This page has moved to a new address.
"Helping the Next Generation Think Christianly About All of life"
Labels: Apologetics, Existence of God, Faith, New Atheism, Thinking Christianly, Welcome to College
posted by Jonathan Morrow at
4:47 PM
Jonathan Morrow is the founder of Think Christianly (www.thinkChristianly.org). He is the author of Welcome to College: A Christ-follower's Guide for the Journey, Think Christianly: Looking at the Intersection of Faith and Culture, and Is God Just a Human Invention? And Seventeen Other Questions Raised by the New Atheists (with Sean McDowell), and contributed the chapter "Introducing Spiritual Formation" to Foundations of Spiritual Formation: A Community Approach to Becoming Like Christ. Jonathan also contributed several articles to the Apologetics Study Bible for Students. He graduated with an M.Div. and an M.A. in philosophy of religion and ethics from Talbot School of Theology and is currently the equipping pastor at Fellowship Bible Church. His books have been featured on shows like Family Life Today, Stand to Reason, Breakpoint, Frank Pastore, The Janet Mefferd Show, and Apologetics 315. **This is a personal blog. The opinions expressed here represent my own and not necessarily those of my employer.**
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
4 Comments:
Jonathan,
If we boil this guy's argument down to the bones, here is what we get:
1. Creationist Premise: Complexity indicates a designer. Life is far too complicated to have evolved on it's own. Therefore, a "Designer*" must have designed life.
(*Does their use of the word "designer" fool anyone? Don't we all know they are talking about the God of Abraham? You know, the one who inspired Genesis? Why not just say "God." To me, the use of that term "Designer" is so transparently disingenuous. If I believed in such a thing as blasphemy, I'm sure I could label it such.)
2. Logical response to Creationist argument: If complexity is proof of a Designer, then the Designer must be complex. If so, who Designed the Designer?
3. The response from this guy in the video: "God is pre-existing so needs no designer. Hah! Take THAT you silly evolutionists!"
Who can argue with that?
True, the guy says many more words than this. Creationists are good at saying a lot of complicated words that sound "intelligent" on the surface but when you look at little deeper, you find a meaningless, hollow jumble of words. He reminds me of the "tech speak" that Jody uses in "Star Trek -the Next Generation."
Hello Frank, see my new post for more of a response...
I think your response conflates some issues:
"1. Creationist Premise: Complexity indicates a designer. Life is far too complicated to have evolved on it's own. Therefore, a "Designer*" must have designed life. "
Dawkins admits the appearnce of design--in fact he says we must keep reminding oursleves that what we see in nature is not designed.
regarding 2. why must the designer be complex (how are you using this word?) Dawkins make this argument in the God Delusion and gets soundly critisized for it...he is not a philosopher--though he is a good scientist). God is a simple--immaterial agent or spirit--philsophically that is not complex in the technical sense. And that is not an idiosyncratic view...pretty common in philosophical circles.
So, no, that does not logically follow.
3. RE: "God is pre-existing so needs no designer. Hah! Take THAT you silly evolutionists!"
(see latet blog as well) What is your explantion for the origin of time, space, matter, and energy??
(BTW: evolution, and natural selection can't help you here for they requrire all of the above). Multi-verse does not help either (which is entirely without empirical evidence--as well as only backing the question up a step...what is the origin of the multiverse). Moreover it was postualted to avoid the implciation of the origin of the universe.
Also, the star trek Tech speak reference is funny, but does not apply here. The reality is that all discussions have to appeal to a fundamental principle or explanation as a brute fact or basic at some point (otherwise you fall vitum to the skeptics ininite regress problem--and seems to me that you think knowledge is possible). the question then is which is most reasonable?
matter popping into existence out of nothing which is the equivalent of metaphsycial nonesense...it is worse than magic...at least a magician has a hat to pull a rabbit out of...on the the atheistic view the rabbit just pops into existence out of nothing.
OR
A self-existent, timless, non-spatial, immaterial, unimaginably powerful, suprememly intelligent, and personal agent?
we see the effects of agency all the time. We don't witness things sponatneously popping into existence all around us. It appears that the naturalist is appealing to a non-theistic "miracle."
BTW-He is not arguing for the God of Abraham and Isaac. I think you if will listen to his argument agian this becomes clear. Now the God of the Bible is consistent with such an inference, but it is certanly not requried for his argument to succeed. That is a further step for philosophical / historical investigation--particularly around Jesus.
What is your explantion for the origin of time, space, matter, and energy??
Here is the "intellectually honest" atheistic response (Are you ready? Drum roll, please . . . .):
I don't know. No one knows.
It doesn't get any more honest than that. What I DO know (as much as anything CAN be "known) is this: The universe is expanding ant a phenomenal rate. Reverse the process and you have a universe that was contained in a small space at some point in the past.
Something - perhaps even a god - started a process that resulted in what we see today. There are a hundred competing hypotheses of what might have happened "before" time and space existed but no one knows for sure and we may never know.
You are welcomed to insert "God did it!" here in this gap of our knowledge if you want. You'll have no argument from me.
First, thanks for the intellectual honesty...good for the soul ;)
Regarding "You are welcomed to insert "God did it!" here in this gap of our knowledge if you want. You'll have no argument from me."
But this is not a God of the gaps move...it is what we have good evidence for the nature of metaphysics, personal agency and causation.
Sciecne studies the natural world, and does an excellent job at that...but it can't in principle answer why we are here...
Science will NEVER be able to get "behind" the initial singularity or big bang...that is conceptual work of philosophy and religion. why? because science depends on all of the things that came into existence at the big bang...
Modern Cosmology has no answer for that...so I don't think an inference to a personal agent--as opposed to stuff popping into existence uncaused--is unreasonable.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home