I hope Dawn has a nice doghouse in her virtual backyard, 'cause that's where I'm gonna be when I admit I'm with The Amazing Randi on this one (...up to the "militant" nonsense). Actually, I don't care if the Smithsonian shows the film, but I hope the film itself is more compelling than the website.

Yes, the sun's "precise mass and composition" are necessary for Earth’s habitability, but the skeptic in me likens that to saying, "Isn't it amazing that they built New York where they did? All those waterways are so conveniently located."
saintkansas | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 6:10 am | #

Intelligent design is hardly as idiotic as your quip would seem to indicate, you believe that it is. Whether it will hold up in the long run as an alternative theory, remains to be seen. But the idea of bribing the Smithsonian to kill its showing of the film does not pass the smell test.
Colleen | 06.01.05 - 7:27 am | #

Intelligent design is hardly as idiotic as your quip would seem to indicate

That's my point. If the website promoting the film is any indication of its depth, it's not worth seeing.

And as far as bribing the Smithsonian, the only reason Randi has offered $20,000 is because the film's producers are paying $16,000 to have it shown...that doesn't smell right either.
saintkansas | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 7:33 am | #

I wonder if the International Brotherhood of Magicians (of which I am a former member) would accept a similar bribe to expell Mr. Randi then see how loud he squeals. Then we would see how how committed he is to paying to suppress contrary ideas.
J Rob | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 8:17 am | #

Darn, I can't remember which boss English theologian and writer first said this, but it was regarding Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's claim to have successfully photographed a fairy. He hoped it was false; he felt any such phenomenon, by submitting to the demands of the natural world, lost much of its wonder and thus all of its appeal.

I actually have a two-page mini-essay along those lines, which may wind up on my own website sooner or later; I wrote it in reply to my aunt, who thinks I'm wasting my time writing Laser Beam stories. (She thinks I should stick to the non-laser genre exclusively.) I'll spare you for now... suffice it to say that it rebuts the Amazing Randi. (And now I get that joke in Mystery Science Theater: the Movie. Cool!)

Besides this, the conditions for his little challenge are a self-fulfilling prophecy. (Ha - Randi's a prophet! He owes himself a million bucks!) By definition any such event would not be duplicable on command, and thus is outside the review of science. Part of me still wishes, however, that Jesus would pop down, win the money, and donate it to the local parishes, just to show He can.
Nightfly | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 10:08 am | #

Good grief.

Did y'all miss the point entirely?

Dawn, I bow down before you.

Thanks a bunch ... I've got Barry Manilow in my head for the next several hours.

Now THAT is a paranormal wonder! (Truly, I swear! I am not worthy.)
Fr Joseph Huneycutt | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 10:28 am | #

Forgive me, Father...I admit I did miss the point; I checked discovery.org and found that the institute apparently rented the space for a one-night, invitation-only movie premiere...to which I say, "Go for it...now where the #^%& is my invitation?" I thought perhaps they were looping the movie in one of those kiosks in the museum proper.

Sorry, Dawn. Randi, settle down.

I'd hate to demonize Randi, though; he's done a lot of work to keep people from being scammed.
Saint Kansas | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 10:46 am | #

If the Smithsonian is contractually bound to show a creationist film and reneges, Randi (whether we sympathize with his position or not) may find himself liable for interference with contract.

Some questions: what is creationism's take on Occam's Razor? And how does hypothesizing an Intelligent Designer help to fulfill science's purpose; viz., to make reliable predictions ("mix sodium and chlorine under certain conditions, and salt happens"; "the chance of finding fossils is greater in some strata than in others")? I ask merely for information.
npetrikov | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 11:00 am | #

P.S. I wonder whether the guy who hoped that ACD had not photographed a fairy was Sir James Barrie. The remark sounds like his style.
npetrikov | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 11:02 am | #

I really don't understand the big deal. (Ok, tortious interference with a contract IS a big deal, but the Smithsonian is clearly committed, so no big whoop.)

Evolution is a theory presented as fact. However, it represents the best scientific explanation of our origins we've got. So where is God in the process? To me, everywhere, but that's MY conclusion.

We were created - indisputably. If you are religious, God did it. If not, it was via a happy accident.

The evolutionary process is compelling - you can see natural selection in action in a bar any Friday night at happy hour. However, we Christians believe, on faith, that at some point during the process man was given a soul. This is not inconsistent, but rather complementary to the evolutionary process as presented by scientists.

Those who seek God's hand in a study of the evolutionary process and the natural world will find Him everywhere - it's inescapable. Those who choose not to, in my opinion, will have some 'splainin' to do. But, the great thing about this country is that we are free to believe, or not, as we choose. So, no more stickers on the textbooks warning that "Evolution is just a theory!", no more theology disguised as science, no more recitations of the earth being 6,000 years old, if you please.

We know what we know. And those of us who believe, on faith, that God's hand guided it all will find out sooner or later whether or not we're right.
joe | 06.01.05 - 11:21 am | #

It's got to be tough to make it in the magician busuiness and be an out spoken skeptic of anything supernatural. Either Randi is an impressive actor or he should be looking for a different gig.
Jason Beckett | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 11:32 am | #

I am not repeat not, nor would I even dream of, diverting this thread over to one of my blogs, but it does happen that I and a few other people have been beating on the evolution question for a couple of weeks at the Caelum et Terra blog first here and then here.

It's a lot of stuff, and the first one sends you back to yet another post on my personal site, but those who are interested in looking at this question from a Catholic point of view might find it interesting.

But PLEASE, if you want to comment, come back here to do so, so Dawn doesn't have to fuss at me.

As for Randi, he apparently makes the not unusual major category error in equating the big philosophical questions about the existence of God with mere phenomena, whether real or fake. But I'm glad people like him are around to ferret out frauds.
Maclin Horton | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 12:42 pm | #

Actually, Jason, it's easy enough: a professional magician is in on the joke, so to speak; that's why they call them magic "tricks". From his point of view, any unexplainable phenomenon is simply a trick whose secret isn't understood yet. The reasoning is very simple - we used to think the skies were a crystal dome until we made telescopes; we used to think people had humours or demons until we discovered medicine; therefore anything we don't know yet is ultimately knowable.

This actually makes me think of stuff that work better over at my page, rather than in the comments. Looks like another lunch hour spent not eating...

PS - Randi covers that photographed fairy business.
Nightfly | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 12:59 pm | #

Jason,
Actually there are a lot of atheists and skepticsamong the ranks of performing magicians. If one is predisposed to the notion that there is no God and a supernatural act can be faked, skepticism is not a difficult leap. Just because I can appear to emolate a $100 bill then remove it completely restored from the core of an apple (one of my favorite effects btw) does not mean there is no God, it just means I can make it look like there is some supernatural agency.
Randi would most likely argue that the very fact that a hack magician like me can pull that off proves there is no supernatural agency. While I know that in the case of the incinerated c-note there was no supernatural agency, it does not preclude there being such a thing.
J Rob | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 1:12 pm | #

Really enjoying the comments on this thread--thanks, everyone.

Fr. Huneycutt, you are a joy.

Nightfly, I'm all but positive that the writer who made the fairy comment was G.K. Chesterton. Barrie, another of my faves, was a good guess though, npetrikov.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 1:28 pm | #

The evolutionary process is compelling - you can see natural selection in action in a bar any Friday night at happy hour.

Yes - the evidence for microevolution through natural selection is very compelling. The extrapolation to macroevolution is not completely unreasonable, but far less compelling. A theory, even a good theory, is theory, not a fact.
c matt | 06.01.05 - 1:41 pm | #

Oh for Pete's sake people! There is no such thing as the supernatural; no gods, no ghosts, no fairies, despite what television and those bludgers known as priests tell you.
Anyone who does believe in that rubbish needs their head examined. Randi's money is absolutely safe. How do I know? Because there is no such thing as the supernatural. Grow up and get used to that. We'd have a better world if you did.
Deevo | 06.01.05 - 2:01 pm | #

My, what a convincing argument, Deevo. Your comment should be featured on James Randi's website.
Jinx | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 2:04 pm | #

"Is this ability to buy out others’ arrangement limited to James Randi, or can others join the fun? If a group of young-earth creationists have a big enough bag of money, will they be able to cancel Smithsonian events that mention the ancient age of the Earth?"

No. For, as I understand it, the Smithsonian's purpose is science and art. The young earth account of creation is neither- it is not attained by art or by science. Science in the stricktest sense meaning knowing the cause (and the attainment of it). The young earth creationalist's account is by belief. God cannot be proved to have created all in 6 days.

Please note I am not looking for a discussion on whether the young earth creationalists account is right or not- my point is that it is not a science and hence does not belong in the Smithsonian.
Jacob G. | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 2:04 pm | #

Deevo,
You say "How do I know? Because there is no such thing as the supernatural."

If you know, then please teach us, as any good citizen and caring person would. How do you KNOW that there is no such thing as the supernatural. Give me the arguement.

Or were you equivicating on KNOW meaning it is your opinion- or worse yet your belief?
Jacob G. | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 2:08 pm | #

Okay Jinx, where's your evidence for the existence of the supernatural?
Deevo | 06.01.05 - 2:09 pm | #

Jacob G, I'm not a good citizen and I don't give a stuff about caring. Frankly I couldn't be bothered arguing with a god-botherer. If you, on the other hand, have any proof whatsoever then Randi has $1 million waiting for you. Are you going to take him up on it? No, I didn't think so.
Deevo | 06.01.05 - 2:14 pm | #

Here's a direct link to Randi's comments on the hypocritically-named James Randi Educational Foundation:

JREF

I emailed Mr. Kremer and expressed my support of the film and the opposition to religious bigots like Randi (and Deevo). I also wrote that they need to remember that the greatest advances in science have come from people who are able to look at things in new and different ways (even if they end up being wrong sometimes), and the greatest tragedies have happened when other people have censored any and all views contrary to their own.
Jinx | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 2:16 pm | #

Come on Jinx! Stop prevaricating and supply your proof. If all you can offer is abuse then may I suggest that your case is very weak indeed?
Deevo | 06.01.05 - 2:20 pm | #

Deevo, I have met your kind a hundred times before. You aren't open-minded enough to rationally consider any evidence people like me can offer because you believe that we need our heads examined and that we need to grow up. I will not cast my pearls before you.
Jinx | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 2:20 pm | #

Deevo: "If all you can offer is abuse..."

So sez the person who came here and bellowed: "Oh for Pete's sake people! There is no such thing as the supernatural; no gods, no ghosts, no fairies, despite what television and those bludgers known as priests tell you.
Anyone who does believe in that rubbish needs their head examined. Randi's money is absolutely safe. How do I know? Because there is no such thing as the supernatural. Grow up and get used to that. We'd have a better world if you did."

Take your bigotry and your hypocrisy somewhere else, Deevo. James Randi's website has a forum where you would be welcomed enthusiastically.
Jinx | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 2:23 pm | #

You have no proof. You believe in something that does not exist - I've met your kind before too. And I'm open-minded enough to have examined the whole issue of the supernatural, including training as a priest, to have come to the logical conclusion that there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of the supernatural.
You have no pearls, only dross.
Deevo | 06.01.05 - 2:26 pm | #

Bigot and hypocrite? What a charming person you are Jinx! Have you had your mental health checked recently?

You have no proof. You know you have no proof yet you persist in your belief. Kinda sad really.
Deevo | 06.01.05 - 2:31 pm | #

Deevo,
Then don't be bothered argueing with me to improve society. Bother then because of your pride. I don't think you can make an arguement to support your claim to knowledge. And you can at least be civil, geez.

You want an arguement that God exists. We got 5 of them. Better yet here is the source- St. Thomas Aquinas Question 2(maybe 3) article 2.
Read those actual texts along with his references, and I'll be happy if you send me $1.
Jacob G. | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 2:32 pm | #

Deevo, that's precisely why it's called faith. You believe without proof, thought I must admit that I see enough in the natural world to influence my decision-making process about faith.

You don't. And that's your right, that no one disputes. So why does it get your knickers in such a knot when people hold the opposing view?

Can it be - and I'm NOT being snotty - that you're afraid you might be wrong?
joe | 06.01.05 - 2:37 pm | #

Taunt and troll away, Deevo. That's what you're best at.
Jinx | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 2:37 pm | #

I've read Thomas Aquinas (kind of compulsory when you teach at Aquinas College) and his arguments, whilst very poetic, are hokum. Baloney. Fairy tales. Come on Jinx! Where is your proof for the existence of the supernatural? Other than some words written in an old book?

I'm really keen on that $1 million! Come up with the proof and we can split it two ways! Where's your spirit of enterprise? We can join the throngs that make money out of people's misguided faith!
Deevo | 06.01.05 - 2:39 pm | #

The Intelligent Design movement is to be distinguished from creationism. The latter is based on a literal interpretation of the Bible and is unscientific. The former is a scientific critique of evolutionary theory which has some merit.

The scientific jury is still out; Intelligent Design has a lot of work to do before it can sufficiently establish itself as an alternative theory to Darwinian evolution that it ought to be taught in all high schools, but the points it raises deserve further investigation. There is no hurry, and in the meantime it is OK to teach "evolution" as a fact, and "natural selection" as the best theory known to explain this fact.

What is not OK is to teach that "materialism" has been established by science; it is a methodological assumption used by scientists, something they put in rather than something they get out.

The subject is so controversial because of a very widespread logical fallacy. The theory of evolution by natural selection weakens the "argument from design", which is one particular argument for the existence of God. The Intelligent Design theorists correctly point out that although the argument is weakened, Darwinian evolution has failed so far to invalidate it. But the fallacy neither side wants to point out (because it makes their work less metaphysically important) is that invalidating an argument is not the same as disproving the conclusion. Even if one particular argument for the existence of God has a flaw, there are plenty of other arguments.
Joseph | 06.01.05 - 2:45 pm | #

Joe, I appreciate your restrained tone and your comment about religious faith is very much the nub of the argument - something that seems to have eluded poor Jinx entirely. Yes I am stirring the pot, but no, after a lifetime of contemplation, education and experience I'm not in the least bit afraid of being wrong. That's a really old Jesuit trick by the way - used it myself on many occasions!
The only problem with faith is that it is blind - something Jinx should take on board.
Deevo | 06.01.05 - 2:46 pm | #

Ok Deevo, so you made your choice, and it's a valid one for you. It's your right and it sounds as if no one can say you made the decision without giving it due consideration.

I still don't understand what's so bothersome about Jinx and Jacob (and I) holding the opposite view. No one is requiring you to change your mind. In fact, putting opposing viewpoints out there helps each individual meet their responsibility to reach the conclusions for themselves.

No proof of God offered here, there isn't much besides Aquinas. Except... the way a sunset makes us all stop what we're doing and watch, the way people feel when they see the ocean, the fact that the earth goes around the sun at regular intervals and we're smart enough to figure that out... and, my wife's laugh, my daughter's face when she figures out a math problem, my son's artistic ability... Not proof at all. But it's enough for me.
joe | 06.01.05 - 3:03 pm | #

Sorry I have to leave this forum. It's very late here on the other side of the Earth and I have to go to sleep. Good night all! It's been fun stirring you all up - I hope I made you think for just a few seconds!

Jinx, I'm an ex-priest. I know all your arguments and used them many times. Like many, many priests I have no belief in a god or gods. At least I had the good grace and lack of hypocrisy to leave the church when I realised, after 30 years of study, that there really was no such thing as the supernatural... It'd be nice if there was, but there ain't!
Don't let your faith blind you. Oh and say 10 Hail Mary's for being so damn rude.

The rest of you - get rid of all your money. Give it to the poor. As the Lord said: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Gates of Heaven."
God hates the rich. Remember that.
Deevo | 06.01.05 - 3:04 pm | #

Um, anyway. All hail the mighty Deevo, or something. He's here to change the world by posting angry comments on the blogs of people who disagree with him.

Much like Randi, who tries to bribe museums to abandon contracts with other groups. Nice guy.

Hey Deevo, as much as I hate to encourage you, why is it that I would want to join the ranks of wandering anti-theist thugs, haunting Christian people's websites, gathering 1,001 bible contradictions, saying such charming things as

"Anyone who does believe in that rubbish needs their head examined. Randi's money is absolutely safe. How do I know? Because there is no such thing as the supernatural. Grow up and get used to that. We'd have a better world if you did."

Now you're a psychiatrist, too! There's no end to your wondrous prowess.
"
David Scott | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 3:06 pm | #

Deevo had to leave to catch a flight to Iran, where he will share his views on God at several mosques.
Saint Kansas | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 3:15 pm | #

"It's got to be tough to make it in the magician busuiness and be an out spoken skeptic of anything supernatural. Either Randi is an impressive actor or he should be looking for a different gig."

Jason, that's like saying "It's got to tough to be a clown and to claim that people are not born with red noses."

My dad is an amateur magician (David Roper) AND a past preacher, missionary and current Christian writer. He does not believe he has supernatural powers nor does he try to fool people into believing it. It's all a big, fun, thing we call "entertainment."

A. Lovejoy
Angi | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 3:16 pm | #

As much as I disagreed with the erstwhile Deevo and his tone, I truly don't believe that it's wrong to disagree with a position someone else has taken.

If it was, then comments sections would have a 'post-only-fawning-agreement-here' signs on them

It IS wrong to be uncivil and to not articulate your arguments well. In matters of faith, there is no proof pro or con. No one (including me) engaged Deevo in the old classic debate: "Ok, wiseguy, if God doesn't exist, prove THAT."

My Episcopal priest has a t-shirt he wears to church picnics sometimes. The front says: "God is dead." -Nietzche. The back says: "Nietzche is dead." - God.

He gets a LOT of laughs with it from people who see the front first and question him on why he's wearing such a thing. All he has to do is turn around.

It seems that a lot of the pro-God commenters forgot Deevo's right to believe as he wished and responded in a tone that was remarkably similar to his.

I humbly suggest that God might prefer more civil advocates.
joe | 06.01.05 - 3:19 pm | #

Well, you're probably right about the necessity of being more civil, but the whole 'Gee willikers, you people still believe in God?????' routine gets very old. Atheists are a minority of the world populace, so them wandering about the internet being shocked, shocked to find out that there are people that disagree with them seems very disingenuous.
David Scott | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 3:22 pm | #

I only skimmed this debate, but I must say that fairies should have the right to marry.
Bleeding heart | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 3:25 pm | #

LOLOLOL... very clever. But who would be the photographer?
Nightfly | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 3:37 pm | #

Logic 101 - You cannot prove a negative
Julie Scott | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 3:47 pm | #

Deevo, your assertion that there is no supernatural reality is of course premature. You cannot have searched out the back of Betelguese, to see whether there aren't demons, angels, fairies and wraiths hobnobbing about the latest ethereal fashions over plasma cocktails. And there are a number of other places you haven't checked. A very large number of places. Like all humans, your collected body of knowledge of the natural world is extremely, woefully limited.

But that's not even the most pertinent point. For by definition, the realm of the supernatural would have to be just that: super, i.e. above nature. Outside it. So the challenge to present natural evidence of the supernatural is a false dilemma. The fact that supernatural phenomena aren't reproduceable by natural means proves nothing either way. In fact, evidence of the supernatural realm would only serve to bring what was once considered supernatural into the natural realm. If you can explain it by science, then science owns it; ergo, it is natural, not supernatural.

The search for the supernatural is not a scientific pursuit, and those who seek it do not do so for the cause of science. Science ultimately devolves into the Quest For Useful Stuff. It does not answer larger questions, such as why do we exist, why does the universe exist.

It is crushing to have sought the supernatural as you have, and to not find any evidence of it. Your vehemence in this forum speaks volumes about that disappointment. But consider for a moment why you have that vehemence. Why do you argue so vociferously against people you believe are deluded? Why not just let them pass, and mock them quietly or out loud if you wish, but more or less let fools travel on in foolishness? Why do you rage at the simpletons like an Old Testament prophet?

There is something about believers that disturbs you. You're far from alone; I may react differently, but I find belief disturbing as well. However, I think the supernatural realm, if it exists, would have to disturb us, else it really wouldn't figure in our existence at all. The supernatural might as well not exist if not for the fact that we find it, or even the mere mention of it so disturbing.

This is nothing like "evidence" in the scientific sense, but if I had to point to something which suggests the existence of God, I'd point to the fact that this topic, this question of God's existence means so much to you. You care about this. And no real materialist ought to care in the slightest about supernatural fancies and others' delusions of them.
Joel | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 3:54 pm | #

Hi Jacob

"For, as I understand it, the Smithsonian's purpose is science and art. The young earth account of creation is neither- it is not attained by art or by science."

I didn't say that those young-earth creationist would demand the showing of a young-earth film; just do what Randi wants to do: Cancel the presentation of others, without demanding anything else shown.

The key issue is that Randi thinks that the Smithsonian are willing to break a contract for a measly $4,000 extra. In other words, Randi thinks the Smithsonian is a prostitute. In making this public offer, he's perfectly willing to tarnish the reputation of a scientific organization, just to prevent a pro-ID film being shown.

Forget about "creationists destroying science" - the ID critics are doing fine by themselves.
Krauze | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 3:57 pm | #

Reminder to all: Please read the comments rules on the left-hand side of my blog. I would have banned Deevo for calling someone else a "bigot" were it not for that he's provoked a somewhat entertaining discussion. That said, the next person who calls anyone other than himself or herself a bigot on this thread--or who throws around similar ad hominem insults--is banned. My thanks to those who are engaging in polite discourse.

Update: I now see it was Jinx who threw the b-word--yikes! Glad to see he's apologized.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 4:09 pm | #

RRRGGG, I went to mass and now the conversation with Deevo is over :(
Thank God I attended a different Thomas Aquinas than he is at.

Joe, I am jealous of the way that you can see much more beauty in things than I can. Perhaps with a lot more patience.

"The only problem with faith is that it is blind " Deevo. This is why Deevo cannot believe- blind faith produces fear- which can be good if it through knowledge becomes love. Otherwise this fear becomes hatred.
Faith seeking understanding- not understanding seeking faith. 30 years of study without faith :(
Jacob G. | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 4:11 pm | #

Krauze,
I see now, and agree. Thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding.
Jacob G. | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 4:14 pm | #

I think by agreeing to show the film, the Smithsonian proved that it is a prostitute. Randi is merely trying to haggle about the price.
Tom | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 4:16 pm | #

My opinion on God is that God is very clever and created the world in such a way that we can't use creation to prove he exists. God wants us to believe in him by faith, not because some scientist proved that God has to exist. That is why I am quite certain that there is nothing to the intelligent-design theory. A truly intelligent designer can easily hide his signature.
Tom | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 4:20 pm | #

Hi Tom,

"I think by agreeing to show the film, the Smithsonian proved that it is a prostitute. Randi is merely trying to haggle about the price."

Yes, that's probably how Randi sees it as well. By taking money from the Enemy, the Smithsonian has already sold its scientific soul. Better to completely destroy its reputation than to have the Discovery Institute benefit from it.
Krauze | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 4:39 pm | #

Tom, but He wouldn't try to hide Himself in creation. For it is by knowing God as the creator that we can come to:

First to have faith in him. If we had NO idea about God then we couldn't believe in Him. It is from creation, as Joe beautifully pointed out, that we have some idea of him, then we come to have Faith. Faith is not wholly blind.

Secondly, God wants us to believe in Him but He wants us to develop that faith into a Knowledge of Him. Faith naturally seeking understanding yadayada. Otherwise He would be asking us to not to seek Him, which is to deny our natural curiousity; making God to act sub-naturally not supernaturally- as Joel above pointed out. This knowledge by no means getting rid of his faith, but rather perfecting it. I always think of this as a comparison to when Christ sayed 'I didn't come to destroy the old testament but to fullfill.'
Jacob G. | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 4:55 pm | #

Tom, your thought reminded me of the Hitchhiker's Guide (original); there Adams uses "proofs of God" in reverse:

God said, "To believe in me one must have faith, and therefore there is no convincing proof of my existence." And Man said, "Wait, what about the Babel Fish? That's sort of a dead giveaway, right? Nobody else could come up with something like that." "Oh, I hadn't thought of that," God said, and vanished in a puff of logic. "Say, that was easy!" Man said, and went on to prove that white was black, only to promptly get himself killed at the next railroad crossing.

A paraphrase, alas... But Doug was on to something. Relying on proofs as if God was a hunk of math simply leaves you open to the next argument that comes along. Faith is an affair of the heart, not the mind.
Nightfly | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 5:37 pm | #

I should say that I don't think all atheists are thugs. Merely that some are, and they are disproportionatley power on the internet.

By the way, I've heard some pretty convincing arguments that you can say the same about the church: after all, we do tend to hear the loudest people.
David Scott | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 5:46 pm | #

Sigh, I meant online. They Christian hate sites are treated as being far more representative than they are. I'll be quiet now.
David Scott | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 5:47 pm | #

But did He mean to hide his signature, or just obscure it?

The thing about both evolution and ID (and six-day creationism, for that matter) is that none of them is a conclusion, but rather a starting point for study. The scientist, whatever his or her persuasion, says, "theory x seems very compelling, so let's do some more observing using that theory as a model; a framework into which we may organize the data we gather." The scientist, if he or she is a good scientist should further say, "Once we've gathered more data, we'll look at our model again, and see how it fits."

The point is that the data itself doesn't lead one unerringly to either model. Everyone who has concluded with sublime confidence that one theory is correct and the other is incorrect has made something of a logical short cut in order to do so.

Logical short cuts are not necessarily bad in the study of science. They are useful for constructing workable models. You could think of them like assumptions made for the sake of argument.

The problem arises when scientists forget the "for the sake of argument" part of the exercise. The model is mistaken for discovery, and rather than serving as an organizer of observed data, it is haphazardly filed among the observable data it was supposed to be measured against.
Joel | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 5:51 pm | #

Joseph (I think) sees the point I was trying to make with my questions about Occam's Razor and making predictions: that science and theology go together like a fish and a bicycle.

Philosophy tells us that science does not pretend to answer metaphysical questions and, indeed, never asks them. Those, however, are precisely the questions that theology constantly asks and tries to answer. We shouldn't be surprised, if science and theology come up with different answers to the question, "What is truth?" Their answers are different, because the purposes served by the answers are different.

It is quite possible (to take a very old bone of contention) that (in a truth-with-a-capital-T kind of way) the sun revolves around the earth, and not the other way about. Science does not *insist* that heliocentricity is "true" in this metaphysical sense; it only insists that, based on available (empirical) data, heliocentricity is a simpler, and therefore preferred, explanation.

Science is a logical system that is useful for a specific purpose. If we introduce an idea inconsistent with the rules of the system--and Intelligent Design, I think, is contrary to the rule of Occam's Razor because, like Newton's "ether," it introduces an additional element unnecessary to science's phenomenon-predicting purpose--science becomes less useful.

I venture to say that theistic scientists, on some level, appreciate this distinction, so there's nothing contradictory in their simultaneously believing in science and believing in God. The two beliefs are wholly different in quality; one springs from inductive reasoning, and one from faith.
npetrikov | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 6:13 pm | #

Excuse the ignorance, what does ID stand for?

Nightfly, don't you think that the 6-day creation is a conclusion?

I believe the Bible is infallable
6-day creation is in the Bible
Therefore 6 day creation must be right

Isn't the 6-day creation, outside of the scope of knowledge (no evidence for it) and hence cannot be a theory- just a belief?
Jacob G. | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 6:13 pm | #

npetrikov,

"science and theology come up with different answers to the question, "What is truth?" Their answers are different, because the purposes served by the answers are different."

Rather we should be very surprised. We cannot say that God, being the cause of everything CAN create some contradictory truth. I agree with you that science and theology, most often, use the truths they attain differently, but not that they attain contrary truths.

"Science is a logical system that is useful for a specific purpose" Cannot the same be said of Theology?

What exactly does ID have that is contrary to Occam's Razor? If I understand Occam's Razor, and I have never studied it, it does not exclude mediate steps, simply not superflous, or unneeded, mediate steps.
Jacob G. | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 6:25 pm | #

Some thoughts:

We know what we believe and we believe what we know.

or in other words:

We cannot know anything if we don't believe in anything.

How can anyone be certain that reality isn't just illusion? He can't. He must believe. He must trust his senses, among other things.

Some scepticism is needed to attain knowledge, but knowledge can also die of an overdose of scepticism.

In the end there are no proofs, only evidence.

Yes, we have no proof for God's existence, but we do have evidence.

And wittnesses.

Good night to you all,
francis | 06.01.05 - 6:26 pm | #

Ah yes, I forgot:

God doesn't the rich (in money), but he blesses the "poor in spirit"

"God is love."

Remember that.
francis | 06.01.05 - 6:28 pm | #

Jacob, if I gave the impression that the truths of science and religion are contradictory, I apologize. I didn't mean it.

A simple example of what I *did* mean: "The boy is three feet tall" and "The boy is courteous." The first helps us decide whether he should be allowed to ride on a roller-coaster; the second, whether he'd be welcome at a social event. Nothing contradictory; just different truths, of different qualities, for different purposes.

What I don't understand is how ID, which may provide spiritual, intellectual and emotional satisfaction as an idea, *helps* to explain (in an empirical sense) past data or to predict future data.
npetrikov | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 6:43 pm | #

Francis,

"In the end there are no proofs, only evidence." So the evidence exists by belief?

In other words, if reality only exists because I believe my senses then when I stop believing my senses reality no longer exists. See the problem?

I do agree that an equivication happens, namely on knowledge. If to know something is to know its cause then you must know the cause of the cause, and the cause of the cause of the cause, ad infinatum -hence nothing would ever be known. There must be then a first known which is known in itself- that is the existance of reality.

Hence I do not Believe that reality exists, in fact I Know of it's existance than than anything I can prove from it.
Jacob G. | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 6:47 pm | #

Ahh npetrikov,
I see and assent, of course. Mistook different for contradictory, excuse me.

It is true that God must be at all time the cause of existance. But to show His goodness, and His greatness, he uses intermediaries. I agree that this intermediary could have been evolution, to a degree- one kind of soul cannot come from another kind.
I'm a hybrid of ID and evolution- an Aristotelian for sure.
Jacob G. | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 7:08 pm | #

npetrikov--

ID (so far as I'm acquainted with it, which isn't all that far) seems to be an essentially negative tactic: it hopes to disprove or at least render seriously implausible the idea that random variations are sufficient to account for the evolution of species. From there it infers that design is a more plausible explanation. If it's taken that way, your Occam's Razor objection doesn't really apply: ID would not be multiplying entities without necessity, but rather supplying a necessary one.

Regarding your question as to how ID "*helps* to explain (in an empirical sense) past data or to predict future data" -- I don't see that evolution helps with the latter, except in a trivial and almost tautological sense ("the fittest will survive", "organisms will change in response to conditions" -- which latter ID would not dispute anyway). And the whole point of it is that evolution (in the purely materialistic random mutation version) has not explained the past, but is only over-confidently claiming that it has.
Maclin Horton | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 7:28 pm | #

My, my. Haven't we poked a stick into a hornets nest.

Here's the bottom line, from one who has done some studying: ID asks questions that Evolutionists don't want to have to answer.

What more does one need to know? Any opportunity to throw rocks ought be taken.
Gentleman Farmer | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 7:52 pm | #

I want to know more. What sorts of questions do IDers ask, about the means-not the cause nor the end- of life that evolutionists don't? Just curious.
Evolutionists probably aren't curious about how everything got started just how it has progressed. The end, neither would they be too interested in...too far removed I imagine.
Jacob G. | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 8:12 pm | #

Hi Jacob,

ID = intelligent design.

I don't know if this is what Gentleman Farmer had in mind, but here's a question that, to my mind, is fundamental to ID:

http://telicthoughts.com/?p=101
Krauze | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 8:28 pm | #

"You have no proof. You believe in something that does not exist - I've met your kind before too."

"I came here for an argument. That's just contradiction"-- Monty Python
Will | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 9:27 pm | #

Nightfly: but Adams goes on to note that "most theologians consider this argument a load of dingoes kidneys."
Will | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 9:33 pm | #

Will - that's true. One of the great things about Adams was that sort of set up for a contradictory punchline.

Jacob - you ask a good question. I think that creation does betray design, which implies a designer. But in some ways ID goes too far. It tries to explain everything and leaves no room for imagination. I think that we are more akin to great works of art than clever clockworks. Even my explanation is more romantic than logical, I'm afraid...
Nightfly | Homepage | 06.01.05 - 11:37 pm | #

I will not apologize for saying what I know to be true and what I know someone is. I will apologize, however, for saying it here. Sorry, Dawn.

Now, that being said, check out this ID FAQ on Belief.net to learn a little bit about what ID is and is not. A summary:

-ID is not "Creationism 2.0"
-ID still includes a heavy dose of evolution (to a point)

I would at to that FAQ the fact that ID supporters come from all walks of life: religious, non-religious, Christian, non-Christian, agnostic, atheist, right-wing, left-wing, conservative, liberal, moderate, Republican, Democrat, Independent, etc.

As for myself, I am not a supporter of ID. Neither am I an Young Earth Creationist. What I am is simply an Earth Creationist. I believe that God created the world and all life upon it. The issues of how and when don't matter to me. If the Earth is 6-10,000 years old, great. If it's billions of years old, wonderful. None of it has any bearing on my faith.
Jinx | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 2:03 am | #

Dear Jacob,

sorry if I didn't express myself clearly.

No,

I don't say that "the evidence exists by belief" and that "reality only exists because I believe my senses"

The evidence is there for this and that.

My point was that you have to believe one thing to be able to know another thing. If you don't trust your senses or methodology etc you can stop right there.

"when I stop believing my senses reality no longer exists. See the problem?"

I see the "problem", but: no, reality does still exists even when I shut myself off completely. I know some sceptics argue that way, but that is cutting off the branch we (they included) are sitting on.

I don't use "believe" in the sense restricted to religious belief, but rather holding something you cannot see (or prove) - along the lines of S. Paul.

And if you applied extreme scepticism you could not know that reality exists. But it is reasonable (that's not to be confused with rational or scientific) to believe that reality exists. It is a reasonable choice that you must make first - and most people make that choice.

But some are not consistent in that: they first believe in order to know and then they want to know in order to believe (and hence demand proofs).
francis | 06.02.05 - 6:05 am | #

francis,
I think I nearly completly agree with you.
But I do think that it can be proven, just as Aristotle did, the proof I gave above; namely a proof to the absurd.

I don't think there is a choice to be made, at all. Choice implies the possibility of an otherness and there is no otherness with reality- literally, it simply is.

"If you don't trust your senses or methodology etc you can stop right there." Here is where we disagree. It seems to me that one can't stop because he never started. No-one, except the truly insane, can ever believe that reality does not exist. Hence they cannot believe it does. If one contrary can be chosen the other must be able to be chosen. Again, literally reality simply is.

Minor, minor distinctions and it seems we are splitting hairs but hey, I'm a philosopher and theologian- and so splitting hairs is... Just please don't think I'm being arrogant or anything.
Jacob G. | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 2:21 pm | #

Nightfly,
I nearly, nearly completely agree with you. Perhaps though Clockworks in respect to nature, and a work of art in respect to God. Nothing contrary and so both can be true.

Like the clay pot that is made. It certainly is a piece of art but it adheres to rules outside of art (if there is too much weight on top then it flops over while being spun, if the kiln is too hot then it breaks, etc.). The potter is an artist in one respect but not in another.

Both completly true and so I get the best of both worlds, haha. God's hand guiding evolution- to a degree, none of this men coming from apes business; we have different souls and so one kind cannot come from another (besides the point).
How does that sound? Good?no good?
Jacob G. | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 2:27 pm | #

Jacob - it sounds excellent; you're in the gold, I think. We are highly functional art, both science and beauty. You'll do well at Aquinas...
Nightfly | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 4:12 pm | #

Jacob,

yes I think we agree, if we do some translation.

I did distinguish between proof and evidence - with the former providing absolute certainty and the latter a remaining possibility of error. In the real world however, this distinction is nonsensical, since there is no actual proof (according to the definition above)

The proof or argument from the absurd would fall into the category of evidence.

(Also, S. Thomas' or S. Anselm's proofs were actually arguments or, in my words, evidence, since you could and can shut yourself to them, like Deevo has done at some point.)

Of course there is no otherness with reality, but I could in thought propose one, that is nothingness, or just refuse to accept without giving an alternative.

The choice I spoke of is more a choice of accepting or not accepting. So that is the basic alternative we always had, at least if were are not acutally forced by sheer force (sorry, it's late over here).

"It seems to me that one can't stop because he never started." Of course, what I meant by stopping was not going further, not starting at all, basically "end of the line".

That all is not to say, that I'd follow such a hyper-sceptic line, and if you will, hyper-scepticism is a view "truly insane"

In a way, my point was a bit of an "argument from the absurd" as well.

God bless
francis | 06.02.05 - 6:08 pm | #

Thanks Nightfly,
Graduated 3 years ago. Looking to enter the Society (Jesuits) in a year. Pray for me please. Functional Art- I like that term...gonna steal it from you.
Jacob G. | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 7:46 pm | #

For those who wonder about my comment above, it should read:

God doesn't hate the rich (in money), but he blesses the "poor in spirit"

"God is love."

Remember that.

Ps. Jacob, thanks for your reply.
francis | 06.03.05 - 6:32 am | #

Jacob - a believing Jesuit? God still does miracles! ;) And yes, I will pray for you.
Nightfly | Homepage | 06.03.05 - 9:30 am | #