Voldemort created the universe?
c | 10.31.07 - 12:13 pm | #

Mark, at the risk of committing monotony, ID does not prove the existence of God, or even of the validity of theism.

It's a false friend of theism.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 10.31.07 - 12:59 pm | #

I am looking forward to the transcript. The "new atheists" love to focus on biology, but they largely ignore physics. There's a reason for that.
Tom Piatak | 10.31.07 - 1:23 pm | #

Tom,

Physics as a discipline has nothing to say about God, nor should it. Theists who use ID as a so-called 'proof' are committing the error of question begging (*hysteron-proteron*?), assuming that to be true which they have already decided is true. The conclusion may or may not be valid, but the method has nothing to do with the scientific method.

I'm a theist myself. I don't want or trust the help of ID.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 10.31.07 - 1:48 pm | #

Please please please, please get us an MP3 of the talk.
Please.
thomas tucker | 10.31.07 - 1:59 pm | #

Really enjoyed the talk last night. Stayed up till 2 am with my bartender reliving our astronomy class at Seattle Central Community College.
Liam | 10.31.07 - 2:48 pm | #

One more time: in no way can the propositions of the Nicene Creed, our profession of faith, be derived from a theory of Intelligent Design. Nor are scientific theories or hypotheses in any way dogmatic, nor can they be. They come and they go.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 10.31.07 - 8:21 pm | #

Fr. Spitzer said neither of these things.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 10.31.07 - 8:23 pm | #

I didn't maintain that he did.

Dr. Steven Weinberg (a Noble Prize winner in physics) can present as lucid and astonishing a picture of the improbable array of fundamental mathematical relationships in the physical world as anyone. He remains, so far as I know, an atheist.

Someone else might draw the conclusion of intelligent design.

Sir Fred Hoyle did. So far as I know he remained an atheist.

Neither atheism nor theism have anything functional to do with the scientific process, and if they're introduced as scientific premises or commentaries they can only muddle both science and religion.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 10.31.07 - 10:22 pm | #

I think at least ID can demonstrate that being theistic can be rational.

Science and religion both share "rationality" . I don't think both can be completely separated.
anonymous | 11.02.07 - 10:15 am | #

"I think at least ID can demonstrate that being theistic can be rational."

St. Paul pointed out to the Greeks in Athens that theism is a rational inference from common experience, but apparently he didn't have many takers.

ID is interesting, but I don't see how it *proves* theism. Monotheism is only one possible inference to be drawn from ID.

I'm no philosopher or logician, but I sense that purely logical proofs of theism rest on steadier ground.

I don't want to go out of balance and tip into Modernism, but at some point one must leave room for God's grace of faith and intuitive comprehension.

A personal hypothesis of mine is that unsacralized societies produce depressed people who are too bummed out to know the presence of God.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 11.02.07 - 3:40 pm | #

Pavel,


1) With respect to common sense, I think that common sense, which relied mainly on sense experience, is severely limited, as post-Galilean demonstrate.

2) I don't think that any "purely logical proof of theism" is possible.

3) I remembered reading someone (I believe it was Quentin) asserted that material creation can be made by two or more "deistic engineers" through cooperation. But I thought the argument was weak. Ultimately, I agree with you that polytheism may eventually disappear as a result of ID .

4) I believe another beneficial aspect of ID is to get rid of that pesky determinism that dog free will so much in the past.

5) I don't know what you meant by "unsacralized societies" so I can't comment .
anonymous | 11.02.07 - 6:06 pm | #

"1) With respect to common sense, I think that common sense, which relied mainly on sense experience, is severely limited, as post-Galilean demonstrate."

I was thinking of the empirical apprehensions of common experience, not operations, much less causes. St.Paul's exposition of these as theistic indications still stands, IMHO.

"2) I don't think that any "purely logical proof of theism" is possible."

I may have misunderstood Prof. Kreeft's recapitulation of them. Maybe not.

"3) I remembered reading someone (I believe it was Quentin) asserted that material creation can be made by two or more "deistic engineers" through cooperation. But I thought the argument was weak. Ultimately, I agree with you that polytheism may eventually disappear as a result of ID'"

Don't see how. Anyway, purely nontheistic vehicles for ID can be summoned up without much effort.

"4) I believe another beneficial aspect of ID is to get rid of that pesky determinism that dog free will so much in the past. "

Don't see that either. Chess pieces may also seem to themselves to be free to move wherever they want. Pawn to king 4 is just common sense.

"5) I don't know what you meant by "unsacralized societies" so I can't comment ."

Us, for instance. Try setting up a creche, these days, on the court-house lawn.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 11.02.07 - 6:24 pm | #

With regards to ID, I believe many of the proponents (though some will accuse them of deception) will actually agree with Pavel: ID does not, and in fact cannot 'prove' God, or Christianity, and possibly even theism.

What the general approach to science is capable of doing, however, is showing the plausibility of an intelligent (or even divine) mind behind and within creation. I personally am not concerned with the specific claims of ID, such as irreducable complexity and such. What I am very interested in is an approach to science, from evolutionary biology to cosmology to otherwise, with theistic open-mindedness.

There is nothing, zero, zip, nada wrong with approaching the sciences with theistic appreciation. And if ID is a 'false friend' because what proponents study and advocate can't be called 100% into the service of theism (or a specific faith), then apparently mainstream science is a 'false friend' on the same grounds. I reject that.
Nullasalus | 11.05.07 - 1:57 pm | #