Re: [asa] Responding to Atheists, Agnostics & Apatheist

Hi Gordon,

"On its web site RTB says that it provides reasons from science for
believing in
Jesus Christ, thus indicating that they think that they have an evangelistic
mission."

Sure. Although I'm not sure what scientific finding tells us to be a
Christian and not a Muslim.

"This is in contrast to the ID movement, which welcomes Moonies and
self-described agnostics into their upper echelons."

Yes, the ID movement is a socio-political movement, more akin to the
pro-life movement or animal rights movement (although not as influential).
Would there be something wrong with having Moonies and self-described
agnostics in the upper echelons of the pro-life movement?

Anyway, my point is that there is nothing arbitrary about the constraint of
remaining agnostic when it comes to the identity of the designer in ID. It's
the intellectually honest thing to do. If someone has a method for
reverse-engineering the identity of a designer from the artifact, I am all
ears (been so for years).

- Mike Gene

----- Original Message -----
From: "gordon brown" <Gordon.Brown@Colorado.EDU>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 12:36 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] Responding to Atheists, Agnostics & Apatheist

> On its web site RTB says that it provides reasons from science for
> believing in Jesus Christ, thus indicating that they think that they have
> an evangelistic mission. This is in contrast to the ID movement, which
> welcomes Moonies and self-described agnostics into their upper echelons.
>
> Gordon Brown (ASA member)
>
>
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Nucacids wrote:
>
>> Hi John,
>>
>> "They differentiate their model from ID because they don't stop at the
>> arbitrary constraint of remaining secular like ID chose to do as a
>> strategy to try to get into the classrooms."
>>
>> There is nothing arbitrary about that constraint; I employ the constraint
>> as an example of intellectual honesty. If you have a method for
>> reverse-engineering the identity of a designer from the artifact, I am
>> all ears.
>>
>> - Mike Gene
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Walley" <john_walley@yahoo.com>
>> To: <asa@calvin.edu>; "Schwarzwald" <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 9:38 PM
>> Subject: Re: [asa] Responding to Atheists, Agnostics & Apatheist
>>
>>
>>> RTB's hallmark contribution to the ID debate is their "Testable Creation
>>> Model" so in short, yes the consider that not only Design but creation
>>> and creation by the God of the Bible is scientifically detectable. In
>>> fact, Dr. Ross's latest book was entitled "Creation as Science" which
>>> should remove any doubt about their stand on this issue.
>>>
>>> They differentiate their model from ID because they don't stop at the
>>> arbitrary constraint of remaining secular like ID chose to do as a
>>> strategy to try to get into the classrooms. Ironically though RTB's
>>> position on their model was that they should be able to get into the
>>> classrooms even when they conclude God and ID doesn't because they have
>>> better science than ID and their model is testable.
>>>
>>> I did hear a debate between Eugenie Scott and Dr. Ross once after his
>>> Creation as Science book came out and she was surprisingly docile to him
>>> and really gracious all things considered. I think she saw RTB as close
>>> to TE and mostly harmless at the time but I think it was before their
>>> positions against evolution and common descent were very well known.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>> --- On Wed, 10/29/08, Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: [asa] Responding to Atheists, Agnostics & Apatheist
>>>> To: asa@calvin.edu
>>>> Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2008, 8:53 PM
>>>> Heya John,
>>>>
>>>> I haven't read Fuz Rana's books, though I was
>>>> glancing over reviews at
>>>> Amazon. Is Rana arguing that design can be scientifically
>>>> detected? I seem
>>>> to recall that some TEs (maybe even Ken Miller?) have
>>>> argued that ID belongs
>>>> in the philosophy of science category, and therefore
>>>> it's implied that some
>>>> ID arguments have value but are still not
>>>> 'scientific' themselves.
>>>>
>>>> I should also clarify that I'm not expressing hope that
>>>> TEs advance
>>>> scientific arguments for a creator - but other, powerful
>>>> intellectual
>>>> arguments that make reference to science can be offered to
>>>> bolster such a
>>>> thought.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 7:28 PM, John Walley
>>>> <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > > The closest non-ID alternative I've found is
>>>> Reasons To Believe.
>>>> >
>>>> > At the height of the ID controversy RTB generated a
>>>> lot of dissension by
>>>> > publicly discredited ID and releasing statements
>>>> calling it "not science"
>>>> > etc. I personally discussed this with Bill Dembski and
>>>> he was visibly pained
>>>> > by RTB's position at the time.
>>>> >
>>>> > However in Fuz Rana's new book, "The
>>>> Cell's Design: How Chemistry Reveals
>>>> > the Creator's Artistry" they seemed to have
>>>> buried the hatchet as he is all
>>>> > over ID in this book. He attempts to take it further
>>>> by differentiating his
>>>> > argument from IC, but it is no longer accurate to
>>>> think that RTB is not on
>>>> > the ID bandwagon.
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks
>>>> >
>>>> > John
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --- On Wed, 10/29/08, Schwarzwald
>>>> <schwarzwald@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > > From: Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
>>>> > > Subject: Re: [asa] Responding to Atheists,
>>>> Agnostics & Apatheists
>>>> > > To: asa@calvin.edu
>>>> > > Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2008, 6:21 PM
>>>> > > Greetings all, and thanks for the responses!
>>>> > >
>>>> > > For myself, my main concern is less one on one
>>>> > > correspondence (important as
>>>> > > that is) and more an issue of broader evangelism.
>>>> Websites,
>>>> > > mailing lists,
>>>> > > books, and such - I really consider those to be
>>>> invaluable,
>>>> > > particularly
>>>> > > nowadays. Part of this is just due to my
>>>> personality -
>>>> > > I'm very much a
>>>> > > computer-creature, so while I think about the
>>>> importance of
>>>> > > these things in
>>>> > > day to day life or in my neighborhood, the
>>>> internet is
>>>> > > something I'm
>>>> > > particularly concerned with. Especially in a day
>>>> where,
>>>> > > frankly, many people
>>>> > > are online more than they're involved with
>>>> their
>>>> > > communities besides.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Towards that end, I'll throw out some things
>>>> I'd
>>>> > > like to see more - maybe
>>>> > > others will chime in on this as well.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > * I would love to see a more generally
>>>> aggressive, rather
>>>> > > than merely
>>>> > > defensive, attitude coming from specifically TEs
>>>> when it
>>>> > > comes to questions
>>>> > > of science. Let me be clear on something: I'm
>>>> pretty
>>>> > > much what you could
>>>> > > call a TE. I accept common descent and evolution.
>>>> While I
>>>> > > think evidence
>>>> > > points at something singular and special
>>>> happening with
>>>> > > human development, I
>>>> > > don't expect science to entertain thoughts of
>>>> miracles
>>>> > > in history (though I
>>>> > > believe not only in the resurrection, but that
>>>> believing in
>>>> > > the resurrection
>>>> > > is itself largely a reasonable position to hold.)
>>>> I'm
>>>> > > very skeptical of
>>>> > > 'scientific' ways of determining or
>>>> ruling out
>>>> > > design in nature (though I
>>>> > > think natural theology/philosophy has power
>>>> behind it.) But
>>>> > > the fact is,
>>>> > > whenever I read about someone talking about how
>>>> nature is a
>>>> > > brilliant
>>>> > > design, or see the fact that engineers take so
>>>> many cues
>>>> > > from nature, or
>>>> > > attacks on atheistic overreaches with regards to
>>>> scientific
>>>> > > questions
>>>> > > (neurology and the soul, etc), I can almost
>>>> guarantee that
>>>> > > I'm on an ID
>>>> > > site. Just now I finished reading an article by
>>>> Michael
>>>> > > Egnor hitting PZ
>>>> > > Myers hard on the subject of neurology as it
>>>> relates to
>>>> > > mind, self, and
>>>> > > soul. The ID sites in general routinely approach
>>>> science in
>>>> > > a thoughtful,
>>>> > > provocative way that points out the validity of
>>>> seeing
>>>> > > (whether scientific
>>>> > > or not, mind you) design in nature, whether on
>>>> Mike
>>>> > > Gene's cautious
>>>> > > inferment side of the spectrum, or Dembski's
>>>> bold (and
>>>> > > to me, overreaching)
>>>> > > declarations of obvious design. I tried finding
>>>> TE
>>>> > > equivalents online or in
>>>> > > book form - and I turn up next to nothing. The
>>>> closest
>>>> > > non-ID alternative
>>>> > > I've found is Reasons To Believe. This, I
>>>> think, should
>>>> > > be seen as a
>>>> > > problem.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > * I would also love to see a more aggressive
>>>> attitude
>>>> > > towards atheism
>>>> > > (particularly the scientism-prone New Atheism)
>>>> itself, as
>>>> > > well as the
>>>> > > conclusions one is forced to confront in a
>>>> worldview where
>>>> > > atheism is not
>>>> > > merely a possibility, but a certainty. John
>>>> Lennox, William
>>>> > > Lane Craig, and
>>>> > > others do this to great effect - but frankly, I
>>>> think it
>>>> > > needs to be done
>>>> > > more. Let me qualify that when I say
>>>> 'aggressive',
>>>> > > I don't mean insulting or
>>>> > > dismissive. I mean assertive - a willingness to
>>>> point out
>>>> > > contradictions,
>>>> > > points of ignorance, and otherwise that are,
>>>> frankly, many
>>>> > > times glossed
>>>> > > over. Lennox and Craig, for example, are more
>>>> than willing
>>>> > > to cede that AAAs
>>>> > > are capable of leading moral lives - but they
>>>> also stress
>>>> > > that what
>>>> > > constitutes a 'moral life' only makes
>>>> sense within
>>>> > > an ultimately
>>>> > > theistic/teleological framework, and that
>>>> sacrificing the
>>>> > > objective
>>>> > > morality, measures, and standards that consistent
>>>> atheism
>>>> > > cannot accomodate
>>>> > > has wide-reaching implications that are so often
>>>> ignored.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > * I'd love to see AAAs targetted in
>>>> particular, rather
>>>> > > than written off as
>>>> > > lost causes or worse. While it would be a new
>>>> area to
>>>> > > explore, I think a
>>>> > > balance between taking skeptical questions
>>>> seriously,
>>>> > > addressing concerns
>>>> > > about the compatibility between Christianity and
>>>> science,
>>>> > > stressing the
>>>> > > value of Christianity's truth and hope, and
>>>> more. In
>>>> > > fact, there's a
>>>> > > category I would hope people give some thought to
>>>> - that of
>>>> > > the agnostic
>>>> > > theist. I think for a decent number of AAAs,
>>>> their position
>>>> > > is taken in part
>>>> > > because they see Christianity as a faith
>>>> you're either
>>>> > > direly certain of, or
>>>> > > you simply are not a Christian. They see no room
>>>> for
>>>> > > entertaining doubt,
>>>> > > therefore no room for overcoming doubt - and
>>>> ultimately, no
>>>> > > room for hope.
>>>> > > So towards the AAAs, I would see two points of
>>>> importance -
>>>> > > stressing that
>>>> > > the Christian message is one worthy of hope, and
>>>> at the
>>>> > > same time that there
>>>> > > is a strong foundation upon which to ground that
>>>> hope.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 12:26 PM, John Burgeson
>>>> (ASA
>>>> > > member) <
>>>> > > hossradbourne@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > > > On 10/28/08, Schwarzwald
>>>> <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
>>>> > > wrote:
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > "* How would you approach an atheist,
>>>> agnostic,
>>>> > > or apatheist about
>>>> > > > christianity? Would the approach differ from
>>>> how you
>>>> > > would approach
>>>> > > > someone of another faith, or a lapsed member
>>>> of your
>>>> > > own faith?"
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > This is always a good question. My own
>>>> approach is to
>>>> > > listen a lot to
>>>> > > > what the other person has to say, and
>>>> respond about
>>>> > > Xtianity ONLY when
>>>> > > > the opportunity appears. I have one person
>>>> in mind
>>>> > > right now -- a
>>>> > > > professed atheist, although she probably has
>>>> never
>>>> > > thought things
>>>> > > > through very much. She is the owner/editor
>>>> of a
>>>> > > publication I write
>>>> > > > for -- always open to my writing on Xtian
>>>> issues as
>>>> > > they pertain to
>>>> > > > the subject -- and was quick to offer my
>>>> wife, pastor
>>>> > > of the local
>>>> > > > church, a half page to write whatever she
>>>> wanted to. I
>>>> > > keep tossing
>>>> > > > this good lady "teasers," so far
>>>> (3 + years)
>>>> > > she has not (yet) pursued
>>>> > > > any of them. Maybe she never will (with me).
>>>> But I try
>>>> > > to "plant
>>>> > > > seeds."
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > I have another person in mind -- a long time
>>>> (60+
>>>> > > years) friend, who
>>>> > > > WAS a frervent Xtian when I was not
>>>> anything,
>>>> > > witnessed to us while we
>>>> > > > were in high school, etc. At college he
>>>> totally lost
>>>> > > his faith and
>>>> > > > embraced atheism. To this day he simply
>>>> avoids the
>>>> > > subject. With him,
>>>> > > > I try to be a little more forceful, but so
>>>> far no
>>>> > > success at all. He
>>>> > > > has decided that Xtianity is simply not
>>>> credible, and
>>>> > > that's that.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > I have a few others -- each one, as I think
>>>> of it, a
>>>> > > different
>>>> > > > situation. There is no "silver
>>>> bullet." So I
>>>> > > try to listen a lot,
>>>> > > > speak less, for I'm not likely to be
>>>> heard if I
>>>> > > start preaching! <G>
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > * Do you see science, or an understanding of
>>>> science,
>>>> > > as having a role
>>>> > > > to play in such a conversation?"
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > If that's of interest to the other
>>>> person, yes.
>>>> > > Generally, it is not.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > * What common misconceptions or
>>>> misunderstandings do
>>>> > > you think exist
>>>> > > > among AAAs about Christianity?"
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > They see the Ken Hams, the Hagees, the sorry
>>>> excuses
>>>> > > for Xtianity
>>>> > > > represented by many televangelists, and
>>>> think they
>>>> > > represent Xtianity.
>>>> > > > Maybe they try a church -- a dull of sloppy
>>>> sermon
>>>> > > turns them away.
>>>> > > > Friend wife and I went to a different church
>>>> a month
>>>> > > or so ago -- the
>>>> > > > minister mumbled and it was next to
>>>> impossible to
>>>> > > understand him. We
>>>> > > > left early and that place will not see us
>>>> again.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > * Have you seen any effective targetting of
>>>> AAAs by
>>>> > > any particular
>>>> > > > person, ministry, or even faith?"
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > I wish the answer could be "yes."
>>>> The ASA is
>>>> > > the best around; we are
>>>> > > > not doing a good job. But we try, and, I
>>>> think, have
>>>> > > some influence
>>>> > > > in the science community.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > Welcome to the list.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > Burgy
>>>> > > >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG.
>>> Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.8.5/1757 - Release Date:
>>> 10/30/2008 2:35 PM
>>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.8.5/1757 - Release
> Date: 10/30/2008 2:35 PM
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Oct 31 07:38:15 2008