When debates get into what I believe are more squishy areas, Allen has had very vocal opinions here and has openly criticized many of the posts here some very severely. We are talking about the nature of God, religion, social policies etc. And obviously Chesterton and Lewis are in this area.

On evolution the debates have been more friendly and open as to what is held by the evolutionary biology community. He has rightly criticized some of our parochial beliefs. When you can pin him down, I have found him always honest on questions in this area. But Allen has never presented anything that he claims is overwhelming evidence for macro evolution or is absolutely contradictory to ID and has sort of admitted that we are not driven by religious blinders. He is on record that there is a big difference between Id and creationism which is unique for those backing a naturalistic explanation.

So what I am saying is that there are two Allens in terms of the debates here, the one who comments on hard science, namely biology and evolution in particular and the one who comments on social/relgious/political issues.

—-”I have read Chesterton (and Lewis), and been almost completely unmoved, and equally unconvinced. Indeed, in my experience and as illustrated in the long selections you have posted above, Chesterton and Lewis are both very long on argument and very short on evidence.”

We need more argument, like the sort of Lewis and Chesterton, to make proper sense of the evidence, and I just don’t see the same level of insight of argument from the evolutionists pertaining to the same evidence.

—-”As a scientist, when talking and writing about scientific subjects (such as the antiquity of our species and our planet and what we can reasonably infer about then, based on the available evidence), I prefer to stick to empirical evidence and what can be reasonably inferred from it.”

They’re not strictly scientific questions, anything about nature and history is accessible as a general question, and no one should be ruled out by your category mistake, because the interpretation of the evidence, using better insight and argument and removing the inherent assumptions, indeed, the very crux of the matter, a man with a scientific training’s interpretation has no added value. And this is true for even evolution and the antiquity of our race. Science, you understand, is not a category in which only scientists can interpret data and have some magical additional ability with the inference and meaning of the data. I’m sorry Allen, I know you’re steeped in scientism, but that is a philosophy, and surely a philosophy which regards philosophy in general, of which you don’t have to be a scientist, as inferior to science is absurd and contradictory. On the question of antiquity, of which Chesterton was an expert, his opinion has just as much validity as an archeologist’s or anthropologist’s opinion on the interpretation of the matter. And to be honest, I find it surprising that this has to be pointed out. Nature, in general, cannot be hijacked by a methodology, and rule out all other advice and correction from the rest of humanity. On matters of inference and interpretation, a scientist’s interpretation has no added value.

—-”From the way you frame your arguments, it seems clear to me that empirical evidence is entirely beside the point and without merit, except where it can be mobilized (often by misrepresenting both its content and the spirit in which it was obtained) to further your objective, which is not to “hold, as ’twere, a mirror up to nature”, but rather to force my conception of “nature” to conform wholly to your definition of it.”

That’s the very definition of evolutionary psychology if I’ve ever seen it.

And no, Allen, I’ve not mentioned anything about you being immoral or not having consistent moral values, I have not the faintest idea where you got that idea. And if you don’t want to discuss the merits of things with me, so be it. But I will still make my own arguments directed to you and about your posts. If you want them to go unanswered, that’s your business.

I doubt anything will sway our friend Allen, he’s literally, as John Davison warned, entrenched in the muck and mire of evolution. That’s a dark hole. I try to offer some light StephenB, but some folks just don’t want to see it. Everything from Allen, in the way of argument, is either a mischaracterization, which shows me that he’s not interested in true characterizations and honest dialogue, or it is an emotional appeal. He emphasizes emotional appeals like “but also very characteristic of that small but influential group of people whose insistence on the absolute truth of their positions has led to the most horrifying episodes in the long, sad history of human intolerance.” Not seeing, of course, that this is an emotional appeal that is also a mischaracterization. Real and productive dialogue can’t continue with these tactics, we’ll be chasing rabbits down rabbit holes, and picking up the pieces that Allen has intentionally scattered, all to avoid the real issues.

But you are assuming that the truth is that there is God

No, I’m saying that the truth is findable.

What’s complicated here is what does “I don’t know” mean – what is an agnostic.

There is the common definition: one who doubts God’s existence but won’t claim to be an atheist, and there is the classic definition: one who believes that it is impossible to know God.

I guess you would fall in the classic category.

My position is that we – every single one of us – can not really know what the metaphysical truth is. However that doesn’t stop us from trying

As Mr. Spock would say, “highly illogical”.

So when I say I don’t believe in God, I don’t mean that I know that he doesn’t exist, because I don’t think such knowledge is possible . . .

I think a lot of what you object to with regard to comments about atheists since you seem rather tolerant and generally respectful of others beliefs.

This is a belief system that I have considered and rejected, in part – maybe large part – because of the certainty with which Christianity has proclaimed itself the one True religion.

Religion is a word that is loaded with connotations about compulsion to worship and follow dogmatic written codes.

When I first read scripture, it seemed Jesus came to overthrow all that. Now Christian religion did develop for legitimate and necessary reasons: to provide comfort to the fearful, give structure to communities, to give moral guidance, to defend against injustice etc.; and I think Christian religion is generally a good thing.

But Jesus is not about the religion.

Under such circumstances, I have nothing more to say to you, and henceforth will not respond to your comments for any reason whatsoever.

Egad! Another shunning. When will the madness end?

I seriously doubt that you have spend much time with Chesterton or Lewis, or that you have read either of them with an open mind. Chesterton makes more arguments in one paragraph than most writers make in five pages. The method he (and Lewis) uses is called “reason,” a commodity that is in short supply these days.

—-”As a scientist, when talking and writing about scientific subjects (such as the antiquity of our species and our planet and what we can reasonably infer about then, based on the available evidence), I prefer to stick to empirical evidence and what can be reasonably inferred from it.”

We know what you prefer, and I, for one, am telling you that your methodology is incomplete. We gain knowledge both by the intellect and by sense experience. Your empiricism is one extreme; rationism is the other extreme. Reason=realism, which takes both intellect and empirical observation into account.

—-”By contrast, you assert that the only path to Truth is via intuition and argument, using whatever rhetorical techniques you can to make your point.

No one has ever said that or anything close to that. What I am saying, (I can’t speak for Clive), is that empircal evidence is only half the story. That you would characterize that formulation as anti-empirical is one more bit of evidence that your approach is skewed.

—-”From the way you frame your arguments, it seems clear to me that empirical evidence is entirely beside the point and without merit, except where it can be mobilized (often by misrepresenting both its content and the spirit in which it was obtained) to further your objective, which is not to “hold, as ’twere, a mirror up to nature”, but rather to force my conception of “nature” to conform wholly to your definition of it.”

Everyone believes in evidence. The issue is, what one does with it. What, for example, do you do with the evidence the a DNA molecule functions much like a small factory. Answer: You ignore it because it doesn fit into your world view. World view often trumps evidence, a point that you continue to miss.

—-”As for stephenB’s very telling suggestion that I burn all my books and rely on Chesterton alone for my definitions of reality (with, perhaps, a little C. S. Lewis thrown in), I have always regarded anyone who suggests burning any books for any reason (except, perhaps, for keeping one’s family alive in a blizzard) to be advocating perhaps the greatest sin a person can commit against the life of the mind. I cannot forget those who, still in living memory, not only advocated the burning of books but also gleefully participated in their destruction, and cannot help but recall to what other things (and to whom) those cheerful bookburners then shifted their murderous attention.”

I think you are getting a little carried away with a metaphor, don’t you. I don’t really think you should start a bonfire, nor do I really want you to “lock yourself in a room.” (That too was a play on words [I had better make the announcement from now on, if I don't mean something literally]) That, by the way, is more evidence that those who limit themselves to the empirical method are missing something important when they evaluate what is going on in the real world.

—-”I also regard anyone who insists that there is one and only one answer to every question, and that this answer may only be found in the writings (or recorded utterances) of any historical figure to be not only anti-intellectual, but also very characteristic of that small but influential group of people whose insistence on the absolute truth of their positions has led to the most horrifying episodes in the long, sad history of human intolerance.”

I, (nor Clive for that matter) am not saying that there is only “one way.” It is the one-way approach that I am criticizing. Which community is it that insists that Darwinism must be true no matter what? Which community insist that only modern thinkers have any wisdom? Which community is it that concocted “methodological naturalism” so that the one-way approach may be institutionalized? Which community pretends not to know that this initiate was taken when such disclaimers serve a strategic purpose?

—-”And so, here at the conclusion of my participation in this thread, I will state once again (so that there can be no mistake): We do not agree on even the most basic assumptions about the nature of reality or the mind. Furthermore, you insist that in this disagreement you are absolutely correct and that I am steeped in absolute error. Furthermore, you consistently imply (and sometimes flatly state) that this failure of mine to agree with your position constitutes a telling commentary on my lack of intelligence, lack of learning, and (implicitly, but very clearly) my lack of (or, at least, disregard for) consistent moral values (and, by extension, a similar lack in anyone who entertains the possibility that my position might have merit). Under such circumstances, I have nothing more to say to you, and henceforth will not respond to your comments for any reason whatsoever.”

Is this the same blogger who recently characterized Clive as “a slow learner” for expressing doubts about your defense of evolutionary biology.

But you are assuming that the truth is that there is God, so that one is not searching for truth if one is not searching for God. Since I don’t believe in God I don’t accept this argument.

What’s complicated here is what does “I don’t know” mean – what is an agnostic.

My position is that we – every single one of us – can not really know what the metaphysical truth is. However that doesn’t stop us from trying – people have invented numerous metaphysical belief systems and, more importantly, integrated them into their overall perspective on life.

The dilemma we are all in, as a major feature of the human condition, is that we all need a metaphysical background for our beliefs even though we can’t actually know what that metaphysical background can’t be. Therefore when we invent (create, make up) such systems, we have to judge them not on their “Truth”, but rather on their success, as best we can judge, in helping us structure our lives and guide our actions.

And, foreseeing the standard rejoinder here, there is no absolute criteria by which to judge what “success” means: another part of the human condition is that we have to make choices based on incomplete and somewhat circular knowledge, but since not choosing is not possible, we have to proceed in life despite this limitation.

The good news is that feedback works: we constantly test our knowledge against further experience, and this is as true of our created metaphysical beliefs, although in a different way, as it is of our scientific beliefs.

So when I say I don’t believe in God, I don’t mean that I know that he doesn’t exist, because I don’t think such knowledge is possible, but I also don’t think that the people who think he does exist truly have such knowledge either. However I do mean, when I say I don’t believe in God, that my belief system – the one I have thoughtfully developed over the course of my life – does not include God. This is a belief system that I have considered and rejected, in part – maybe large part – because of the certainty with which Christianity has proclaimed itself the one True religion.

That is the classic definition of the agnostic but that is not my position.

One can know the metaphysical ground of the universe (i.e. God). One, however, may not know this.

And if one doesn’t it is proper to admit it.

Also, Tribune writes, “A hard and fast atheist or agnostic is someone who has pretty much given up on pursuing truth and has stopped thinking.” That’s not only wrong, it contradicts what you said in the first quote . . .

It’s not and it doesn’t. When one says there is no God or one can’t know truth, then one closes one mind.

That’s different than saying ‘I don’t know’.

This is my main position – that we can’t know the nature of the metaphysical ground of the universe.

Try telling that to all the people here who consider one irrational if they don’t see that the universe “screams God.”

Also, Tribune writes, “A hard and fast atheist or agnostic is someone who has pretty much given up on pursuing truth and has stopped thinking.”

That’s not only wrong, it contradicts what you said in the first quote, because an agnostic is one who would rather live with uncertainty than believe things that are not true.

Also, atheists and agnostics have not given up searching for truth – they are just searching for it in different places. Rather than thinking that truth can be found in theistic belief they, and I include myself here, search for truths by examining the world around us. Accusing me, which you are implicitly doing, of having “given up on pursuing truth and has stopped thinking” is just another example of the arrogance and contempt that I am pointing out.

Hazel, suppose someone said Christianity was a warm and fuzzy superstition created to insulate weak people from the cold, harsh reality of nothingness? Would that be mean? Not necessarily, not if he actually believed it.

Of course, when that fallacy was pointed out to him and he continued to hold it, he’d reveal himself not to be that interested in reality, harsh or otherwise.

A hard and fast atheist or agnostic is someone who has pretty much given up on pursuing truth and has stopped thinking.

OTOH, a skeptic — and this can be an atheist or agnostic or one who can’t immediately accept certain miracles a la St. Thomas — is one who takes a rather honorable position. It’s better to admit you don’t know that to pretend to believe.