Home
» Intelligent Design » ID “disses” faith
ID “disses” faith
| November 20, 2005 | Posted by William Dembski under Intelligent Design |
. . . Intelligent design disrespects faith, discounts faith, destroys faith. . .
http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/columnists/sives/stories/MYSA112005.3H.ives.1a957b69.html
47 Responses to ID “disses” faith
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Crandaddy
“in the link you provided is fundamentally established on faith-based assertions”
Be a sport and tell me exactly what those faith-based assertions are.
Josh,
Hey, man, I don’t mean to be rude, but you really need to chill. I’m a Christian, too, and I haven’t found anything that Dave has posted to be blatantly offensive. Just take a deep breath and relax.
Dave,
It’s late. I’ll continue with this tomorrow.
I’m totally relaxed…
…maybe you haven’t seen all his comments, or maybe you just don’t agree. To say that the bible writers are a bunch of lice infested beduins, and imply that they’re fools somehow is rude. To say someone is basically a fool for believing in an immaterial soul (as I believe Dembski himself does- which is the only reason I questioned Dave to begin with! Which got me the “piss off” response.) It’s just uncalled for. His comment here, there’s no need to talk down to me for 1. and 2. his comment about “the truth hurts” was meant to cause trouble- makes it fairly obvious he’s making the rude statements in order TO start trouble.
If you don’t agree with everything Dave says, he comments that you’re somehow silly or naive or dumb to believe in certain things (a spirit realm, for example, the afterlife as another example.) Others don’t behave like that. Dave shouldn’t either.
Hey Boze
Whatever!
Talk to the hand.
I’ve yet to be shown how scientific discovery is at odds with Biblical truth. It certainly seems that with every significant discovery in the scientific realm and with every new turn of the archaeologist’s spade, we have more confirmation of the Bible’s reliability.
And I’ve yet to be convinced that “Lucy” was anything more than an extinct animal species which we do not share a lineage with. I invite someone to try and convince me, however. I’m more objective than you may think.
Depends on what Biblical truth. It’s certainly at odds with the story of Noah and the Ark. Two of every animal won’t fit into an ark of 40 cubits and no one could gather them all – how do you propose Noah collected penguins and kangaroos? It’s at odds with people living to be many hundreds of years old. It’s at odds with the order in which living things appeared in Genesis. It’s at odds with people turning into pillars of salt.
I don’t see any way to reconcile these bible stories and scientific reality without compromising either science or biblical literalness. Being a man of science and reason it’s an easy choice for me to make.
If it’s any consolation at least we agree on Lucy. More importantly and more to the point of this blog we seem to agree on the objective evidence of design in nature.
“And I’m sure glad that it doesn’t, because irreducible complexity is junk science. A faith based on junk science turns into a junk faith. I believe. That’s good enough.”
Just more proof that Creationists *hate* ID! I love it!
Mentok wrote:
“What is faith? Faith is belief in something. Belief can be based on philosophy, empirical observation, direct experience, lack of experience and knowledge, or sentimentalism. Those who tell me that empirical observation cannot give rise or enhance belief in something where previously there was no empirical data to support that belief are wrong. The opposite is true.”
Mentok, what then is the difference between “faith”/”belief” and “knowledge” then? You’re conflating the two, and you have several hundred years’ of the history of philosophy worth answering to if you want to make them the same thing.
Second, who ever said I believe in fideism? I simply said what that sort of belief was called. Methinks you’re ready to bash me no matter what I say.
Sorry, to clarify: When did I ever say that my beliefs were those of Paul in that verse? I was trying to explain that that line of theology is long-standing.
And second, I should have asked you: Is faith KNOWING something?
I sent her an email questioning her believe that faith needs to be blind. I asked if the Big Bang was a destroyer of faith… If history and archaelogy are destroyers of faith… If Paley was a destroyer of faith.
I reminded her that IDs examples (and approach) may be new, but the arguement is thousands of years old and it apparently did not destroy faith.
I asked her if the Bible truly asked us to be blind in our faith… or if maybe it valued to some degree: wisdom and intellect. Didn’t Paul in Romans 1 says that God’s invisible qualities are made known to everyone through his creation? Isn’t ID, in some exploring this idea? Can we detect design in nature and therefore reason there was a designer?
You go dodgingcars! Git your activism on.
Neal you wrote:
â€ÂMentok, what then is the difference between “faithâ€Â/â€Âbelief†and “knowledge†then? You’re conflating the two, and you have several hundred years’ of the history of philosophy worth answering to if you want to make them the same thing.Second, who ever said I believe in fideism? I simply said what that sort of belief was called. Methinks you’re ready to bash me no matter what I say”
Knowledge is objective, faith or belief is subjective. I wasn’t conflating the two. I didn’t say you believed in fideism. I didn’t bash you in my own estimation, go back and re-read what I wrote, if someone disagrees with you and you call that being bashed, so be it.
Science assumes faith because it assumes the laws of nature will be the same tomorrow and were the same yesterday. A faithless system cannot account for that or give a good reason for that. A theist can.
These things are better called presumptions based on past performance.
Dave,
Back to where we were yesterday…
“Be a sport and tell me exactly what those faith-based assertions are.”
Two things stand out to me:
1) The section is an apology for Deism; hence, the author asserts that God exists. Whether He exists outside of one’s own mind or not, is God not an abstract concept that cannot be subjected to direct scientific empiricism? I don’t see how He is. Neither does the author attempt to offer a logical proof for the existence of God. What he does is offer arguments to support a position of faith.
2) The author also asserts that all “revealed religions” are artificial or man-made (i.e. not genuinely revealed by God). Consider the following two quotes.
“all the absurdities of revealed religion are responsible for many sincere thinking people to reject and close their minds to natural religion/Deism. The priests, ministers, and rabbis need to suppress, or at least complicate, the pure and simple belief and realization of Deism for their own job security.”
and
“Because Deism is based on nature, the laws of nature, and the creation, it is a natural religion as opposed to revealed or man-made artificial religion.”
The author makes his case, but his positions are still rooted in faith. BTW, I’m just curious, have you converted from Agnosticism to Deism?
David
I’ll concede that deists go too far in saying the creator is “God” but maybe they’re just using it as a generic word for a creator of the universe. However, I still don’t see any articles of faith. It doesn’t require faith to view the universe as an intricate clockwork, even 250 years ago and it’s even more evident today. That’s strictly observation. It doesn’t require faith to say that clockworks require clockmakers. Again, it’s simple observation.
And no, I’m still agnostic as I’m not certain that deists are correct. But if I had to bet on it I’d bet that way.