RE: [asa] scientism question

Jon said:
" A trivial question to ask someone with "no beliefs" is something like, "Do
you believe the sun will come up tomorrow?""

I thought of that and tried it a little, but instead I wanted to focus on issues of science and religion- therefore life-after-death and abiogenesis, for example.

He's definitely an atheist and not agnostic. His position is that if you want to introduce something, like the idea of God, you have to justify it... and there is NO reasonable justification (it is so clearly obvious in his view).

As I wrote the above paragraph, it came to me... maybe the correct approach is not to argue "do you have beliefs or not" but instead challenge, more directly, his idea that there's no valid/reasonable justification for the "God hypothesis."

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Jon Tandy
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 1:25 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] scientism question

The fact that he "doesn't believe in God" or life after death, etc. doesn't
mean that he doesn't have beliefs. It more probably means "I believe that
there is no God, no tooth fairy, no Santa, no life after death." Thus, he
does have a "belief" - that is, he actively believes that those things don't
exist, so he IS making a metaphysical claim.

If he really doesn't have any belief (i.e. position) on the subject, he
might more correctly be called an agnostic - it might be true or might not,
but he doesn't have any opinion on the subject. This might be called a weak
agnostic position. Whether the weak agnostic is expressing a belief, I
can't say for sure. A strong agnostic might claim that "No one can know for
sure about these things," in which they are again expressing a belief claim.

A trivial question to ask someone with "no beliefs" is something like, "Do
you believe the sun will come up tomorrow?" or "Do you believe there's such
a place as Antarctica?" If yes, then why? The sun will come up because it
always has, but how do you know for sure? It's probably a fairly sure
belief based on past experience, but not certain. He may believe that
Antarctica is a real place based on the testimony of others, but how can he
trust it? (Remember the "video" of flying penguins? Even supposedly real
things can be faked on film.) However, it's probably a pretty good
testimony to rely on. The fact is that he does have belief in these things,
thus some beliefs. So his statement of having no beliefs is false.

Next, ask whether he believes science will ultimately solve the problem of
how life originated. Will science solve the problem of where matter came
from? (etc.) It doesn't matter from a theological point of view whether
these things will ultimately be answered by science or not. In this case,
it's a philosophical question with him. He claims not to believe in
anything, but there are huge questions that science can't answer. I suspect
he believes that science will ultimately be able to answer them, thus he
does have beliefs in the power of science to answer all questions about
reality.

It's absurd for him to claim that he has no beliefs. But the above lines of
questioning might lead to other discussion. In the same way, how do I know
that God exists? Because there are eyewitnesses and my own personal
experience of His activity, just like there are eyewitnesses of Antarctica.
Why do you believe that science will be able to solve these questions? Why
do you believe (if he does) that matter is eternal? Do you have any
evidence that it's eternal, and not created? If you don't have evidence of
it, how is this more rational than people's belief in God?

Jon Tandy

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 3:00 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] scientism question

Keith said:
" Lastly, the rejection of the existence of God, or of a personal Creator
God, is a theological claim. Science is not the arbiter of this question.
The question must be argued and defended on theological/philosophical
grounds. Atheism, or any religious or non-religious claim is a metaphysical
claim. "

This atheist says he does not believe in God (just as he does not believe in
the tooth fairy or Santa). He claims to have no "beliefs" in anything. He
says that if you believe in God, then it is up to you to justify. Since he
doesn't, he has nothing to justify. Same with the spirit- if you think it
exists, then you justify it- he doesn't have to justify it as he has no
belief. Same with life after death- he says the body dies and that's it.
If you think something else happens, that's your belief and up to you to
validate- not him.

See my difficulty in dealing with him? I'm trying to challenge him and get
him to see that everyone has a "belief system."

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of kbmill@ksu.edu
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 11:43 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] scientism question

Bernie wrtoe:

> A questions about the 'scientism' worldview (science is the only
> reality). (I'm dealing with an atheist like that.)
>
> If a person says they accept only 'science,' should they have a
> logical issue with evolution since there is no scientific
> understanding of how biological life can arise from non-life? Seems
> like abiogenesis is a 'belief' based on the evidence indicated by
> science in general, yet the atheist I'm dealing with claims to have
> "no beliefs of any kind."

Just a few very brief comments.

Firstly, the fundamental assertion of biological evolution is common
descent. The validity of common descent is in no way dependent on a
resolution to the question of the origin of life.

Secondly, origin of life research has made significant advances and greatly
enlarged our understanding of a number of critical biochemical and
geological problems. I see no reason why origin of life research will not
continue to be fruitful. I also would not be surprised that some very
plausible scenarios for the origin of life will be eventually forthcoming.
The development of a consensus theory would in no way threaten the Christian
theology.

Lastly, the rejection of the existence of God, or of a personal Creator God,
is a theological claim. Science is not the arbiter of this question. The
question must be argued and defended on theological/philosophical grounds.
Atheism, or any religious or non-religious claim is a metaphysical claim.
"Nature is the only reality" is a metaphysical claim and must be defended as
such. Failure to do so is making no argument at all.

Keith

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.

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.
Received on Thu Jan 8 16:42:46 2009