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.
1. Communications breakdown – why?
Luke writes:
You sum this up with your own paraphrase of my letter: “All thinking people acknowledge that the foundations of the Christian faith are complete nonsense.”
But that is not at all what I was trying to say.
Luke, perhaps before we can work together, we need to address this communications gap. What you intended to communicate was not understood, but rather, was misunderstood.
As a growing communicator myself, I recognize this as a problem for the COMMUNICATOR to solve, not the listener. Regardless of what I intend or mean, if that does not come across, it is I who have failed, not the listener. I make, therefore, the following observations about your communication
- I Feel v. I Know: I would still like you to be candid, but to couch your words a little differently. You might use the term “I felt” or “I feel” when you make such declarations as part of your introduction. Granted, you may believe that you have strong empirical evidence for such sentiments, but declaring that your opponent is essentially stupid and wrong will not open up conversation ;).
- Value Judgments: Similarly, I think that you ought to work at removing overt and implied value judgments from your arguments. Actually, i think you do pretty well in refraining from such judgements, but phrases like “why a loving Jesus would torture millions of good people” are perhaps not wise to throw out there and expect that you are building bridges.
- Understatement: I think one thing that will help is to refrain from highly definitive statements and hyperbole that imply that anyone who disagrees must be unreasonable or stupid. Your use of superlatives like “known to be forgeries” and “the religion of Jesus was quite different” leave little room for doubt or discussion. In your second letter, you did a much better job of softening your tone.
You also did quite well in the use of understatement when you suggested to Tim possible reasons why he might doubt Christianity. We get the point that you disagree, you don’t have to do it so strongly that you get hackles up. I know that’s hard to do when you feel strongly about your conclusions. I am not accusing you of being illogical or only motivated by feelings, only that your use of superlatives communicates a forceful commitment to those conclusions.
2. On the foolishness of atheism
I was a bit sorry that Tim brought this up, since I’m sure that you as a former Christian and present atheist are quite familiar with this scripture, and know that it is often used in a dismissive sense rather than one that engages in dialogue.
This is a case in which I would want to use my rules of engagement listed in the section above, and perhaps keep this to myself or understate it. However, we may need to dicsuss it, and if examined dispassionately, I think we can learn some things from it that will help Christians communicate to atheists. But I’m not sure that discussion is necessary or helpful if your end is to get some sort of practical cooperation in service going between us.
However, let me just tell you what I get out of the ‘atheist is a fool’ scripture, and how that affects my strategy in conversing with atheists:
- “Said in in his heart” – while we will of necessity be employing intellectual arguments with atheists, the primary issue with the atheist is, from a Biblical perspective, a heart problem, not a head one. That is, while we may attempt to dismantle ‘vain philosophies’ and perspectives that obviate belief, doing so will only create an opportunity for faith, but not faith itself. Eventually, we must deal with the heart issues. But how?
- “All creation speaks” – Romans 1:20 declares that the primary argument (but not the only one) that we should use is the testimony of the creation, and how that speaks to us, not just intellectually, but intuitively that God is (cf. Psalm 19:1). At the very least, even social science shows that the human heart longs for a personal God, even if atheists think that is an infantile need. In point of fact, it may be as ‘infantile’ as wanting to be loved and to love.
- Bitterness – Along with appealing to the obviousness of God as shown by creation, we ought to also address what we Christians all suspect (is “know” too strong a word?) is at the root of this heart problem with God – people are hurt and/or insulted by the hurts incurred in this world, esp. those at the hands of religious people. Whether they manipulated or abused us, or failed to teach us how to think rather than what to think, or whether the realities of sin, sickness, and death, or the vagaries and enigmas of spiritual truths have pushed atheists away, we must address each of these the best we can, and not just from an intellectual perspective, but from a relational and emotional perspective. That might entail being kinder to atheists in personal interaction, in showing them true kindness, in being good people of conviction and character, and offering solutions that involve not just intellectual perspectives, but practical steps towards addressing inner wounds, esp. those of childhood. Just thinking out loud here.
3. On Predestination and Free Will and the unsatisfactory answers to this enigma
One of the most common intellectual offenses that atheists like to quote is the injustice of the whole salvation plan. And this is one of the few questions to which the Bible resorts to a tactic which is remarkable in it’s finitude and disregard for human reason. And it’s a conversation stopper for most atheists, and their offense at it is so great that they feel exonerated in rejecting God because of it.
This argument, again, has nothing to do with cooperation between us, but it comes up in nearly every attempt to speak w/ atheists, who reject God, not just because of a lack of empirical evidence, but because their sense of what is just is offended by God’s method and answer to their question “if you are somehow omnipotent and in control, how can you blame us or find us guilty? Aren’t YOU to blame?”
While many of the paradoxes of reality and faith seem to have decent answers, this is one that the bible refuses to answer definitively. Paul the Apostle plays out the argument in Romans 9, playing devil’s advocate along the way. Finally, after declaring that God indeed hardens some and softens others to the gospel, the question is asked:
You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” (Romans 9:19)
To this point, Paul asserted that God is just even in his predestining human decision, and in the face of this last challenge, he answers this way:
But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” (Romans 9:20)
That’s it. What he is saying is that the conversation is over. Implied here and in other scripture is the idea that such things are hard to understand, yet nevertheless true.
This type of response certainly is abused by Christians who fail to employ their intellect in defending their other positions, but in this case, the Bible and Paul feel that that is the only place where we can go from here. There is no better or other explanation. God is not unjust, and he is just in condemning those who disbelieve. Not glad of it, only just.
Again, it seems to me that, beyond the lack of empirical validation for God, this accusation of the injustice of the Christian view of God, i.e. the problem of evil, is the major atheist objection to God. And we will have to agree to disagree on this – Bill Craig has, of course, done some reasoning that shows that a just and loving God is logically possible with the idea of eternal hell, but interestingly, that does not make it palatable or possible to the atheist – perhaps because he still thinks that it is statistically a long shot or merely a flawed proof, but from another persepective, perhaps it is precisely BECAUSE his root problem is an emotional problem with his own idea of what God ought to do if he was just.
But all this is a divergence from wanting to solve problems together. So I’ll not digress further.
4. Poor Design
Again, this seems off topic, so I’ll be brief. What you call ‘bad design’ we call either ‘good design misdianosed’ or ‘good design degraded over time.’ Why do you conclude that the errors you see in nature are bad design rather than good design gone awry, which is more consistent with the Biblical view than seeing perfection everywhere?
How can you look at the information content of the cell, or the engineering excellence of living things that in many ways still serves to outstrip our engineering efforts and say ‘no design’? Even well known atheists have remarked about needing to remind one’s self that what we see ‘has the appearance of design, but is not designed.’
And BTW, poor design does not equal NO design. I agree that nature is flawed and often dangerous, but that does not mean no design at all. Why must it be so black or white? No design or perfect design? I think design gone awry fits what we see very well.
5. What you’ve lost
Anyone who changes ideologies is going to lose friends, not just atheists, and I don’t think that was what Tim was getting at. The Christian community is known for providing some communal benefits that many people can’t get elsewhere, like moral education for kids, being part of a missional community with positive goals, or just having people to pray with, which is an intimate activity even if it’s bunk.
I think Tim is alluding to some of the existential impact of becoming an atheist – no divine comfort in tough times, no promise of redemption for suffering or loss, no assurance of life beyond this, and no God to talk to in one’s heart.
I woudn’t poo-poo Ehrman’s discussion of gratitude either – not practicing thankfulness might be bad for the psyche. It might be unnatural – unnatural in the way that I experienced the emptiness of the Bhuddist practice without a personal God. Whether or not that need reflects the reality of God or just our need is not known, but I think it is an important concept and critique of atheism’s compatibility with the human psyche.
But deep down, I think he is also after the answer to the question I turned to you in my first response – what in atheism do you find incomplete, insufficient, or a weakness? What causes you to actually doubt your atheism?
6. What can we do together?
Again, I refer you back to my first letter. I think we may be severely limited because all real change includes not just practical service, but ideological education, and there, both in content and perhaps in means, we will diverge greatly. Do you see a solution there?
I want to say one thing in defense of focusing on ideological change, and then turn around and criticize the evangelical overemphasis on this.
When I worked in medicine, I realized that there is a continuum of care, from Prevention to Emergency Medicine. And while everyone along that continuum is doing worthy work, it seemed to me that we ought to spend more on prevention than cure. But as I examined prevention, I realized that this meant more and more that you had to be changing people’s values and behavior. And this will also be a consideration if we are to work together.
It would be easier for us to work together on short term, emergent problems rather than the more effective long term prevention issues, for at that point our respective ideologies will clash. So I ask you – do you really want to focus on the symptoms and not the root of the problems? I think that is the only place we might cooperate.
Even worse, the best emergent solutions ought to be paired with long term methods and perspectives, which again, we may not be able to do together.
One last thing. While it has been shown that conservative religious people are more generous with their time and money than others (even when looking at secular charities, see Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism), I do think that most evangelical churches could do more in the way of loving service to balance out our emphasis on evangelism. When we focus mostly on evangelism, we can easily develop an us vs. them mentality, but wheh you are out with people, it humanizes them to you, and you are reminded more directly that we are all the same in our need.
Respectfully,
Daniel
Tell me, what is the information content of a cell, and then compare it with the information content of a truly random collection of the same molecules in gaseous form in a container of equal size? Here's a hint: the first is a trick question, the other is independent of the measure of information (Kolmogorov vs Shannon).
The 'engineering excellence' is a result of millions of years of evolution, not design. That should be obvious from the evidence.
>> IAN: what is the information content of a cell
Well, how would you define 'information' v. random data? I would say that information is, as the ID guys might say 'specified complexity.' That is, data is obviously arranged in a way that communicates something. In the case of the cell, the DNA communicates the intricate design of functioning proteins within a larger functioning chemical and physical architecture that is life sustaining, as well as capable of repair and reproduction.
If you put the base elements or even compounds of a cell into a flask, you won't get any of the things I specified above. None. And I would contend that after billions of years, the flask would not contain any of functionality mentioned above.
>> IAN: The 'engineering excellence' is a result of millions of years of evolution, not design. That should be obvious from the evidence.
That's an interesting assumption, but I don't see any of the evidence you are alluding to, only lots of assumptions superimposed over the historical data – certainly there is little or no empirical data for random mutation creating novel new functional proteins, nor the drift of DNA from one large taxa (like at the family or class level) – what we see instead is regression towards a genetic mean – that is, we mutate more and more, but eventually, when we get so 'far' from the original, we either die off or revert back towards the mean through inbuilt repair mechanisms or the death of the 'distant' variants.
That's what seems obvious to me.
Ian, are you an atheist? Can you answer the other questions? What in atheism do you find incomplete, insufficient, or a weakness? What causes you to actually doubt your atheism?
Thanks for commenting.
I am an atheist (at least, as far as is rationally possible, which is pretty far in my opinion).
"Specified complexity" is an ill-defined concept created by Dembski, and changed as needed. See http://recursed.blogspot.com/2009/11/paper-rebutt… for a detailed take-down.
Information vs random data is well defined: a truly random string contains maximal information. Informally, information is the "surprise" of a bit (under Shannon information), or the smallest program to generate the string or its "compressibility" (Kolmogorov complexity). A random string contains the most information, because every bit is surprising; alternatively, a random string's most compact representative program is just itself.
A cell has less information than a truly random arrangement of the same molecules, due to the cell's structure.
If you put the elements of a cell in a flask and expose it to a source of energy, you will get amino acids. No one has done the experiment for a few billion years, but the results would probably be surprising.
The evidence has been well documented of the transitory stages of evolution, and correlated with geographic changes. Additionally, the new science of genetics and evo-devo provides even more evidence; I'd recommend "Endless Forms Most Beautiful", but I've heard good things about "Your Inner Fish" and "Why Evolution is True". Lenski's long-term historical contingency experiment with E. coli is a well-documented example of a novel mutation generating new functional proteins; any literature search will find hundreds of other examples, usually based upon genetic comparisons and experiments with knocking out a gene in a model organism.
Honestly? Nothing. As far as my reason goes, I find atheism with philosophical naturalism a consistent system within the limitations of our observations. I remain open to alternative viewpoints, but the integrity of physics, biology, logic, computer science, neurology etc have convinced me that natural explanations are the correct answers (with the understanding that current models will be refined, but unlikely to be completely reversed) and will continue to be so. This is an inductive assumption but not a weakness, only an observation.
Actually, I just thought of atheism's weakness: to correct a single wrong sentence takes at least 2 paragraphs of correction. Theism's defenders will state ridiculous conclusions, repeat debunked falsehoods and then claim victory when the debate partner runs out of time/patience correcting the problems (see: any debate with Craig). There are a million ways to be wrong, and only a few ways to be right.
The asymmetry of truth will always be atheism's weakness.
Wow, i feel like the Man in Black talking to Vincini in The Princess Bride – "you have a dizzying intellect"
>> IAN: "Specified complexity" is an ill-defined concept created by Dembski, and changed as needed.
It's that bad, eh? You mean it's ambiguous and plastic like the term 'evolution'? I know exactly what you mean ;)
>> IAN: Information vs random data is well defined: a truly random string contains maximal information.
Well, we'll have to disagree right from here, but at least we are defining our terms. The definition I am using is a functional and practical one, not an abstract philosophical one like yours.
Your statement is akin to "a sentence made up of random letters and spaces has more 'information' than a grammatically correct one written by a human." The problem with this definition is it defines information not in terms of usefully organized data that communicates and intelligent message, but in terms of 'surprise.' I don't think that for the sake of argument, it really applies to the discussion of design in nature, which is predicated upon purposeful functional arrangement, not maximized surprise.
That definition, while it serves to support your contention that 'information' is created by random mutation and arrangement, is ludicrous in the discussion of functioning living beings. It's attempting baffle with BS rather than offer a real argument, it seems to me.
>> IAN: A cell has less information than a truly random arrangement of the same molecules, due to the cell's structure.
Of course, by your definition, committing to a functional, and by doing so, limited structure means you are 'limiting' the possible combinations or possibilities. But this is the whole idea of 'specified complexity' – complexity on it's own means nothing. Only complexity that can be measured as meaningful biological structure that DEFIES randomness is what I am calling 'information,'
>> IAN: If you put the elements of a cell in a flask and expose it to a source of energy, you will get amino acids.
Please, don't recite the Miller experiment to me. Not only has that been soundly refuted (for example, you get a racemic mixture which is not amenable to life, and in the environment needed to create said acids, they would immediately decompose) – the Miller experiment is a hopeful monster that has yielded little except evolutionary talking points.
>> IAN: The evidence has been well documented of the transitory stages of evolution
All assumed, and superimposed upon historic (fossil) data, not witnessed empirically. Your evolutionary assumptions may cause you to interpret the data that way, but that in no ways means you are correct.
>> IAN: Lenski's long-term historical contingency experiment with E. coli is a well-documented example of a novel mutation generating new functional proteins;
I'll look into that, but if it's anything like the nylase story, it's merely a reorganization of existing information creating modified or crippled functionality, or other existing systems taking over for crippled ones. I doubt there are any real examples of new proteins and pathways. It's BS.
>> IAN: any literature search will find hundreds of other examples, usually based upon genetic comparisons and experiments with knocking out a gene in a model organism.
Knocking out a gene is not creation of information. Sorry.
>> IAN: "What in atheism do you find incomplete, insufficient, or a weakness?" Honestly? Nothing.
Then you are probably a believer, not a true skeptic who reasons. There are so many significant challenges to atheism, as there are to all metaphysical ideologies, that in essence, you are taking someone's word for it (on faith), IMO.
>> IAN: Actually, I just thought of atheism's weakness: to correct a single wrong sentence takes at least 2 paragraphs of correction.
At least, esp. if you are verbose and lack succinctness ;)
>> IAN: On specified complexity (or complex specified information, CSI), quoting Blake Stacey, quoting Elsberry and Shallit (from their 2003 paper linked above) [blah blah]
Listen IAN, be that as it may that Dembski et al. are inconsistent in their use of CSI, the concept is simple, meaningful, and relevant if you can pull yourself back from the trees and see the forest. Random arrangement of buildling blocks does not produce real functionality, especially biological. The honest heuristic viewer, even famous atheists, admit that the level of organization and efficiency, though perhaps not perfect (it is a fallen creation, after all ;) give the impression of design.
Dembski and other ID proponents are merely attempting to quantify that heuristic observation. Not only are the critics of such an approach largely doing so because it offends their naturalistic assumptions (IMO), they are so busy trying to debunk him with increasingly esoteric arguments that I think they are missing the plain truth right in front of them.
That there is no known mechanism that created the complexity and beauty of life, that it's statistically impossible, and that it speaks very loudly that there is an intelligent creator. But they suppress this awareness because they don't like it.
>> IAN: My definition of information is the accepted definition in all legitimate research papers and texts.
Then perhaps I need to be using another term. What is the difference between this sentence, and this one: ;ai;jao8 la;wer'9r0 plse9i ? Does the latter have 'more information'? It also communicates much less to you, so what is the word you would use for the attribute that describes the actual greater communications value of the first?
That is how I am using the term information, but if you would like to use some other word, please help me out.
>> IAN: "At least, esp. if you are verbose and lack succinctness"
See? You've made a number of other mistakes
What YOU fail to see is that
(1) you are hiding in technical definitions in order to find fault with my arguments, failing to understand my meaning, rather than engaging in the discussion, and
(2) Fanatical ideologues generally lack humor, and perhaps you missed (or angrily ignored) my somewhat friendly jab at the length of your replies – not that I don't like long replies, but that I was merely saying that you talk too much and waste words.
I was using humor to sidestep your arguments because I think you are going way off course, getting lost in your jargon. Whether or not you think you have good reasons to see no design in nature, the other side has very reasonable arguments, not the least of which is not technical or even empirical, but heuristic – look at nature, and as Dawkins said, you must remind yourself that it is NOT designed, because the beauty and organization of creation screams design.
ONE MORE THING:
I must reiterate that the fact that you fail to see or examine any weaknesses in your metaphysic shows me that you are not being entirely honest or skeptical about your beliefs or unbeliefs. If you can not criticize your own metaphysical position, or at least describe what others see as it's weaknesses, you are essentially being dogmatic, not scientific.
The mechanism is evolution. I have trouble believing you understand the statistics involved, considering your trouble with introductory information theory. Hint: most statistical arguments assume the optimal solution is required, drastically reducing the solution space. Open that up, and the numbers get way less scary.
In the context of the string: <pre>";ai;jao8 la;wer'9r0 plse9i"</pre> the word you were looking for is "meaning", or "semantics". The random string has more information, due to the structure of English text; on average, each letter in English encodes about 1.0 to 1.5 bits, while this uses letters not commonly found in words. Now, to me, the first sentence has a meaning, but that's due to a process in my brain. The other string may have meaning to other processes. The book "Godel, Escher, Bach" looks into this relationship between syntax and semantics. Indeed, the theory of computer science is basically exploring the link between syntax and semantics.
Using a 'winky' emoticon doesn't count as humour, and I don't think I hid in jargon as I attempted to explain any fundamental concepts I mentioned. I'm simply ignoring your snide comments and trying to use this space to educate you or anyone who stumbles across this slice of the web.
Now, the 'other side' of the design question do not have good arguments, only misunderstandings, biases and falsehoods. They've been answered repeatedly, only to reiterate the same disagreements time and again. There's no suppression, but only ridicule seems to have an effect.
Considering how many problems you've had with these basic concepts of the natural world, how likely is it that you have a decent grasp of the metaphysical concepts involved? You can probably guess my answer.
Oh, btw. Happy Holidays. 'Tis the season to eat unhealthy food, and I need to start cooking :)