Comments on: Ruse on New Atheism

By: ianclary

ianclary — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 13:05:35 +0000

My point is that you are asking the wrong question when you search for God in scientific explanation. The inverse should be asked. How can scientific explanation be possible in a world without the triune God? And the answer is, it can’t.
God (and I’m speaking of the Christian God as revealed in Scripture) is the only rational source for intelligibility in the universe. An atheistic world cannot account for why there is uniformity which science needs to conduct experiments. When an atheist conducts a scientific experiment, he necessarily assumes the existence of the triune God in order to offer an explanation. If he were to stay consistent with his atheism, there would be no reason to conduct the experiment in the first place.

By: Ben Maher

Ben Maher — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:23:35 +0000

Because even Socrates, Plato and Aristotle could tell you that Zeus and the pantheon of gods were an inconsistent notion with the idea of deity, unlike the God of Scripture, which not only agrees with reason, but goes beyond it.

If one wants to fashion gods after one’s own image, then being an atheist or a Greek pagan is a real easy route to deny the rationality and supra-rationality of a single all-sovereign Creator God.

If your presupposition is always “anything but God”, your answer is always going to be “nope that isn’t an explanation.”, because there’s always going to be an unknown- an unknown that is both an excuse as well as something to hound the mind till death.

By: Shamelessly Atheist

Shamelessly Atheist — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 18:38:11 +0000

Nope. Don’t see an explanation. You’ve only reiterated your statement, not shown the necessity of a god. And why the god of the bible? Why not Zeus? Wotan?

By: Shamelessly Atheist

Shamelessly Atheist — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 18:36:49 +0000

Hitchens is rarely far from a bottle of scotch. His appearance on Penn & Teller’s Bullshit was hilarious.

By: ianclary

ianclary — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:42:58 +0000

For some odd reason, WordPress won’t let me reply directly to your reply. Weird.

By: ianclary

ianclary — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:42:30 +0000

I think that my following sentence explains why.

And for science and Christianity, my belief is that you can’t have science without the God of the Bible. He is the necessary precondition for scientific intelligibility. Things like uniformity in nature, the relation of universals to particulars, induction, etc., are nonsense if a sovereign, personal God did not exist.

By: ianclary

ianclary — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:39:49 +0000

Hitchens has the biting wit of a British satirist and it just seems to come out of him. It seems genuine and just part of his personality – something that I appreciate. Dawkins I find extremely frustrating to watch because of the obstinate way he treats people. For example, he was on a talk show here in Canada called The Hour, and he treated the, host George, the same way.
Hitchens is the kind’ve guy you could go for a beer with.

By: Shamelessly Atheist

Shamelessly Atheist — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:34:08 +0000

Maybe you mistake Dawkins’ incredible patience (I have far less of that than he for bad logic) for condescension. But you’d rather have Hitchens’ ire? (Don’t get me wrong – I love Hitch.) Masochistically weird.

By: Shamelessly Atheist

Shamelessly Atheist — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:32:07 +0000

I can see your nervousness about Collins and his evangelism, although I would think the same could be said were an atheist appointed to the same position.

Why?

But if it is robust, trinitarian, biblical religion that you’re talking about, the two are not only compatible, but necessarily related. Science would not make sense in a world that had not God back of it.

Tell me where gods are anywhere included in any scientific explanation for anything. Science simply ignores the supernatural as if it does not exist. Of course, from my vantage, it doesn't.

By: ianclary

ianclary — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 16:00:54 +0000

Thanks, it’s always interesting to observe how the atheist community understands its own. I can see your nervousness about Collins and his evangelism, although I would think the same could be said were an atheist appointed to the same position. We all have our perspectives and judge accordingly, therefore, to one degree or another, our agenda is pushed.
I’ve not read Collins, so I can’t vouch for whether or not he looks ridiculous. But if it is only because he mixes religion and science, then of course I would disagree. Well, I guess it depends on which religion. But if it is robust, trinitarian, biblical religion that you’re talking about, the two are not only compatible, but necessarily related. Science would not make sense in a world that had not God back of it. But naturally, that is a point you would beg to differ with!