two or three . net

Ontology of the Devil

I recently listened to apologist Peter S. Williams (blog) deliver this talk at the 2010 European Leadership Forum on the topic: Arguments for Theism, and finally understood the Ontological Argument for God's existence.

However, it brought up a question in my mind, which I submitted to William Lane Craig's website.  I'll post the answer if I get one, but here's the question:

If the Ontological Argument assumes that God is the maximum quality of attributes of goodness and greatness:

1. Which category does 'being' or 'existence' fall into?  Goodness or greatness?
2. If that is an attribute of greatness, could we not then use this argument to argue for the existence of a maximally great and maximally evil (instead of good) being, then conclude that that being must also exist?

Comments?

Only a Man - Jonny Lang's testimony of finding faith for himself

 As I wrote previously, Lang wrote Leaving to Stay about leaving faith, but recently returned to faith and wrote this beautiful song as a testimony - I think this duet is with his wife. 

This last studio CD, Turn Around, won the 2007 Grammy for Best Rock Gospel Album.

Leaving to Stay - Jonny Lang's song of unbelief

 Jonny Lang, who left his childhood faith, returned to it a few years ago, and won a Grammy on the first CD that came out of that experience.

But before he returned to faith, he wrote and performed this song on Wander This World during his 'lost' period.  Amazing song and lyrics.

Hold the intangible

 I was updating my ID3 data on my mp3 collection, and had a great time going through all of my old CCM (Contemporary Christian Music) that I haven't listened to for almost 20 years. 

I came upon Susan Ashton's debut album, which was awesome, especially this song, which is written to atheists.  Enjoy the lyrics - it's also beautifully arranged and sung.

GUIDE: Books on Christianity and Science

Here's my list of resources for those interested in the history of religion and science, both pro and anti-religious.

THEIST

For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery by Rodney Stark

Stark argues that faith in God encouraged Christians to invent science. Having read other books making the same claim, I think Stark's approach to this question is one of the best. Not only does he go over the development of technology in the so-called "Dark Ages," and show how the "Enlightenment" picture of Copernican era science is a myth, he studies 52 key early scientists, and shows that more than 60 % were "devout," while only 2 were skeptics. The critic below who asks why Christianity did not produce science in Russia did not read attentively: Stark argues that faith in God was a necessary, but not sufficient, cause of the rise of science. Other factors were also involved. ~ From this excellent review

When to Doubt a Scientific ‘Consensus’

Here's the abbreviated list from a good article from the American entitled When to Doubt a Scientific ‘Consensus’. You can also hear an interview with the author at ID the Future.

1. When different claims get bundled together.
2. When ad hominem attacks against dissenters predominate.
3. When scientists are pressured to toe the party line.
4. When publishing and peer review in the discipline is cliquish.
5. When dissenting opinions are excluded from the relevant peer-reviewed literature not because of weak evidence or bad arguments but as part of a strategy to marginalize dissent.
6. When the actual peer-reviewed literature is misrepresented.
7. When consensus is declared hurriedly or before it even exists.
8. When the subject matter seems, by its nature, to resist consensus.
9. When “scientists say” or “science says” is a common locution.
10. When it is being used to justify dramatic political or economic policies.
11. When the “consensus” is maintained by an army of water-carrying journalists who defend it with uncritical and partisan zeal, and seem intent on helping certain scientists with their messaging rather than reporting on the field as objectively as possible.
12. When we keep being told that there’s a scientific consensus.

How to misunderstand scripture: Matthew 19:16-26

You can listen to the sermon below:

How to Misunderstand Scripture

Sermon outline after the jump.

Guide: Best Atheist / Secularist / Anti-theist Podcasts?

I love the whole debate scene, and I have listened to a lot of Christian and non-Christian news podcasts, and narrowed down my favorites to Guide: Favorite Podcasts for Christians. Now, I want to venture out into the land of my ideological opponents.  Here's my list so far.  Most of these I got from the list at Podcast Alley.

Last Update:  03.01.10

Richard Dawkins is right ... kinda

It's not often I agree with New Atheism spokesman Richard Dawkins. However in this BBC video clip, he details a problem within Christianity (despite it having the feel of a SNL Jack Handy spot). The ardent atheist explains his opposition to the religious identification of children (calling small children "Christian child," or "Muslim child," not so surprisingly he left out "atheist child).

I somewhat agree with Dawkins, despite his refusal to include his own philosophy in his list. A faith must be adopted by an individual on their own. That would be why Baptists and other similar groups of Christians rejected infant baptism.

While Dawkins may prefer to speak of a blind watchmaker, I think this is more an instance of him being a blind squirrel.

New Atheists heart Old Fundamentalists

When I think of horribly unpersuasive spokespersons for their views, I think of Pat Robertson and Richard Dawkins. Both see the absolute worst in those with whom they disagree and feel the need to constantly speak their mind when no one wants to hear it. So why would I be surprised when Dawkins actually defended Robertson's Haiti idiocy? New York Times columnists Russ Douthat explores what he calls "the symbiotic relationship" between new atheists and fundamentalists.

Luke / Challies Letter Series - an atheist talks to a Christian about working together

Luke over at Common Sense Atheism is engaging in a letter exchange with Tim Challies.  I have taken it upon myself to answer Luke's letters, since I am not Tim Challies, and see things a litle differently.  Luke has not answered my responses, but perhaps he may.  Here's the Series links, in chronological order

1. Luke's First Letter
2. My First Response
3. Tim's First Response
4. Luke's Second Letter
5. My Second Response
6. Tim's Second Response
7. Luke's Third Letter
8. My Third Response
9. Tim's Third Response

Why no empirical test for God? Perhaps quantum science will provide it

Atheists are full of good questions, one of which was recently broached at Common Sense Atheism in the post A question online theists refuse to answer? - that question is

“Can you prove to me that God exists in a way that will also show that Zeus does not?”

I initially responded by citing my series on Pascal's Wager, explaining that, while there is no direct empirical evidence for the existence (or non-existence!) of God, there are plenty of other methods for showing a difference in the believability of the various Gods. 

One atheist responded that I had missed the point, writing:

What you *really* want here is an experimental test. Show us this goddy thing, and let us fire protons at it…

So let me take another stab at it - rather than giving him the sensible argument I gave (there is no empirical test, but that does not mean that we don't have other methods by which to distinguish between metaphysical claims), I'll try another valid one - that is, empirical science is not yet able to measure the spiritual - it can barely quantify, measure, or understand the psychological realm, so what makes us think we can evaluate the spiritual?

Letter To Tim Challies / Luke - Part II

In the six part interchange between Tim Challies the Christian and Luke the atheist, it looks like Tim took a different approach than me, which seems to take offense at Luke's confident declarations of Biblical problems.  I agree with Tim a little, such declarations are a bit too definitive and value-laden to allow for discussion of cooperation within an umbrella of mutual respect, but I also agree a bit more with Luke that they were spoken in context of his personal journey and feelings in his 'deconversion' process.

So Luke also went sort of in Tim's direction, although I think he is trying to redirect things back to 'how can we work together?' which I tried to address in Letter To Tim Challies / Luke - Part I.  Luke has written a second Letter to Tim Challies, to which I now respond.

Letter To Tim Challies / Luke - Part I

Luke over at Common Sense Atheism is engaging in a letter exchange with Tim Challies which should be really great.  I am not Tim Challies, but I endeavor to be.  All I need is to publish my own book and read a few hundred books to catch up, right?

Anyway, here is my response to Luke.  I know that he may not have the time or the desire to answer me as well, since I am less influential.  However, I think Luke asks good questions, and I have praised his blog before, as well as trolled commented on it.

So here's my response to Luke's first letter.

Are you a Christian because of your experiences, or because of logic?

In Why do some Christians become atheists?, I discussed five reasons why some Christians may have abandoned faith to become atheists - some noble reasons, some not.  The ensuing commentary helped me see that these same principles can be applied to any faith or anti-faith decision.  Here are those now six ideas, but I wanted to also ask the question - is Christianity primarily or first a decision of the heart or head?  I argue that, to the chagrin of logicians and empiricists, Christianity is a religion of the heart - that is, conviction of the intuition and conscience, not an intellectual decision of the mind.

You are a Christian because (choose all that apply):

1. You were raised that way, and have never seriously considered any other viewpoint, nor seriously questioned your faith.
2. You made an emotional decision to become Christian during a dark time in your life.
3. You felt a deep conviction and a reality in the presence and peace of God that led you to receive Christ.
4. Your conversion was based on the first good argument you heard, and you came from a position of weak ideological commitment - again, you may have never seriously considered any other viewpoint.
5. You are caught up in the novelty of your new Christian world view mostly because it is different, and will leave it when the novelty wears off.
6. Reason and experience have led you to your conclusion that Christianity is true.

An Anti-theist reading list

I just discovered (via the Secular Nation podcast, one of the many atheist/anti-theist/secularist podcasts I follow) Margaret Downey's answer to the Christmas Tree, the Tree of Knowledge - that is, an atheists' substitute for the religious celebration of Christ. 

Downey has a long reading list that represents perhaps the best (?) that skeptics of faith have to offer.  I have reproduced the list below. 

Downey is a true despiser of religion - she even hates when people exclaim "Oh God!" but you can bet she's not concerned about taking God's name in vain.

The Age of Reason = The Age of Infidelity

Atheists and secularists are fond of quoting the articulate Thomas Paine, author of the free-thinkers creed Age of Reason.  Few know, however, that a founding father wrote a rebuttal in 1801, which American Vision has reprinted. Elias Boudinot's book The Age of Revelation was seen as a powerful rebuttal.  And now you can read it too.  Below is the blurb about the book from American Vision.

How many times have you heard some skeptic claim that this or that non-Christian was a Founding Father of America? Thomas Jefferson is one of their patron saints, and yet he wasn’t even present during the drafting of the Constitution. Of course, Jefferson was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence which states emphatically that God is the Creator and the Judge of the world. The ACLU plays down these words. Benjamin Franklin is another one skeptics love to trot out as an anti-religious Founding Father. But it was Franklin who stood up at the Constitutional Convention and quoted Psalm 127:1 as a warning to the delegates: “Unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who build it.” Not much is said about these remarks by Franklin.

Analyzing the 6 C's of Atheism

This series contains the following articles:

• Analyzing the 6 C's of Atheism - Part I
• Analyzing the 6 C's of Atheism - Part II
• Analyzing the 6 C's of Atheism - Part III

Analyzing the 6 C's of Atheism - Part III: The 7 C's of Christianity

The Seven C's of the Christian WorldView of History

These Seven C's are nicely described at The Seven C’s.

I won't go into detail, and you can purchase the book at right, but here they are:

• Creation - the creation of the universe by God
• Corruption - the sin of Adam and Eve
• Catastrophe - the flood of Noah
• Confusion - the confusion of languages at Babel
• Christ - the birth of Christ
• Crucifixion - the substitutionary death of Christ
• Consummation - the return of Christ

This doesn't really contrast with the 6 C's of Atheism, since this is a historical outline, not a list of the virtues of the Christian world view.  But I thought that another list of C's was interesting.

Why do some Christians become atheists?

I am exploring the mystery of why people leave faith for my upcoming book, and am also doing some great research by reading the following:

• Walking Away from Faith: Unraveling the Mystery of Belief and Unbelief
• Quitting Church: Why the Faithful are Fleeing and What to Do about It
• unChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks about Christianity... and Why It Matters
• They Like Jesus but Not the Church: Insights from Emerging Generations

However, in response to a pretty good atheist podcast at Reasonable Doubts (Explicit), I was asked to consider this question:  "When a Christian becomes an 'apostate,' (unbeliever), how do Christians explain it?"  

Analyzing the 6 C's of Atheism - Part I

Many of us Christians may be familiar with the "Seven C's" overview of the Christian World View, but it seems that there is a Six C's of Atheism, as August Berkshire, .  Berkshire also calls his list the 'virtues' of atheism.  After the jump, listen to him talk through the points.

Examining the historical and logical links between Darwin and eugenics

In the latest podcast over at Reasonable Doubt, the resident atheists discuss my comment on their blog, where I suggested that there is a historical link between Darwinism and Nazism.  Naturally, since I attacked their religion science worldview, they took issue with me.

Unfortunately, their interesting, amusing and often profanity-laden podcast (I say that with some affection but not admiration ;) often misrepresented my points, and created a few straw men to boot.

I ask you fellas (challenge you?) to address your 'mistakes' in a future podcast. Like you, I don't enjoy being ridiculed or misrepresented. Here's my response to your discussion.  I hope these clear things up and lead to reasoned argument!

British film 'Creation' can't find a U.S. distributor?

Atheist, Darwinist, and Christian websites are abuzz about the British bio pic of Charles Darwin, because it seems that the British producer is having trouble finding an American distributor to pick it up. 

What amuses me is the amazement of Darwinists who can't wrap their minds around the fact that only 39% of Americans believe in evolution as an explanation of origins.  While they chock it up to religious American fervor and their superior intellect, they overlook the fact that there may be good reasons to BE skeptical of evolution - but they can not be truly skeptical because it is part of their metaphysical world view, which even they are too scared to seriously examine.  I mean, if evolution is NOT true, they are left with either God or some other undiscovered process.  We couldn't have that.

I think this movie looks interesting.  I would go see it.  Here are some downloadable clips from the movie.

Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design

In my two part Atheist philosopher supports Intelligent Design as scientific, I introduced people to Dr. Bradley Monton, a well spoken atheist who supports ID, not because he believes it, but because he thinks that it is a legitimate scientific approach to explaining complexity.  In those posts, you can listen to a really interesting interview with Monton, plus get info on 'The great debate' he was involved in. 

Monton has finally released his book Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design. 

Some related resources:

• Series of five interviews w/ Monton (ID the Future)
• ID's Unlikely Defender (Breakpoint)
• Atheist defends Intelligent Design (San Francisco Examiner)
• Is Intelligent Design Science? Dissecting the Dover Decision (Monton's paper criticizing the Dover decision)

Richard Morgan: Mormon turned Hindu turned atheist becomes Christian

Richard Morgan, active member of RichardDawkins.net and self-professed "Dawkensian atheist" converted to Christianity in 2008 after a long search for social acceptance and truth.  Will he stop there?

He felt like Richard Dawkins 'saved' him from his many tries at finding meaning in faith.  His story is interesting.  He converted to Mormonism at age 16, but as a Mormon missionary, he lost his faith.  He then tried many religions, including positive thinking, numerology, and Hinduism.

Check out the interview at Premier Christian Radio.  This hour long interview covers Morgan's Journey, as well as the journey of Ed Turner, an atheist who was also converted to atheism by Dawkins et al., and remains atheist.

Collision documents an interesting friendship on the Atheism debate trail

You've got to hand it to Christopher Hitchens for making the decision to go out of friendly territory to debate Christians on their own turf across the US. Not content with doing a promotion tour for his infamous anti-theist screed God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, he decided to tour with Christian apologist Douglas Wilson.

You can hear some of Wilson's debates at Apolgetics 315, including one with "Hitch," as his atheist fans call him.  You can also visit Richard Dawkins' site to watch a video of a Hitchens / Wilson Debate. Last, and probably best, you can read a six part back and forth email discussion between the two on Is Christianity Good for the World?

But if you really want to see what goes on on the Tour Bus as these two men travel together debating across the country, you should check out the new documentary Collision (some nice preview vids there).

For a mere $14, you can pre-order the video at Amazon: COLLISION: Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson.

Former Atheists: A. N. Wilson

Andrew Norman Wilson (b1950), is an English teacher and award winning writer.  His biography of Tolstoy won the Whitbread Award (now the Costa Book Awards) for best biography in 1988.

Wilson entered Oxford on the path of ordination in the Anglican Church, but quit after the first year, and in the 1980's came out as an atheist.  In 1991 he published a pamphlet entitled Against Religion, and wrote other historical and fiction books critical of religion, including God's Funeral: The Decline of Faith in Western Civilization (2000), his 2004 Jesus: A Life, which is critical of the historicity of the gospels, and his fictional piece My Name is Legion, a satire attacking both the British Press and the Anglican Church.  But it seems that all those opinions may now be his FORMER positions on such matters.

Quote of the Day #022: Evolutionists like religious hypocrites

"Evolutionists have done to science what hypocrites have done to religion. They leap through the so-called paleontological record like a Disney cartoon kangaroo, making statements that have more to do with an overripe imagination rather than with true science. They are unregulated speculators with ridiculous theories that are leaving the minds of today’s youth bankrupt, and they need to be held to some sort of intellectual accountability. I’m just one incompetent idiot that’s trying to do that."

Ray Comfort, author of You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think, , responding to PZ Meyer's criticism of his questions about the absent mechanism for the evolution of male and female across the entire animal kingdom.

First Atheist Church of St. Darwin

Recently around the world, scores of people gathered together to celebrate the birthday of a man, whom they revere. The organizers called it a  "global holiday that transcends separate nationalities and cultures." They said prayers and sang hymns, including O life that makest all things new, Our founders’ faith we’ll sing of thee, and Morning on morning. The holiday was, of course, Darwin Day.

Society without God - are we better off without faith?

Today on Forum with Michael Krasney (NPR), the author of Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment was interviewed. Very interesting. Listen to it here.

The author, who interviewed 250 people, discusses

• Measuring religiosity by both stated beliefs and participation
• That the least religious nations are the most humane and safe
• That when human needs are met through social welfare, the need for religion may be decreased
• That atheism does not lead to chaos, and does not inhibit societal health
• There are a lot of explanations for the peace of such countries that perhaps make them more successful, including racial homogeneity, the welfare state, and their smallness

The book has an endorsement from village atheist Sam Harris.

Pascal's Wager - Part III: Evaluating the gods

In Part I of this series, I examined Pascal's wager as a risk calculation exercise.  In Part II, I proposed some criteria by which one could evaluate various faith claims, even though those criteria were outside of direct empirical observation.  In this part, I perform a heuristic, self-reinforcing example of how said evaluation might look when comparing the claims of Jesus, Buddha, Mohamed, Zeus, Superman, and the FSM.

Admittedly, I have not backed up my Yes/No assertions with argumentation and data.  And for the sake of this exercise, I will not.  The point is, when evaluated by important, empirical and non-empirical criteria, faith claims can be differentiated, and some may be eliminated as serious candidates for faith, while others remain under consideration.  And that is the point.

No faith can be 'proven,' that is the point of having faith.  But some may be eliminated as pretenders, as not worthy of faith.  Click on the chart in the image to see a full sized version.

In Part IV, I address the host of minor objections.

The psychology of atheism and unbelief - the defective father

I just finished listening to this excellent lecture by Dr. Paul Vitz, a professor of psychology at NYU, and author of Faith of the Fatherless.  In it, he explores the psychological reasons for unbelief.

What is really interesting, and missed by many listeners (you should hear the Q&A), is his purpose in giving this lecture.  It is not, paradoxically, to attack atheism or atheists, but rather, to show that:

• just as psychology has often trained itself on the psychology of belief, it can also be used to explore the psychology behind unbelief, including showing correlation with formative emotional events
• just as the propensity for belief might be explained by emotional needs and experiences, so can the propensity for unbelief
• just because someone has a psychological need for belief or unbelief does not mean that such beliefs are wrong OR right, so we should stop attacking ideological opponents by accusing them of mental illness - not that such accusations are untrue, but that they can be leveled from both sides, so it's a draw
• there is a very strong correlation between unbelief and the breakdown of the family authority structure, the safety of the family, and esp. the experience of a failed father. He proposes that this is also a causative factor as well.

His lecture contains some other VERY interesting perspectives, including a Freudian analysis of unbelief - that of an unresolved Oedipal complex.  Not that he believes this, but that, if one did, that is how Freudian psychology might explain unbelief.

Summary of his interesting points below.

Pascal's Wager - Part II: debunking the 'all religions are equally improbable' ruse

In Part I, I generalized that, since the impact of being wrong about God is high, it doesn't matter how unlikely it is, it is still a high risk.

But that oversimplification is not entirely true.  If it was, that would mean that all unconfirmable claims about the life to come, by any and all religions, would be equally binding, or just as important or risky.

If the Biblical God makes demands with consequences we can not confirm with empiricism, are they any different from the claims of Buddhism, Islam, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?  

What we really need is a better measure of how likely such claims are to be true.  Can that be done without direct empirical evidence?  YES.  We must not ignore historical, ethical, and logical support for or against faith claims, and in so doing, discriminate between pretenders and contenders.  

Below, I address this objection, which can be stated The lack of empirical support for faith means ALL FAITHS ARE EQUALLY IMPROBABLE and on par with fairy tales.

You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think

I have been listening to more and more debates between William Lane Craig, probably one of the best living Christian apologists, and a variety of atheists (links to debate audio below).  With the exception of Jonathan Shook, even their best efforts are easily destroyed by Craig - most of them rely on polemics and often really poor attacks on the fidelity of scripture, rather than logic and reason.

With that in mind, Ray Comfort's new book You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think: Answers to Questions from Angry Skeptics seems more than a pejorative stab, but rather, an astute observation of the narrow atheist view of reality, their unwillingness to concede science and reason's limitations, and other means of epistemology other than material empiricism.  Add one more to my already overburdened Amazon wishlist!

Comfort also answers an interesting question about atheist hecklers at challies.com, and refers to his site Atheist Central.

William Lane Craig v. Atheists Debates

• William Lane Craig debate transcripts
• WILLIAM LANE CRAIG COMPREHENSIVE DEBATE LIST
• WLC v. Christopher Hitchens - Does God Exist?
• WLC v. John R. Shook - Does God Exist?

Quote of the Day # 021: Faith goes beyond the limits of reason

The believer uses faith to gain access to a new domain, that of revelation....The believer hopes that revelation will expose truths otherwise hidden to reason.  The believer embraces faith not 'blindly' but rather with 'eyes wide open.' The Christian relies on faith not to suppress his native powers but to guide them so that they may see more clearly.  He expects revelation to reactivate and guide his reason.  Augustine's dictum is applicable here: "Believe and you will understand."

Dinesh D'Souza in What's So Great About Christianity

Pascal's Wager - Part I: why apatheism and atheism are unreasonable choices

Pascal's famous 'wager' is often misunderstood, and maligned by anti-theists as an argument from lack of evidence, or worse, merely a threat of hellfire. 

But on closer inspection, this theological conundrum elucidated by the great scientist, mathematician, and Christian well known for his intellectual Christian apologetic Pensees, is a masterful logical rebuke of atheism from a probability perspecitve - and Pascal is basically the father of the discipline of probability.

Blaise Pascal provides a serious evaluation of the reasonableness of seeking for God rather than foolishly betting against the odds that God exists.

Slaughter of the Dissidents further documents persecution of Darwin dissenters

American Vision has come out with a new 477 page book that they claim "picks up where the movie "Expelled" leaves off".  Slaughter of the Dissidents (nice title!) looks interesting, I'll put it on my list.  Here's an excerpt from their promo page:

You won't believe some of the reasons many educators have lost their jobs, or why some students failed to get an otherwise earned degree, and how they often get blackballed from academia. This pernicious form of discrimination is not only widespread in the U.S. but is also nauseating to most Americans. Slaughter of the Dissidents goes into great detail about how and why it occurs, and provides you with scores of actual case studies. As you read this book you'll discover that one of the most precious things we own is at risk, right here in America. What is that? In a word, FREEDOM.

Related Posts:

• Expelled - well done, thought provoking, too true for insecure evolutionists to see
• FreeGonazlez.com - Darwinian persecution in the University
• Top 10 Darwin and Design News Stories for 2008

British Christians thankful for Richard Dawkins

When Richard Dawkins began the "There Probably Is No God" ad blitz on British buses, he predicted a harsh reaction from believers: "They have to take offense, it is the only weapons they've got. They've got no arguments."

Dawkins was wrong. Surprisingly (and thankfully) Christians have viewed the ads as a positive development and an opportunity for the church.

Atheists vs. Christians: Battle for the Time Being

The atheists launched an attack. The Christians responded ... in a seemingly unending battle to see who can make the stupidest move. Unfortunately, I think the Christians are the favorite in this fight. They are ahead on points after round one.

Quote of the Day #019 - Atheism eliminated by natural selection?

I am immensely enjoying Dinesh D'Souza's What's So Great About Christianity.  Here's just one of inumerable choice passages (p. 19):

My conclusion is that it is not religion but atheism that requires a Darwinian explanation.  Atheism is a bit like homosexuality; one is not sure where it fits into a doctrine of natural selection.  Why would nature select people who mate with others of the same sex, a process with no reproductive advantage at all?  It seem equally perplexing why nature would breed a group of people who see no higher purpose in life or the universe.

101+ Quotes on Faith, Reason, Unbelief, and Atheism

In response to a very impressive list of 101 Atheist Quotes, I wanted to create some lists of my own, and have culled my favorites from the following sources:

• christianquotes.org
• grace quotes
• the quotable Christian

Atheism v. Faith - D'Souza/Barker Debate

I love listening to debates, esp. when the speakers are both good, refrain from logical fallacies and personal attacks, and elevate the level of debate beyond superficialities, and focus on assumptions.  The Barker/D'Souza debate, sponsored by the Harvard Secular Society, is one of the best, although I thought that the atheist (Barker) was a bit weak, and was outgunned compared to D'Souza, one of my new favorite Christian public intellectuals.

While Barker has some really great points, and D'Souza can be annoyingly on his own script, I think that he really demolished Barker on many points (excerpted below).  Enjoy.  Some transcript (by me) below.

Atheist philosopher supports Intelligent Design as scientific - Part II

In Part I, we were introduced to Dr. Bradley Monton, an atheist philosopher who supports considering the arguments of Intelligent Design (ID).  Here's some more choice quotes from Part II of his interview from ID the Future.

I'm an atheist, but somewhat sympathetic to the ID arguments.  I think they do give some evidence for the existence of God, so they make me less sure of my atheism than if I had not heard the arguments....When I speak of ID arguments, I mean to include both biology and physics-based arguments...beyond the standard evolution-based arguments that ID proponents spend most of their time on.  I am more interested in non-evolution-based arguments for the existence of a designer.  I also think that it is legitimate to think of ID as science.

I think that these issues are all independent of what should be taught in school, but fortunately or unfortunately, the discussion of ID has been caught up in what should taught in school....I do have ideas about the pedagogical issues too, and I think that is would be legitimate to take up the ID topic in a science classroom in a non-proselytizing fashion.

Atheist philosopher supports Intelligent Design as scientific - Part I

Professor Bradley Monton is not your average atheist philosophy professor - he is one who supports Intelligent Design as a viable scientific endeavor.  He was recently involved in a debate sponsored by St. Andrew's Episcopal Church in Fort Worth, Texas., nicknamed 'The great debate' (unfortunately, the transcripts are not yet available), in which he argued FOR ID as science.

ID The Future did a nice 5 part interview with him which I found refreshing and interesting, so I'd like to comment a little on each part.  From Part I:

I actually find some of the Intelligent Design arguments...worth taking seriously within academia, and am unhappy with the unfair and false criticisms that a lot of my fellow philosophers and academics have given of ID.  I am also...unhappy with some of the ID arguments.  I think that even though some of them are wrong, they could actually be given better than current ID proponents are giving them.  I am trying to elevate the discussion on both sides.

Evidence for God

For our skeptic agnostic/atheist readers, what type of evidence would you require to believe in God? What piece of information could be produced that would cause you to acknowledge that God, in fact, does exist?

Atheist believers

A recent study by Pew Research concluded that 21% of self-defined atheists in America believe in a god (6% in a personal god). That does not include agnostics (55%, 14% personal).

Bill Maher ridicules faith in upcoming Religulous movie

For those who haven't seen this interesting piece of sarcasm masquerading as a documentary coming, Bill Maher has created a documentary named Religulous that will have many religious people up in arms, and many anti-religionists cheering (though some atheists are already recoiling in shame and disgust).   From the trailer:

"It worries me that people are running my country that believe in a talking snake."

"Santa Clause can hit every house in the world in one night...of course not...[but] one man hearing everyone murmur to Him at the same time, that I get."

My Two Cents #122 - Atheism: Unpopular, FSM, Dawkins, Violence & Christianity

Here's some recent stuff:

• Why atheism is politically unpopular in the US (Economist) - "One problem is that they are hardly a cohesive group. Another issue is simply branding. “Atheist” has an ugly ring in American ears and it merely defines what people are not. “Godless” is worse, its derogatory attachment to “communist” may never be broken. “Humanist” sounds too hippyish. A few have taken to calling themselves “Brights” for no good reason and to widespread mirth. And “secular” isn’t quite the word either; one can be a Christian secularist. But another failing of the irreligious movement has been its tendency, frequently, to pick the wrong fights."

The scientific pretensions of atheism

David Berlinkski, interviewed in the Intelligent Design movie Expelled, wrote a book on atheism and science entitled The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions. 

Interestingly, though he agrees with the premise of Expelled, he found it 'lacking meat.' 

He also advises young academics that, if they want tenure, keep their heads down on this issue until AFTER they gain tenure, because anyone who openly doubts evolution most certainly is black balled in academia, as alleged by Expelled. 

He also mentions that the link between Darwinism and Nazism is so clear, that to deny it is to be academically self-deluded. 

Intelligent Design group proves that 'God probably created HIV'

In a stunning press release, Intelligent Design group The Group for Order and Design In Science (GODIS) has proposed that the structure of the HIV virus could not have arisen by natural processes, and was therefore engineered.

"Our calculations are quite revealing," stated Rex Numero, chief statistician at GODIS.  "We were inspired by Reverend Jeremiah Wright's accusation that perhaps HIV was created by the US Government, and we immediately set about calculating the likelihood that HIV could have arisen from natural causes.  As it turns out, the HIV virus is irreducibly complex in many areas.  Therefore, it MUST have been engineered."