping it, and their grievances against it.
I had the pleasure of meeting Christopher Hitchens in early 2011 (see above) and really enjoyed his company. Hitchens, although he is waging a war with cancer and is dying, was still in good spirits and happy to meet all who came to see him in Scranton. Hitchens continues writing and is not resigning in the battle with cancer. He was supposed to appear at the 2011 American Atheists convention, but unfortunately could not. He instead authored the following letter (reposted from P.Z. Myers' blog):
Dear fellow-unbelievers,
Nothing would have kept me from joining you except the loss of my voice (at least my speaking voice) which in turn is due to a long argument I am currently having with the specter of death. Nobody ever wins this argument, though there are some solid points to be made while the discussion goes on. I have found, as the enemy becomes more familiar, that all the special pleading for salvation, redemption and supernatural deliverance appears even more hollow and artificial to me than it did before. I hope to help defend and pass on the lessons of this for many years to come, but for now I have found my trust better placed in two things: the skill and principle of advanced medical science, and the comradeship of innumerable friends and family, all of them immune to the false consolations of religion. It is these forces among others which will speed the day when humanity emancipates itself from the mind-forged manacles of servility and superstitition. It is our innate solidarity, and not some despotism of the sky, which is the source of our morality and our sense of decency.
That essential sense of decency is outraged every day. Our theocratic enemy is in plain view. Protean in form, it extends from the overt menace of nuclear-armed mullahs to the insidious campaigns to have stultifying pseudo-science taught in American schools. But in the past few years, there have been heartening signs of a genuine and spontaneous resistance to this sinister nonsense: a resistance which repudiates the right of bullies and tyrants to make the absurd claim that they have god on their side. To have had a small part in this resistance has been the greatest honor of my lifetime: the pattern and original of all dictatorship is the surrender of reason to absolutism and the abandonment of critical, objective inquiry. The cheap name for this lethal delusion is religion, and we must learn new ways of combating it in the public sphere, just as we have learned to free ourselves of it in private.
Our weapons are the ironic mind against the literal: the open mind against the credulous; the courageous pursuit of truth against the fearful and abject forces who would set limits to investigation (and who stupidly claim that we already have all the truth we need). Perhaps above all, we affirm life over the cults of death and human sacrifice and are afraid, not of inevitable death, but rather of a human life that is cramped and distorted by the pathetic need to offer mindless adulation, or the dismal belief that the laws of nature respond to wailings and incantations.
As the heirs of a secular revolution, American atheists have a special responsibility to defend and uphold the Constitution that patrols the boundary between Church and State. This, too, is an honor and a privilege. Believe me when I say that I am present with you, even if not corporeally (and only metaphorically in spirit...) Resolve to build up Mr Jefferson's wall of separation. And don't keep the faith.
Michael Voris has uploaded his recent speech in Wilkes-Barre to his RealCatholicTV channel on Youtube. I sat in the front row, appeared in various stills throughout the video, and led applause at various moments. I had a great time and got a picture with Michael Voris after the speech.
Some theists "get it" and this letter writer, Jim Spok, really gets it. I wrote a letter to the editor recently arguing that quake victims need money, not prayers and a flurry of responses came in multiple new letters from theists who levied personal attacks, really bad arguments, and actually said that prayer is more important then money.
Today, we got something very different and very hopeful:
Some observations regarding Joseph Gregory’s letter to the editor, “Quake victims deserve God’s love, our prayers” (March 30).
I also consider myself a believer in God, but I am not so close-minded as to assume that Justin Vacula, whose previous letter Mr. Gregory criticizes, is being “irrational and without merit” merely because he draws a different conclusion than we do regarding the existence of God.
Having many friends, relatives and acquaintances who believe in a supreme being, and having some who do not, I could not be intellectually honest with them or myself unless we’re to declare that, based on the same or similar evidence, we can neither conclusively prove or disprove the existence of God.
After 12 years of Catholic school, taught by the good nuns of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and four years of a Catholic college, with the Holy Cross Fathers, I have learned a thing or two about the basic principles of logic and philosophy. You do not call someone with a different opinion a “monkeyman” or “irrational” just because he has the temerity to challenge the beliefs you hold most dear.
Instead, I would recommend you attend a few meetings of the NEPA Freethought Society and engage in an open and respectful discussion with some of the people whose thoughts and ideas you seem to find so frightening.
An honest, decent person who draws the conclusion that there is no God will contribute more to the health and vitality of an open, free and democratic society than a religious fanatic who is sure that everyone who disagrees with him is wrong.
Tonight I attended a Salman Rushdie speech at Wilkes University. Rushdie gave a wonderful speech and argued that free speech is extremely important, writers should be able to write what they wish (save making libelous claims), and American freedom of speech is essential. Other countries that limit free speech, Rushdie argued, don't allow us to hear alternative viewpoints, sometimes write their own histories, give an alternative viewpoint tremendous power, make discussion taboo, and cease to keep "enemies" out in the open. Rushdie also spoke about other topics, joked about the tea party that he said should rename itself the "National Idiot Party," and argued that much news and politicking today is very non- or anti-intellectual.
After the speech, during the question and answer session, a local leader at a Muslim mosque who I met and had a discussion with in November of 2010 was selected to ask a question. He proceeded to ask a series of personal questions like "Do you have children" and "Do you have a house" and followed up with something to the accord of "When I have children in my house, I set the rules and they need to follow what I say..." Rushdie interrupted, as he should have, and said "Do you have a question" and got more story from the Muslim leader who continued saying something like "There has to be rules in society when you're in a place with other people..." and Rushdie cut him off saying, "I'm not going to let you compare adults in our society to children. It's a false analogy and if you don't like the liberties we have, you don't have to be here." Rushdie handled this really well and I agreed with him.
After the discussion, just to make sure that Rushdie was on the mark, I had close to a ten minute discussion with the man and asked him to finish his line of reasoning and explain his conclusion (and Rushdie turned out to be right on the mark, I soon learned). He told me that when you attack someone's belief, you attack them right at the heart and other people are really harmed. I then told him that we live in a pluralistic society and we should be able to write what we want provided that it is legal and if we had to curtail all of our writings because other people may be offended because we disagree with them, we'd severely limit free speech. I didn't really get to chat much after this because the man started preaching, claiming that we can know Allah exists because the Koran predicted embryology and various other things...
For once in a discussion, I felt really left out because I wasn't able to say much at all because I kept getting interrupted and was not able to finish my thoughts. The man kept telling me that he doesn't understand philosophy well/I'm using terms he's unaware of/etc even though I was keeping the discussion at a "low level" and would have explained anything (and tried to) that he didn't understand. Ironically, my speech was silenced in some manner.
I really enjoy chatting with religious people of all stripes because I get to better understand why and how people think, learn something, have some fun, practice debating, etc. What I don't enjoy, though, is getting completely shut out of discussions and no follow-up chances. In November, I gave this man the information from the organization I'm a co-organizer of and invited him and anyone else from his mosque to attend a monthly meeting to talk about what they believe and why. No one showed for several months...and unfortunately probably never will.
Some Muslims, not all of course, will say that they are for free speech and expression, but they want to limit others' because some may write fictional stories about Mohammad or draw pictures of him. This tactic is the incorrect one, as I tried to explain, and not a feasible method in a pluralistic society. If you disagree with someone's message that they deliver via their free speech, you should use yours to critique their message, provide an alternative stance, or communicate directly with the person. I do this quite often on my blog and I always encourage others to voice their disagreement with anything I type. What good is staying in our own comfort areas and complaining about others' ideas if we do nothing about it but complain about free speech and argue that it should be limited?
The Muslim I met tonight fell prey to the "perfect solution fallacy." It's quite obvious that there's no perfect solution in which one can regulate speech to be what everyone in a pluralistic society wants to hear, so the best option is to allow everyone to express legal speech. If there is a better alternative to this, I'd love to hear it. The conversation tonight yielded no such better alternative but a dodge to my question of "what do you think we should do, then, prosecute and censor all who disagree with someone else?"
I don't have to limit and should not have to limit my free speech because others disagree with me. I should be able to voice my opinions without threats of violence or a chilling effect in which people try to intimidate me into silence like the backlash I experienced from members of my community in 2009. If we want to silence everyone who disagrees or "offends" everyone else, we'd start slipping on a legitimate slope and would almost all be silent. It's very important to engage with other ideas, no matter how much they offend us (provided that this speech is legal and isn't just personal attacks) so that we can make informed decisions, be able to deal with objections, and so that we're educated individuals who just don't read ideas that agree with us.
Open forums, like this one, are very important platforms in which all people around the world can share their thoughts. Let's not compromise this because some people howl in the face of diversity of ideas. At the end of his speech, Salman Rusdhie said that it's the job of the writer to express his/her words and if someone has to take some risks whole doing so, it's the writer's job. I agree. Let's open the discussion, share ideas, and be civil people rather than wanting to restrict others' freedoms.
I could have rebutted prophecy claims in this post and wrote about the difference between beliefs and persons, but these are topics for another day!
Michael Voris agreed to take a picture with me. Unfortunately, we didn't get to chat after his speech, but I'm trying to have some sort of follow-up interview with him if the organizer of the event follows-up.
Author Kenny Luck and I will be at Barnes and Noble at the Arena Hub Plaza (behind the Wyoming Valley Mall and near Best Buy) on April 22nd at 7PM to 9PM. Kenny Luck and I will be singing books and having conversations with whoever would like to come. You can buy the book on Amazon or pick it up on the 22nd. Hope to see you there! Upcoming events will be Northern Light Espresso Bar at 536 Spruce Street in Scranton on May 6...and hopefully some more such as Harrisburg, PA Borders.
Since 2008, Northeastern Pennsylvania has been the crossroads for presidential politics, the national media, and, above all: Fraud. Dominating the headlines are stories of greed and controversy; news reports that reveal the corrupt, the immoral, and the idiotic. With so much attention given to the region in recent years, it inevitably leads one to ask: Who and what defines us?
NEPATIZED! investigates the most recent scandals, controversies, and corruption in Northeastern Pennsylvania. With more than thirty interviews by local politicians, media figures, and activists, this book takes a critical look at some of the people and events that have redefined the region. Lou Barletta’s anti-minority rage; Bishop Martino’s divinely-inspired bigotry; and Steve Corbett’s cacophonous diatribes are all part of, what the author calls, “a spectacle of unequivocal idiocy.”
With wit and intellect, author Kenny Luck’s fact-filled expose, complimented by Ted Michalowski’s engaging illustrations, explores the region through the people who have helped to mold it: Lackawanna County Recorder of Deeds Evie Rafalko McNulty, former WILK host Kevin Lynn, Filmmaker Josh Fox (“Gas Land”), Political Scientist G. Terry Madonna, Union Leader Michael Milz, Blogger Dan Cheek, and King’s College student Justin Vacula tell the recent story of Northeastern Pennsylvania in their own words...
The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe is produced by SGU Productions, LLC - dedicated to promoting critical thinking, reason, and the public understanding of science through online and other media. The first episode of the SGU podcast went online on May 4th, 2005. It soon became a popular science/skeptical podcast, and remains one of the most popular science podcasts on iTunes.
The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe is a very fun, entertaining, and thought-provoking podcast. At NECSS, I was able to listen to this podcast live and ask a question to the panel!
I asked a question regarding the ethical responsibilities of skeptics at 1:10:00 in this podcast.
During the April 15 Nepatized! signing, a conspiracy theorist engaged author Kenny Luck and me in a debate about whether or not aliens created Olyphant, Pennsylvania. These are now my favorite videos on Youtube. I know you'll enjoy it. I'll let the videos better explain this.
I challenged blogger "The Rockin' Traddy" to a debate challenge regarding his Christian faith.
How about a debate between Voris and Justin Vacula? I might come and hear Voris speak, but I have work at 8PM :\
How about Rockin' Traddy and Justin Vacula?
I'm going to be appearing at various bookstores and locations in Northeastern Pennsylvania with author Kenny Luck. We're promoting his recent book, Nepatized!, and are signing copies. I'm going to be giving speeches about the second chapter in his book that features me and discusses the nativity incident. My next appearance is April 15 at 6PM at Borders in Dickson City.
I'm considering offering a debate challenge to the public, actually. I previously offered a school-wide challenge to King's College, but no member of the community accepted.
Morality comes from religion. -or- The Christian God exists.
would be my two favorite topics. In both cases, I'd argue on the negative side.
This comment has been published in his blog, but I've heard no response. 1 Peter 3:15 demands that Christians defend their faith. A debate is a perfect occasion! People from the community can come to hear arguments and engage themselves with arguments for and against the Catholic faith.
Rockin' Traddy makes quite substantial claims on his blog and establishes at least 63 supernaturalistic/faith claims. I'll let you check these out for yourself.
In previousposts, I have argued that free will and God are incompatible and that because I have free will, there can't possibly be a Christian god. I've changed my stance on free will and am not quite confident in it anymore, but my argument can still stand. I've thought about this issue for quite a while after posting and my study of fatalism in my metaphysics class has allowed me to more properly understand this problem. Here is an updated version of my argument.
The Christian god is typically thought of as an omni-god: he is all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect, all-present, etc. God can't hold any false beliefs and is known to hold all true beliefs. God is typically regarded as timeless or outside of time [I'm not sure what this means or how to talk about this, though, but Christians see him as outside of reality, but is not stuck in one timeline like humans]. If this is all the case, God must know, at any given moment, what will happen at some point in the future (he knows everything). If God knows the future, humans can't possibly have any free will because they have no option to make any of God's beliefs false.
An omniscient being must know the future. Augustine, in The City of God makes it very clear in several different ways that God must know the future because he is omniscient: “God […] is most rightly and most truly believed to know all things before they come to pass.” (p. 188-189) “For, to confess that God exists, and at the same time to deny that He has foreknowledge of future things, is the most manifest folly.” (p. 190) “For one who is not prescient of all future things is not God.” (p. 194)
An omniscient being can only possess true beliefs; a false belief would negate the quality of omniscience. Omniscient beings are incapable of making an error in reasoning, thus if God knows the future today, the future cannot change because a true belief that was held cannot turn out to be false in the future. If God knew today that you were going to eat pizza at 9:19PM tomorrow, you would have to eat pizza for lunch tomorrow, otherwise God's belief would be false – and that is impossible because an omniscient being could only hold true beliefs. If God had this belief today about what will happen tomorrow at 9:19PM, this entails that there is only one possible future that can happen: you may only eat pizza at 9:19PM.
In order for an individual to have freedom, he/she must be able to choose either x or not x and both options must be equally viable. This definition of free will might be problematic, but there has to, at the very least, be some option that a human must be able to make in order to have free will. If you, sitting at your desk, must drink that water and have no choice but to drink that water, you're not free in this regard.
Theists believe that God is eternal; he has always existed. If this is the case, God was around before humans. Those who believe God is timeless might object, but this gets them nowhere because, in respect to humans being alive and "their timeline," humans certainly did not exist before God did. Before I was born, many theists and the Bible endorses, God knew that I would exist, therefore God had some belief about me before I existed.
Here's why, in a more laid out way, freedom and God/divine omniscience are not compatible:
(1) Freedom entails that a human has an option to either partake in event x or not partake in event x; both actions need to be genuine possibilities.
(2) If God exists, God knows which actions will take place in the future because God is all-knowing.
(3) God, if God exists, can only hold true beliefs.
(4) God's beliefs can't possibly be falsified because God would have held a false belief. (from 3)
(5) It is necessary that event x take place. (from 2-4)
(6) It is not possible for agent A to perform freely because agent A may not refrain from taking part in event x. (from 1-5)
(7) Therefore, free will and God are incompatible.
Hopefully this structure works because the structure in my previous post did not!
Possible Objections:
The argument I have presented is a deductive argument. To show that it is flawed, it either has to be unsound (one of the premises is wrong) or invalid (the conclusion does not follow from the premises). You must, if you wish to show that I'm wrong, attack one of the premises. Regardless, some will try to raise objections that don't really attack premises, but note a problem and might actually go after one of the premises.
God's not causing the action to happen, he just sees what would happen if you had the freedom to do so.
This objection ignores the problem and questions how an event happens. As I noted, God's beliefs must all be true and can't be falsified. Since this is the case, event x must happen so that God's belief is true and no other option can happen because God's belief would be falsified if it happened.
...but God doesn't actually come down and force certain events to happen!
This objection is also ignoring the problem and is essentially the same objection as the previously mentioned objection.
Our future actions that we would have taken before we existed caused God's beliefs.
This objection is quite incoherent. How can we possibly make decisions before we exist? This objection also challenges the quite established view that causes precede effects. Regardless, this ignores the problem. God knew what we would do before we existed. His beliefs can't be falsified and must be true, thus the events must happen and only one future is possible.
God knows all possible futures and all possible actions by all possible beings. He doesn't just have one vision of the future! People can still freely act and arrive at their freely chosen actions.
There is only one possible future because God knows exactly what will happen and can't hold false beliefs.
Here are some other ways that this argument is formed (fromthis paper):
Assume that God exists and call whatever action you will perform at noon tomorrow ‘X’.
(1) If you can freely perform X at noon tomorrow, it must be possible for you to not
perform X at noon tomorrow (from the Principle of Alternate Possibilities).
(2) God believed yesterday that you will perform X at noon tomorrow. (This follows
from God’s omniscience).
(3) God’s beliefs are events.
(4) All past events are necessary (the past cannot be undone).
(5) God’s past belief that you will perform X at noon tomorrow is necessary (from 2,
3 & 4).
(6) Necessarily, if God believes something will occur, it will occur. (This follows from
God’s necessary omniscience.)
(7) It is necessary that you will perform X at noon tomorrow (from 5 & 6 by a
‘transfer of necessity’).
(8) It is not possible for you to not perform X at noon tomorrow (from 7).
(9) Therefore, you cannot perform X at noon tomorrow freely (from 1 and 8).
OR
Assume that God exists and call whatever action you will perform at noon tomorrow ‘X’.
(1) If you can freely perform X at noon tomorrow, it must be now-ontologically
possible for you to not perform X at noon tomorrow (from the Principle of
Alternate Possibilities).
(2) It is now-ontologically possible for you to not perform X at noon tomorrow only if
your not performing X at noon tomorrow is not contrary to something that exists
(by definition of ‘ontological possibility’).
(3) God’s past belief that you will perform X at noon tomorrow exists.
(4) God exists and cannot have false beliefs.
(5) It is now-ontologically necessary that, if God believes you will perform X at noon
tomorrow, you will perform X at noon tomorrow (from 4).
(6) Your future performance of X at noon tomorrow exists (from 3 and 5 by the
‘transfer of ontological necessity’).
(7) Your not performing X at noon tomorrow is contrary to something which exists
(from 6).
(8) It is not now-ontologically possible for you to not perform X at noon tomorrow
(from 2 and 7).
(9) Therefore, you cannot freely perform X at noon tomorrow (from 1 and 8).
Even simpler from William Rowe's article "Predestination, Divine Foreknowledge, and Human Freedom,"
Assume God exists.
(1) God knows everything we will do before we are born.
(2) It is never in our power to do otherwise if God knows everything we will do before we are born.
(3) If it is never in our power to do otherwise, there is no human freedom.
(4) Therefore, there is no human freedom.
Free will and God are incompatible. If free will is a necessary part of theism and free will can't exist if an omniscient being exists, a problem arises. Either God exists and there is no free will OR Free will exists and there is no god (or the third possibility of no free will and no God). This argument, of course, does not disprove God, but merely shows that free will and God are incompatible.
Haught believes that the universe would be a boring place if there were no suffering and evil and sees suffering and evil as part of God's plan to offer a grand cosmic story. "God likes drama" is no answer to the problem of evil...and why so much drama, anyway? I think the universe would be a much better place without millions of people dying to natural disasters...
Theologians like John Haught constantly say that the "New Atheists" have a very simplistic view of God and refute a common conception of God that theologians don't believe in. I hear this criticism quite often, but I never hear these theologians offering plausible answers to common objections such as the problem of evil, problem of miracles, Euthyphro's Dilemma, and the Free Will/Omniscience problem. I hear explanations that admit there is a problem and just drag us deeper into the problems. Theists say "You need to read more theology," but I find this useless when the theologians aren't ansewering the problems and just make god smaller, smaller, and smaller to the point of metaphor (even though they insist that He still exists).
I had the pleasure of listening to an hour long speech by theologian John Haught tonight. The topic was "Faith and Evolution: What's the Problem." Haught argued that evolution and faith are compatible and that one can be a scientist and a theist by looking for "layered understanding" and "deeper meaning" to evolution and cosmology.
Haught critiques the Intelligent Design movement and the "New Atheists" (why this term even exists, I don't know) who "look for ultimate explanation at the level of scientific accounts and says that science and theology should be kept separate. Meaning, he believes, can be found from a layered view of evolution in which God creates drama in a universe that is not perfect; God creates some sort of cosmic story that makes life interesting. Haught believes that without suffering and evil, there would be no future, freedom, or life (!). Haught says that "evolution is the intellectual foundation for the 'New Atheism" and attacks Dawkins and Coyne.
Haught explains his idea of "layered explanation" and says that "everything admits of levels of understanding." He shows an image of Darwin on the screen and asks us "Why is the image on the screen" and says that many answers can account for this such as "the speaker is making a point" or "the projector is emitting patterns." Haught notes that there need not be competition among levels; there need not be conflict.
Haught then asks, "Why have there been so many species of life?" and offers various explanations such as "Accidental changes," "Accidents in natural history" [such as a asteroid falling and killing life], or "divine creativity." He notes that, "The causal efficacy of natural selection doesn't rule out creativity."
Haught then asks, "Why does life exhibit complex 'design'?" He says that it is not wrong to look for underlying wisdom as an ultimate explanation and adds "It's a leap of faith to assume that science is the only way to make sense of living traits."
Haught then makes various assertions: We should look for meaning not in design, but in the drama of life, there would be no drama if design were perfect, and there would be no story if there were no wait. He says that atheists and believers insist that God exhibit himself in a perfect world and notes that intelligent design advocates and "evolutionary atheism" share the traits of impatience and perfectionism.
Haught then explains that Christianity is simpler than most people make it to be; the two main points are incomprehensible mystery and God's self-communication and love from the world of the infinite to the finite. Haught asserts that the finite mind can't grasp the infinite and get around the incomprehensible mystery.
Haught notes that without accidents in the universe, there would be no novelty, adventure, or evolution because that which is perfect can't possibly progress/evolve; the universe would be meaningless and purposeless.
Haught notes that the main symbol of Christianity, the cross, allows God to participate in the world's struggle and suffering. He then says, "Doesn't suffering make more sense with drama?"
As a theologian, Haught notes, his fundamental drive is trust. He said he just couldn't be a philosopher. Closing, Haught ends with a non-sequitur and says, "We should be open to possible new outcomes. Christianity has already done so much for us."
After the lecture, I was able to ask the following question, "You say that Intelligent Design is looking for an ultimate explanation at the level of scientific accounts, but aren't you doing the same thing when you discuss layered explanation? How would you answer to objections saying that your layered explanation is ad hoc and unfalsifiable?" My second part of the question was unanswered, but Haught said that his theology is kept separate from his science. He didn't answer my first part, either. He's clearly taking scientific findings and adding a layer of theology. Why bother doing this at all? How can we possibly save these explanations from being ad hoc and unfalsifiable?
Haught is just adding layers to that which is explained to fit his god with evolution. This method is profoundly ad hoc. Like Haught, I could have gone up to the podium and reconciled Allah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Zeus with evolution by offering any sort of explanation that came to my mind. I could go up to the podium and say, "The Flying Spaghetti Monster really enjoys people struggling with natural disasters and hopes that they will give ramen noodles to survivors of earthquakes. Wouldn't the universe be a dull place without disaster victims?" Haught offers no evidence whatsoever to warrant his "layered explanation" of drama in the universe being perfectly aligned with God's plan. He doesn't define God, he doesn't tell us why he believes, and he doesn't explain how he knows there is a specific Christian god rather than another or a team of gods.
Haught's layered explanation example of evolution and Darwin's picture is very problematic and serves as a false analogy. When offering Darwin's picture, Haught offers various naturalistic explanations of why Darwin is on the screen. He can provide evidence to support each reason and each explanation is plausible. He then says there is no competition between explanations, great...but then he steps to the species of life and offers a supernaturalistic explanation with no evidence supporting it! "Divine Creativity" is certainly in conflict with "accidental changes" and "accidents in natural history" because one is a supernaturalistic explanation and the other two are naturalistic. Science won't offer supernatural explanations or unfalsifiable explanations such as "there is divine creativity." Haught wants to keep his science and theology separate, but he isn't doing this at all with these layered explanations. He can't have it both ways.
I also object to the idea of "There need not be conflict between layers of explanations." The mere idea of different layers does not mean that there need not be conflict. I've already explained why there is a problem with this, but imagine the following scenario: There is a mug on my desk. Here are three explanations: My mother put it there, I put it there, Richard Dawkins put it there. All of these explanations are certainly possible, but some are more and less probable than others. All of them can't possibly be true (unless they all put it there at the same time) and there must be conflict. "I put it there" is the most probable explanation with little background information because I have access to my room at King's and no one else has been in the room in weeks. I don't leave my door open for others to come in and place my items that were in other areas of my room. My mother has never been in my room and neither has Dawkins. My mother placing the mug is more probable than Dawkins because Dawkins does not personally know me.
Haught notes that "the causal efficacy of natural selection doesn't rule out [divine] creativity." Great, but this is an unfalsifiable claim. How can we possible rule out creativity, anyway? It's certainly possible, but is this a probable explanation? Haught mentioned a great deal of evils in nature and noted that natural selection seems to be an impersonal process. I agree. This is exactly what we would expect if there were no Christian god. This, of course, does not completely rule out the Christian god (nothing can, really, because he is unfalsifiable, but we can regulate his probability close to zero) as Haught strawmans the "New Atheists" as thinking. The "god of the gaps" argument is something that atheists often accuse theists of. God of the gaps is an argument from ignorance that places God in some area that we haven't fully explained. For example, God used to be thought of as the contributing factor to disease, lightning, and earthquakes. God would get angry and punish earthlings. Divine creativity would be more likely (even though it would still be quite implausible) if there were less "natural evil" in the world such as disease, earthquakes, and "nature red in tooth and claw."
Haught accuses "New Atheists" of "scientism" and says, "It's a leap of faith to assume that science is the only way to make sense of living traits." This is a strawman because the "New Atheists" don't hold the position of scientism...and it's already been falsified because of random quantum events that literally have no explanation. What else, though, can possibly make sense of living traits besides areas of science? Should we really be accused of scientism if we appeal to the only area that can explain things? I assume that Haught is saying that Christianity or some sort of supernatural explanation can offer an answer to why the world is the way the world is, but isn't that a bigger "leap of faith?" Christianity has not been demonstrated to be true and its metaphysical claims have not been supported by reason, evidence, and argument. This would be like me saying, "It's a leap of faith to assume that probability is the only way to make sense of outcomes of successive dice rolls." Are there other areas that can possibly offer meaningful explanations supported with evidence, reason, and argument?
Haught argues that "if design were perfect, there would be no drama." This is another strawman... I have constantly rebutted this claim from theists in previous posts of mine and at public discussions. I'm not asking for a perfect universe, but rather saying that we would expect a universe without such egregious natural evil if an omni-god created it. If a perfect universe even possible? What would this even mean? Haught thinks that there would be no future, freedom, or life in a perfect universe, but he never supports this claim.
Haught believes that there would be no story if there were no wait. Why is this the case? Imagine that humans existed a mere thousand years after the universe formed...or even if God put humans on a planet that formed right after the universe formed. Would there suddenly be no story? Of course not.
Haught charges atheists and believers with "demanding that god exhibit himself in a perfect world." I haven't heard of atheists or believers expecting a perfect world if God made it. Atheists don't argue like this either by saying "The world is not perfect, therefore God doesn't exist." Divine hiddenness is a curious problem of Christianity because, one would think, if God really wanted people to believe in him, he should make his existence known to us. If he exists and is an omni-god, he'd surely know how to do it. I can and probably will dedicate a post to this at some point, but I won't go into much depth here. If the New Testament is accurate, God did reveal himself to people about 2000 years ago by performing live miracles and coming back from the dead. Why, now, aren't miracles a dime a dozen? God's game of hide-and-go-seek is certainly causing a tremendous amount of suffering that could be alleviated and is something of a cosmic joke. According to most accounts of Christianity and what the Bible says, non-believers who view the current evidence presented for God persist in unbelief and then are blamed for it in the afterlife and must suffer if they blasphemed the Holy Spirit while believers are rewarded for blind faith.
Haught asserts that God's world and God is infinite and we can't comprehend it because we have finite minds. This position is ultimately self-refuting because theologians and all sorts of believers make very specific claims about God. To be more charitable, let's assume that he means "we can't comprehend specifics about God" or "there are some things that we can't comprehend." This seems to be an unfalsifiable answer to any given objection that theologians don't have a good answer to such as the problem of evil. I hear this quite often in public discussions, but it reeks of dishonesty because an answer of "I don't know" should be said instead of this "we can't comprehend God." Believers and theologians are happy to make some claims about God when they have a good explanation, but when difficult questions are raised, this objection is unsatisfactory. It's also not the case that we can't comprehend this infinite because infinities are used in mathematical equations quite often and physicists offer great explanations of infinity.
Haught argues that "science and theology are distinct but non-competitive." This view of non-overlapping magesteria is untenable. You can read more about this in my "religion vs science" post. Haught wants to say this, but then he makes theological claims about scientific findings. He can't have it both ways.
After my question wasn't answered, another member in the audience charged Haught with pareidolia; the audience member said, "Aren't you just making up your own stories and then seeing them in the universe and just verifying what you're seeing by offering ad-hoc explanations?" This audience member "hit the nail on the head" and reinforced the second part of my question. This is exactly what is seems like Haught is doing. Haught offers no evidence, argument, and reason for his claims of "drama in the universe" that originates from the divine and merely asserts this to have an explanation that is in-line with his notion of god. He had about an hour to speak, but I heard no evidence to support any of his claims.
I update this site on a very frequent basis, am passionate about what I do, respond to comments from my readers and engage my audience, am very active beyond the keyboard, and am not in any sort of 'ivory tower.'
Unfortunately, blogging is no full-time well-paying position by any means.
If you enjoy my work and would like to donate something -- even a dollar that you would never miss -- as a sign of appreciation, I would be very appreciative.
Thank you!
