I have now spilled much ink contending for the proposition that religion and politics must mix, using the Jaffe memo as my leaping off point. On the face of it, such a proposition would fly in the face of the notion of a ‘separation between church and state.’ However, it is important to note that …
This series began as a reflection of the contents of the Jaffe Memo, a Planned Parenthood document from 1969 that discussed ideas for handling the ‘population’ crisis. This memo succinctly lays bear an agenda that has been in play since before the Civil War, and as I have demonstrated in previous parts of this series …
This ministry hosts a regular online round table discussing matters of substance and controversy. Christians and NonChristians are invited but it is not necessarily an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ debate. Past topics have included matters of controversy only amongst Christians and due to the flexibility of the discussion, topics can change on a dime. UPDATE: With …
# In order for something to be considered robust science, it needs to be falsifiable.
# Modern evolutionary theory is usually presented so that it entails unintelligent operations.
# To falsify the claim that something is driven by unintelligent forces one would have to show how intelligent forces were at work.
# Evolutionary apologists insist (with heapings of derision) that such a showing is outside the bounds of science.
# But if showing design is outside the bounds of science than there is no reliable and objective way to conclude scientifically that something is not designed.
# Therefore, macroevolutionary theory cannot be scientifically falsified at the point that it is the result of unguided natural processes since they reject as unscientific the very things that could falsify it.
This story is a perfect illustration of scientism and its dangers to our society. The idea that something is intrinsically morally correct by virtue of being ‘scientific’ is a non sequitur, certainly, but nonetheless coming to be quite common. Science gave us the atom bomb, too, but it is self-evident that the decision to use it should be political. But can the decision to use it ever be scientific? (The movie IRobot comes to mind, here).
Is there any way to get from an observation of reality or increase in technology to “And you ought…” ?
Of course not. In short, just because the morning after pill is effective and it is only ‘unlikely’ to have the result that conservatives fear, it doesn’t follow that it should be used at all, or that it should be made available to people who are not yet legal adults. Cars are effective, too, but that doesn’t mean parents shouldn’t be in the loop as to whether or not their underage children should be allowed to drive them.
We knew it was coming: the accusation that my paraphrase was a strawman.
Indeed, virtually every aspect of my ‘paraphrase’ was reflected in the answers that spewed forth, from the hypersensitivity to perceived insults “lay off the ridicule” “that’s just arrogance” while barbs are flying from their own side “are you just some smart a– 12 year old kid who got a certificate in your local church “Defense of Christianity” Sunday School Class?” to the random ‘catch-all’ argument that proves atheism right, the smug reference to ‘ancient books’ such as “You base your thought process on a 1900+ year old set of desert scribblings.” Throw in the knee jerk attempt to force the theist to argue in the terms that the atheist himself is dictating, not the terms the theist is actually presenting, “what in the world does bible god have to do with the Big Bang?!? It is not in your bible, stop trying to hijack the BB theory and pretend that your god caused it.” Let’s not forget the constant ‘rebuttals’ that in fact we ‘don’t know’ and ‘can’t know’ from people who apparently are atheists, and not agnostics.
All these are variations of my paraphrasing.
In the last week or so I had two exchanges where the debate turned on why the atheist/agnostic was demanding a higher level of scrutiny for ‘religious’ claims than other kinds of claims. In one of the cases, the really odd thing is that the person(s) had admitted that science, being limited as it is to the natural order, is unable to touch the supernatural and yet continued to say that science nonetheless remains the best way to learn about the world. This is not coherent. When pressed, in this case they again admitted that science couldn’t prove or disprove the supernatural but continued to insist that we use science to investigate the question. Truly, this world leaves me scratching my head.
One might think then that this is simply a question of shifting one’s presuppositions and evidence has nothing to do with it. Certainly assumptions have a lot to do with the matter. I think my point is that the question of abortion belongs in a different class than the question of atheism or theism. After one has decided where they stand regarding God, conclusions about abortion more or less follow. That doesn’t mean that one’s stand regarding God needs to rest only on assumptions!
Has anyone else noticed this? As a case in point- in part because atheists have accused me of ‘inventing’ atheistic positions- consider this entry on my blog and the comments that follow. But to be clear, I run across this phenomena all the time as I read and debate theism or ‘intelligent design.’ Let me …
A recent commenter said: “Well I don’t believe in invisible entities like gods, angels, spirits, or pixies, faeries,etc…”
I immediately thought to myself all the invisible things that he does believe in. I thought of the invisible things that the scientific community believes in- like all the missing dark matter and the millions of years which life is said to have evolved in which is ever and always invisible to direct observation- and realized with a start a fact which of course I have long been aware of… atheists who hide behind science in their mockery of those who believe in invisible realities mask their true objection- not that invisible realities might exist, but that these realities might be an entity.
I must at the outset admit that I haven’t delved into the data that I am told substantiates the view that the earth is steadily warming. That is one reason why I have not said anything about Global Warming. I shall say that here in Wisconsin we just came off of a mighty cold spell with snows as late as April, and last year was about the same. As Wisconsin is part of the globe, I feel I can anecdotally chime in that to this point I am skeptical about the Global Warming argument. Moreover, there clearly are several different parts of the question: even if we establish that the earth is warming, it doesn’t follow that humans are causing it, and even if it is warming, it doesn’t follow that a warming earth would be all that bad (did I mention the cold Wisconsin winters?).
Chronos and Old Facts A short story by Anthony Horvath COPYRIGHT, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED The sign on the door read “Bureau for Decommissioned Facts.” I pushed the door open gingerly, almost sheepishly. My quest to find this heretofore unknown department of the Universal University was not merely a recent one, but one that was given …
My favorite Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed trailer hit youtube. I had wanted to post it before but I had to link to the Expelled movie site. Here it is: You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video In one of my recent posts I challenged Skeptics to be skeptical of everything. …