Christian Think Tank pamphlet rebuttal
Brian Holtz
Christianity is Glenn Miller's pamphlet on his Christian Think-Tank
web site: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/nextseat.html . In it he
writes:
There is something 'beyond' the physical universe --
something that 'caused' this one.
Why stop there? Why do you not believe there is *another* something
beyond (and that caused) *your* "something"?
The vast, vast majority of the human race has believed this
since our beginnings
The vast majority of the human race also believed that the Sun was a
god. Why would primitive humans have any special insight into the
nature of the universe?
The concept of a god [..] was somehow embedded in our
thinking from our inception
In my book I explain that it is embedded in our thinking because of
our "nature as intelligent social animals who survive by detecting
patterns and especially intentions in an environment dominated by
their social interactions. Humans appear biased to see intentionality
not only in friends, foes, predators, and prey, but also in weather,
the heavens, or the universe itself. This bias is perhaps related to
the general human tendency (known in psychology as the Fundamental
Attribution Error) to incorrectly emphasize intentional explanations
over situational or circumstantial ones."
pre-historic burial practices evidence a belief in a 'life
beyond this one'
It must be a "life beyond this one" only for men, because I've read
that pre-historic humans only sent men to the beyond through burial,
and never women.
The vast majority of the western world is theistic or
supernaturalistic, as are the basic majority of scientists
and a sizable portion of philosophers (as shown by polls and
membership in related professional organizations)
The "vast majority" of people have no training in metaphysics, nor do
even a "basic majority" of scientists. Can you please disclose your
statistics on what "sizable portion" of philosophers believe in gods
or the supernatural? Are you at all worried that the people with the
best understanding of metaphysics are far more likely to be
non-theistic naturalists?
the statistical trend toward belief in a 'beyond' is
increasing
I doubt that very much, and would love to see your evidence for this.
While some speculated fifty years ago that "science" would
somehow remove all the 'gaps' and mysteries out of the
universe [..], the reverse has actually happened.
Far from it. As I write in my book at
http://humanknowledge.net/Thoughts.html#ScientificProvisionality:
"Science in the past left vast swaths of phenomena unexplained. The
darkness of infinite star-filled space was considered Olber's Paradox
until well into the 20th century. The Sun was a marvel of inexplicable
energy as recently as 1900. Disease and heredity and the blueness of
the sky were still unexplained in 1850. Electricity and magnetism were
spooky curiosities as recently as 1800. In 2000 there are still big
mysteries about purposes and origins, but fewer marvels about what
some phenomenon might possibly be. Perhaps humanity's biggest marvel
in 2000 is quantum action at a distance, followed distantly by minor
marvels like dark matter, gamma ray bursters, and high-temperature
superconductivity. Even a phenomenon as marvelous as mind has been
demonstrated to be neurological -- although diehard dualists insist
that consciousness is a true marvel."
This trend has not changed in the last fifty years. Fifty years ago
new discoveries were still completely revising and expanding our idea
of the large-scale structure of the galaxy and cosmos. A parade of new
particles was spilling out of our accelerators, and existing particles
were unexpectedly being found to have internal structure. Now, we have
a rough map of the detectable universe that likely will not ever be
rewritten from scratch. We have firm theoretical reasons explaining
why there are only three generations of particles, and theory is
guiding experimenters to confirm the existence of as-yet-undetected
particles. There seem to be no major marvels left at even the largest
and smallest scales, and the "gaps" that remain have more to do with
unity of theory rather than with inexplicable phenomena.
a new paradigm [..] allow[s] for the 'beyond' elements of
consciousness; [..] particles pop in and out of existence,
from some virtual universe 'below the threshold of
existence' [..] mathematicians and philosophers are talking
about the non-physical "existence" of 'abstract entities'
and 'ideals' [..] astrophysicists of the Big Bang camp are
staring "creation out of nothing" and "intelligent design"
in the face and waxing mystical.
1. Dualism lacks any real explanatory utility, and thus its lack of
parsimony makes it as much a dead end as the the heavenly spheres or
the ether. 2. Quantum indeterminacy is hardly evidence for
supernaturalism, despite the grandiose musings of physicists untrained
in metaphysics. 3. Metaphysical idealism is nothing new, and is no
more valid now than when Plato championed it. 4. A theory of "creation
out of nothing" is precisely what threatens to close god's last gap.
The amount of "intelligent design" continues to shrink, and physics
now has only about 19 free variables (see
http://humanknowledge.net/Thoughts.html#FundamentalConstants).
the notion of a First Cause (to start the whole thing) that
is itself "un-caused" seems much less problematic than some
"infinite regress" chain of causes
If you look at an infinite regress from a perspective "outside" time,
then an uncaused (or self-causing) regress might seem no more
problematic than an uncaused (or self-causing) first cause. And again:
the universe as a whole could be as uncaused or self-causing as any
alleged god.
This 'cause' has to be at-least-as-complex as this universe
This conclusion is utterly unwarranted. The physical and life sciences
describe a myriad of complex phenomena that have simple causes.
This 'person' [..] created a universe/reality that has an
incredible amount of diversity and beauty in it
There is no credible evidence that the universe's diversity comes from
anything other than its physical laws and cosmological boundary
conditions. The presence and nature of perceived beauty in the
universe is likely an inevitable result of each perceiver's
evolutionary history. As recent tree-dwellers we find an oak canopy
beautiful and a muddy trench ugly, but an intelligent mole rat would
have the opposite opinion. Not to mention the comparative beauty of
female humans and mole rats... :-)
This Person created us to have hopes, dreams, fears, and to
constantly question "why am I here?"
Fears are obvious products of evolution. Sleep-dreams are a
neuropsychological curiosity but hardly a metaphysical or mystical
revelation. Hopes, hope-dreams, and questioning are inevitable
byproducts of anticipatory intelligence. Not that truly *ever-present*
existential angst is something that evolution could not produce, and
indeed no human devotes to angst even a fraction of the time he
devotes to surviving and reproducing.
We definitely need reliable, clear, and sufficient
information on 'what to do.' [..] We are therefore
critically dependent on some communication/ instruction from
the "Person Outside".
I would worry that this in large part derives from what I call in my
book "our dependence as social mammals on teaching by parents and
society. In the absence of a biological mechanism for offspring to
inherit knowledge directly, a predisposition for unquestioning belief
in authority might help spare each generation from having to
rediscover or verify everything."
What would this communication 'look like'?
Its authenticity would be unambiguous and enduringly obvious to all
future generations. It would *not* look like a tribal myth of a
nationalistic creator-god desperate to win priority over all the
*other* invented gods.
To the best of scholarly knowledge today, not a single one
of these [biblical prophecies] has failed to happen.
I *seriously* doubt you can back this up. No non-trivial prophecy in
the Bible has both a) been documented as having been made before the
predicted event and b) had its fulfillment documented independently of
the Bible itself. How do you explain that secular professional
historians do not acknowledge any such prophecy? What would you say is
the most impressively successful biblical prophecy?
He was either Liar, Lunatic, or Lord!
Most likely he was towards the end of his life partly deluded, and the
gospel authors emphasized these delusions while also (deceptively or
gullibly) embellishing certain details. If the tomb really was empty,
it's probably because (as Mat 28 says was widely believed) some
disciple secretly removed it. History has no shortage of
well-intentioned men willing to practice a little deception if it will
help what they believe is a good cause. Stories of an empty tomb, of
spiritual resurrection, and of pentecost euphoria all may have
combined with the credulity, superstition, and zeal of people in the
Jesus movement to produce gospels "written so that you may believe"
[John 20:31]. The 2nd letter of Peter claims [1:16] the gospels are
not "cleverly invented stories", then warns [2:3] that "false
prophets" will employ "stories they have made up". Perhaps not
coincidentally, the gospels repeatedly relate [Lk 2:4, Mt 2:15, 21:4,
27:9, Jn 19:23, 36] hard-to-verify (and easy-to-fabricate) details and
then cite them as fulfillment of prophecy. Each of these details is in
only one gospel.
--
Brian...@sun.com
Knowledge is dangerous. Take a risk: http://humanknowledge.net