Thursday, February 22, 2007
Deadly Sins
Worrying the bone of Phillip Johnson's article, "Intelligent Design in Biology: the Current Situation and Future Prospects," a bit more, I wonder why the ID crowd is so contemptuous of theology. After all, after much whining about how mean scientists are not to welcome Johnson's unevidenced speculations about a "creator" into science, he says:The goal of the Intelligent Design Movement is to achieve an open philosophy of science that permits consideration of any explanations toward which the evidence may be pointing. This is different from the current restrictive philosophy that rules out of consideration the possibility that a creator may be responsible for our existence ...
The answer to that, of course is that science is as successful as it is precisely because it is a circumscribed field of inquiry that limits itself to evidence from the natural world that can be shared and agreed to despite any differences in philosophy or religion amongst the participants. As the philosopher of science, David Hull has said:
One of the strengths of science is that it does not require that scientists be unbiased, only that different scientists have different biases.
There is, however, no lack of intellectual arenas for "consideration of any explanations" IDers may want to propose for life as we know it. Theology and philosophy departments abound in universities and, as ID advocates well know, since they spend so much time in them peddling their wares, churches are pandemic.
In point of fact, Johnson and the whole movement suffers from "science envy" and the niggling suspicion that, in direct competition with the clarity and power of science, their beliefs are so weak as to be unable to compete. That's why William Dembski has to admit that the science that Johnson and he (falsely) equate with "materialism" "rules out Christianity so completely that it is not even a live option." It doesn't, of course, as Christians such as Ken Miller, Francis Collins and John Paul II, among many others, amply demonstrate. That's another of Johnson's logical fallacies: a false dichotomy. If it is true at all that science rules out "Christianity," it is only because they are speaking of a particularly narrow and fragile version.
So they do what any childhood bully does and try to change the rules so they can win (or, in this case, at least pretend they have a seat at the same table as science).
The question is, if their beliefs are so sickly and easily defeated, why do they bother?
.
Comments:
<< Home
In point of fact, Johnson and the whole movement suffers from "science envy" and the niggling suspicion that, in direct competition with the clarity and power of science, their beliefs are so weak as to be unable to compete.
To the contrary, I'm afraid. Their beliefs are very strong, but it is theology that is weak. They "know" that there must be something more to support their strong beliefs than the emptiness vacuity poofiness of theology. "Science envy", yes. But weak beliefs, no. If they had weak beliefs then they wouldn't be going out of their ways to make complete goofballs out of themselves, now would they. I don't see why you guys keep saying they have weak faith. "Nya nya, your faith is weaker than the good guys' faith, nya nya." (Shrug.)
To the contrary, I'm afraid. Their beliefs are very strong, but it is theology that is weak. They "know" that there must be something more to support their strong beliefs than the emptiness vacuity poofiness of theology. "Science envy", yes. But weak beliefs, no. If they had weak beliefs then they wouldn't be going out of their ways to make complete goofballs out of themselves, now would they. I don't see why you guys keep saying they have weak faith. "Nya nya, your faith is weaker than the good guys' faith, nya nya." (Shrug.)
# posted by 
: 12:04 PM
: 12:04 PM
Your remark about science envy has me wondering if we won't someday see a high-level "defector" from the ranks of the IDists and Creationists. Unfortunately, I would expect any such person to be just as obnoxious as a science supporter as they were as a science-denier. Think of someone analogous to David Horowitz, who has gone from being on the far left back in the 1960s to being a particularly nasty right-winger these days.
# posted by : 12:20 PM
: 12:20 PM
Well, I think we just have a semantic difference here. To me, strong beliefs are those that are not afraid of the world or of being proved wrong. Muscular beliefs would not make us cowards who "make complete goofballs out of ourselves" out of fear. Beliefs should not be classified as "strong" simply because some people have a death grip on them.
As to defectors, I tend to doubt it. It is easier to turn one's mind off than to turn it on.
As to defectors, I tend to doubt it. It is easier to turn one's mind off than to turn it on.
To me, strong beliefs are those that are not afraid of the world or of being proved wrong.
Phillip Johnson: a man of weak faith. Charles Darwin: a man of strong faith. Okay, but I don't see how anybody can be a mindreader about how much religious faith somebody has. Seems to me it's like one of those "nya nya" things.
Look at it this way: what God, who wants to save mankind, in their right mind would want to remain undetectable by science? That's just common sense. And that, to me, is how the ID people look at it too. And who can blame them for that.
Phillip Johnson: a man of weak faith. Charles Darwin: a man of strong faith. Okay, but I don't see how anybody can be a mindreader about how much religious faith somebody has. Seems to me it's like one of those "nya nya" things.
Look at it this way: what God, who wants to save mankind, in their right mind would want to remain undetectable by science? That's just common sense. And that, to me, is how the ID people look at it too. And who can blame them for that.
# posted by : 1:21 PM
: 1:21 PM
I'm not so much judging their faith as I'm judging what they themselves have said about it. If the mere existence of science "rules out" their faith, and they have to change science to keep their faith, then science is, in their own minds stronger and truer than their faith.
And, yes, I think Darwin's faith was stronger in some ways than Johnson's is. At least, it wasn't science that killed it (although that caused him to modify his beliefs), it was the death of his daughter that turned him away from the faith he grew up in (though not, to my mind, to lesser beliefs).
As to what God might want, you either have to accept that you don't know how such a being thinks or you have to face the problem of evil, that nobody has solved in the context of a God who is comprehensible to humans. Theodicy is no friend of IDers.
And, yes, I think Darwin's faith was stronger in some ways than Johnson's is. At least, it wasn't science that killed it (although that caused him to modify his beliefs), it was the death of his daughter that turned him away from the faith he grew up in (though not, to my mind, to lesser beliefs).
As to what God might want, you either have to accept that you don't know how such a being thinks or you have to face the problem of evil, that nobody has solved in the context of a God who is comprehensible to humans. Theodicy is no friend of IDers.
I'm not so much judging their faith as I'm judging what they themselves have said about it.
Okay, then I will go and see what they themselves say about how much faith they have. And I will check to see if there is anything that would cause Phillip Johnson to modify his beliefs or if there have been any bad things that have happened to people he loved that would cause Phillip Johnson turn away from his faith, as that might indicate that his faith is as strong as Darwin's. Thank you.
Okay, then I will go and see what they themselves say about how much faith they have. And I will check to see if there is anything that would cause Phillip Johnson to modify his beliefs or if there have been any bad things that have happened to people he loved that would cause Phillip Johnson turn away from his faith, as that might indicate that his faith is as strong as Darwin's. Thank you.
# posted by : 3:59 PM
: 3:59 PM
I'm not so much judging their faith as I'm judging what they themselves have said about it. If the mere existence of science "rules out" their faith, and they have to change science to keep their faith, then science is, in their own minds stronger and truer than their faith.
Thanks, but I don't think they think they have to change science to keep their faith. I don't think anybody else thinks that either, but it is a clever rhetorical device though. (I guess.) Okay, I'm done beating the horse now!
Thanks, but I don't think they think they have to change science to keep their faith. I don't think anybody else thinks that either, but it is a clever rhetorical device though. (I guess.) Okay, I'm done beating the horse now!
# posted by : 11:05 AM
: 11:05 AM
... but I don't think they think they have to change science to keep their faith.
Neither do I. Their insistence nonetheless on saying they have to while making the attempt is what I see as the telling point.
But cessation of the bludgeoning of moribund Equidae is noted.
Post a Comment
Neither do I. Their insistence nonetheless on saying they have to while making the attempt is what I see as the telling point.
But cessation of the bludgeoning of moribund Equidae is noted.
<< Home
