Is it Rational to Believe God Exists?

[JapaneseKappa]

Merely because academia tends towards “secularism” does not make it the default correct view. There is a difference between neutrality and secularism. In fact, in (falsely) insisting that ABR is dishonest MERELY BECAUSE they take a Christian perspective, without any actual attempt to show error in their work, demonstrates (based on your own line of thought) that you have a biased perspective the other way, i.e. you are assuming that Christianity is de facto incorrect, and, therefore, anyone who takes that perspective must be intellectually dishonest. A presumption - parading as neutrality - that atheistic materialism is true, by default.

ABR is not intellectually dishonest because they take a Christian perspective. They are intellectually dishonest because their explicit goal is to defend the Christian perspective.

 

[Peter_Plato]

ABR is not intellectually dishonest because they take a Christian perspective. They are intellectually dishonest because their explicit goal is to defend the Christian perspective.

Why is that necessarily dishonest?

 

[ccmnxc]

ABR is not intellectually dishonest because they take a Christian perspective. They are intellectually dishonest because their explicit goal is to defend the Christian perspective.

Simple question: Given how secular and liberal-leaning academia is these days, would you agree or disagree that Christianity, and Biblical history & theology in particular, do not get a fair hearing? For either answer, why?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Simple question: Given how secular and liberal-leaning academia is these days, would you agree or disagree that Christianity, and Biblical history & theology in particular, do not get a fair hearing? For either answer, why?

I agree they do not get a fair hearing in academia. As an academic for 33 years, I routinely came across English anthologies of essays containing Clarence Darrow’s essay “Why I Am an Agnostic” but could rarely find an anthology that contained any essay by G.K. Chesterton, the most popular Catholic writer of the 20th Century. Religious writers are notoriously ignored in English anthologies at secular colleges, and a single chapter from the most famous book in Western history, the Holy Bible, is virtually non-existent.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It’s time for Voltaire to weigh in here:

“The atheists are for the most part impudent and misguided scholars who reason badly, and who not being able to understand the creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis of the eternity of things and of inevitability….That was how things went with the Roman Senate which was almost entirely composed of atheists in theory and in practice, that is to say, who believed in neither a Providence nor a future life; this senate was an assembly of philosophers, of sensualists and ambitious men, all very dangerous men, who ruined the republic." (from Voltaire’s essay On Atheism).

So I think it fair to say Voltaire held it is rational to believe God exists.

 

[Tomdstone]

As an academic for 33 years, I routinely came across English anthologies of essays containing Clarence Darrow’s essay “Why I Am an Agnostic” but could rarely find an anthology that contained any essay by G.K. Chesterton, the most popular Catholic writer of the 20th Century.

There is an inexpensive Dover paperback book entitled: Great English Essays: From Bacon to Chesterton. BTW, your profile mentions Assumption college in Worcester. I thought that at one time the classes there were all in French. Anyway, IMHO, life is much better in Massachusetts, than in Texas.

 

[Peter_Plato]

ABR is not intellectually dishonest because they take a Christian perspective. They are intellectually dishonest because their explicit goal is to defend the Christian perspective.

So, given this distinction…

Richard Dawkins is not intellectually dishonest because he takes an atheist perspective. He is intellectually dishonest because his explicit goal is to defend an atheist perspective.

I fail to see a distinction.

In fact, I would say someone who honestly takes a particular perspective but fails or refuses to defend it would be intellectually dishonest, no?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Why is that necessarily dishonest?

Because that’s not how you do science. You don’t make your conclusions first and look for the evidence that “proves” it second. It leads to exactly the sorts of articles you posted: hand-waving attempts to rectify what was observed with the already-made conclusions.

Simple question: Given how secular and liberal-leaning academia is these days, would you agree or disagree that Christianity, and Biblical history & theology in particular, do not get a fair hearing? For either answer, why?

I think they get a fairer hearing than they would if academia were more theocratic.

I’m not sure what you mean by “unfair” though; it seems that there are two possible meanings. Are you asking if academia is unfairly *undervaluing *these subjects (e.g. funding them at a lower rate than they deserve) or are you asking if academia is treating issues within the disciplines unfairly (i.e. making wrong conclusions)?

I suspect that the funding is fair from a pragmatic point of view. Large academic institutions are not charities, their funding decisions are based on cost/benefit analyses, not personal preferences. Its no accident that the most impressive buildings on many college campuses are dedicated to athletics, not academics. Football makes more money, so they spend more money on it. Whether or not this is how things should be is a perennial subject for debate, but even if wrong it is still fair; all the disciplines play by the same rules.

I suspect your real intent is closer to the second interpretation, that academia is making the wrong conclusions within the disciplines because of biases. I suspect your thinking goes along the lines “academia seems to be contradicting beliefs that my religion gave me a lot, academia must be biased against my religion.” However, that is an arrogant sort of reasoning, because it is also entirely possible that your religion is wrong, or you are misinterpreting what your religion actually teaches. As I said in the beginning, I suspect a secular academic system is better overall than a religious one, because a secular institution doesn’t care if its findings make religious people happy or not.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

So, given this distinction…

Richard Dawkins is not intellectually dishonest because he takes an atheist perspective. He is intellectually dishonest because his explicit goal is to defend an atheist perspective.

I fail to see a distinction.

In fact, I would say someone who honestly takes a particular perspective but fails or refuses to defend it would be intellectually dishonest, no?

Doing science is different from doing evangelism. You can do science to evangelism. You can evangelize science to people. You cannot set out to “make some science” that will support your evangelism. If Dawkins has done that, then he was being intellectually dishonest.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

There is an inexpensive Dover paperback book entitled: Great English Essays: From Bacon to Chesterton. BTW, your profile mentions Assumption college in Worcester. I thought that at one time the classes there were all in French. Anyway, IMHO, life is much better in Massachusetts, than in Texas.

Thank you for the reference. That text was not published until 4 years after I retired from teaching, or I might have considered it for my classes. The three selections of excerpts from three different titles by Chesterton did not exceed ten pages, and the titles in no way suggest Chesterton’s religious views are being discussed. Still, it was refreshing to see Chesterton selected as one of the famous essayists. Now, if they could get something in the anthologies like Chesterton’s “Why I Am a Catholic,” that would be a real breakthrough!

Assumption College only taught French classes in French since I was there in the 50s.

You have lived in both Massachusetts and Texas and you prefer Massachusetts?

But Texas has no state income tax and great Mexican food! What is wrong with you?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

As I said in the beginning, I suspect a secular academic system is better overall than a religious one, because a secular institution doesn’t care if its findings make religious people happy or not.

I disagree with this. I worked in a secular college for 33 years. I have seen regular efforts by secularist colleagues to impose their secularist philosophies on their students. So I think **many secular academicians care to make their secular students happy and their religious students unhappy. **

Anyway, that was my experience. I know it from reports from many students that their professors were biased against religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular. That is why the Catholic Church, knowing human nature, wisely instituted Catholic schools and colleges to combat the secular influence.

 

[ccmnxc]

Because that’s not how you do science. You don’t make your conclusions first and look for the evidence that “proves” it second. It leads to exactly the sorts of articles you posted: hand-waving attempts to rectify what was observed with the already-made conclusions.

A few points:

1. How do you know that the relevant beliefs were arrived at prior to evaluation?
2. Even assuming they were Christian prior to starting study, why assume that the writer was angling for a conclusion as opposed to following the evidence as it became apparent?
3. After all that, I’m not sure how dishonesty (using the traditional sense of the word) can actually be applied. It strikes me as bad method, but dishonesty implies knowingly ignoring, distorting, or outright lying about facts, and to show that this is the case, you cannot simply non-question-beggingly hand-wave it away, but must demonstrate that the facts were given an unfair hearing and that it is at least plausible it was deliberate.

I think they get a fairer hearing than they would if academia were more theocratic.

This seems at best unknowable and at worst wishful thinking, but I’ll set that aside for now. More to the point, nobody is advocating for a theocratic academia (whatever that might actually mean), so I’m not sure why you brought this up. I would like a balanced academia, and right now, I’m not seeing it.

I’m not sure what you mean by “unfair” though; it seems that there are two possible meanings. Are you asking if academia is unfairly *undervaluing *these subjects (e.g. funding them at a lower rate than they deserve) or are you asking if academia is treating issues within the disciplines unfairly (i.e. making wrong conclusions)?

More the latter, but the former is also quite relevant. Cannot have a strong voice if your department or area of expertise gets little funding in proportion to other disciplines and thus cannot hire many or the best people.

I suspect that the funding is fair from a pragmatic point of view. Large academic institutions are not charities, their funding decisions are based on cost/benefit analyses, not personal preferences. Its no accident that the most impressive buildings on many college campuses are dedicated to athletics, not academics. Football makes more money, so they spend more money on it. Whether or not this is how things should be is a perennial subject for debate, but even if wrong it is still fair; all the disciplines play by the same rules.

It seems the fairness of what is relegated to Biblical studies, philosophy of religion, and theology at large is largely contingent upon the question asked in the OP. But I asked you your opinion and you gave it, so I cannot complain too much here.

 

[ccmnxc]

I suspect your real intent is closer to the second interpretation, that academia is making the wrong conclusions within the disciplines because of biases. I suspect your thinking goes along the lines “academia seems to be contradicting beliefs that my religion gave me a lot, academia must be biased against my religion.” However, that is an arrogant sort of reasoning, because it is also entirely possible that your religion is wrong, or you are misinterpreting what your religion actually teaches. As I said in the beginning, I suspect a secular academic system is better overall than a religious one, because a secular institution doesn’t care if its findings make religious people happy or not.

Well, I’m sure there might be one or two less charitable interpretations as to my line of thinking; this is probably more in line with it and more fully fleshed out: I think academia is largely homogeneous in its liberal/secular outlook and that there are many qualified intellectuals who are conservative/orthodox who are not in academia per se. Whose fault this is I’m not wholly concerned with at this particular instance. However, lack intellectual diversity makes it rather difficult for those of the conservative/orthodox branch to get their voices heard both in terms of simply trying not to be drowned out by the number who disagree but also not being dismissed simply because they are in the minority. Further, I think there is a bias insofar as they are more likely to be dismissed because of their intellectual commitments as you outlined so clearly above. Any one of them who argues for their religious (and to a lesser extent, conservative) positions is seen as de facto rationalizing and thus cannot be trusted. This seems to be as prevalent among academic (if not more so) leftists and secularists as it is with non-academics of the same stripe. There seems to be this idea that secularists at least cannot be biased since their position tends to be one of negation as opposed to upholding something like an organized religion. Of course, this strikes me as fantasy both because a negative position can be just as dogmatically held as an affirmative one, but also that there seems to be no shortage of people who would simply love it if the Christian God did not exist. I know Chris Hitchens expressed such sentiments. Philosopher Thomas Nagel did as well, and he said he suspected many of his colleagues were similar. Then there is of course your teenage-esque person who simply would like to live a life with no strings or devotion attached. Finally, there are a great many academics who have strongly secular voices when they do not even work in a relevant subject area (which would be primarily philosophy and theology). Science, for all it’s worth, can do little to determine theological and philosophical truth. I have seen many an academic preach on religious topics only to see that they haven’t the remotest idea as to what they are talking about. Finally, I have simply seen too much dogmatism that exudes from academics such as Brian Leiter, Richard Dawkins, A.C. Grayling ,etc to be convinced of their purity. Call me a skeptic, if you will. So that is my position more elaborated upon.
So it is not merely, “They disagree with me, therefore…” Rather, it is “All these corroborating factors lead me to believe of bias in academia. Perhaps I care about it more since it is me they disagree with, but who they disagree with in particular is irrelevant as to whether or not there is bias in academia.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

Because that’s not how you do science. You don’t make your conclusions first and look for the evidence that “proves” it second. It leads to exactly the sorts of articles you posted: hand-waving attempts to rectify what was observed with the already-made conclusions.

No, that is not what the articles are doing.

Wood, for one, takes a very meticulous approach to demonstrating with evidence what he thinks are logical conclusions.

An example…

Late Bronze Age pottery types from Jericho excavated by Kenyon. A simple, round-sided bowl with concentric circles painted on the inside (No. 2) is particularly important for dating Jericho’s City IV because such bowls were used only for a short time in the tatter half of the 15th century B.C.E. The flaring carinated (angled) bowl with a slight crimp (No. 1), a storage jar with a simple folded rim (No. 3), a cooking pot (No. 4) and a dipper juggle (No. 5) are all common to the Late Bronze Age. Inexplicably, Kenyon ignored these examples of common, locally made domestic pottery at Jericho and instead based her Middle Bronze Age date for City IV on the absence of expensive imported Cypriote ware known to date to the beginning of the Late Bronze Age. She reasoned that the absence of these Late Bronze forms indicated the city must have been destroyed at the end of the Middle Bronze Age. However, such Late Bronze Age imports are typically found in tombs in large cities on major trade routes. The Jericho of City IV, in Kenyon’s own words was “something of a backwater.” She should not have been surprised by the absence of Cypriote imports in Late Bronze Jericho. She should have paid greater attention to the locally made household pottery she did find, especially because she was dependent on a very limited excavation area in a poor section of the city – the last place to look for exotic imported materials.

biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/05/01/Did-the-Israelites-Conquer-Jericho-A-New-Look-at-the-Archaeological-Evidence.aspx

I would suggest this article demonstrates that Wood is not a person to “hand wave” points. He provides evidence that consciously addresses the points and arguments of those who view things differently. In this case, pointing out that the "hand-waving” was on the part of Kenyon et al.

I would suggest that it is simply not true that the “way” to do science is to “…not make your conclusions first and look for the evidence that ‘proves’ it second…” precisely because to look deeply into an issue demands a commitment to a solution. Essentially, that means being seriously willing to defend with some measure of “loyalty” what you honestly think to be true - though with a fair-minded openness to the possibility that you might be proven wrong. Otherwise, with no commitment to a perspective, it is too easy to merely “give up” on what the truth might be precisely because there was no commitment to pursuing one possibility over others.

There will always be those who see it differently, who are willing to competently defend other viewpoints, and who ought to be just as willing to concede that they might be wrong (but not without bullet proof logic demonstrating that they are.)

I see no problem with a serious commitment to a position, one that will “leave no stone unturned’ in the process of finding out the truth. That, to me is what people like Wood are doing in such articles. He is not willing to abandon a position merely because someone raised an issue. This is precisely how any science progresses - by the commitment of those who with their whole heart ”want to know” the truth - not continually retreat and change their minds in the face of a little opposition.

That, in fact, is precisely what the secular world considers being “open-minded” - a willingness to freely admit you might be wrong and remain noncommittal to any position because you don’t want to “upset” anyone who might disagree with you.

A second point to be made is that the scientific method, at least as far as experimentation goes, is somewhat like “…make your conclusion first and look for the evidence that ‘proves’ it second” although the bold-faced word is better termed “hypothesis.” Scientists do, in fact, formulate an hypothesis and diligently pursue evidence that “proves it.”

Without a strong commitment to assiduously exploring a position, scholarship becomes shallow and half-hearted. So you are still incorrect to think that it is “intellectually dishonest” to “defend” any “perspective.” It shows intellectual stamina to not prematurely abandon a perspective merely because “academia” has decided otherwise. Science progresses precisely because there are trailblazers who are willing to go the extra mile in pursuit of the truth, often to the sneers and opprobrium of the “crowd," whether made up of scientists or otherwise.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I would suggest this article demonstrates that Wood is not a person to “hand wave” points. He provides evidence that consciously addresses the points and arguments of those who view things differently. In this case, pointing out that the "hand-waving” was on the part of Kenyon et al.

Here is an example of the hand waving I am talking about:
biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/07/08/Egyptian-Domination-of-Canaan-during-JoshuaJudges.aspx

When the Israelites arrived in Canaan in 1406 BC they had no material culture of their own since they had been living in the Sinai as nomads for the previous 40 years. What is more, those with craft skills learned in Egypt had died in the wilderness. As a result, the Israelites purchased their pottery, tools and weapons from the Canaanites making it difficult to distinguish Israelites from Canaanites until the Israelites began making their own material items ca. 1200 BC.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Doing science is different from doing evangelism.

Oh, my

Do the names Lawrence Krauss, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Peter Atkins, Sean Carroll, Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, PZ Myers, Victor Stenger or Lewis Wolpert ring any bells?

They seem to think there is no difference - in fact, that science, atheism and evangelism are identical in essence, if not form.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

A few points:

1. How do you know that the relevant beliefs were arrived at prior to evaluation?
2. Even assuming they were Christian prior to starting study, why assume that the writer was angling for a conclusion as opposed to following the evidence as it became apparent?
3. After all that, I’m not sure how dishonesty (using the traditional sense of the word) can actually be applied. It strikes me as bad method, but dishonesty implies knowingly ignoring, distorting, or outright lying about facts, and to show that this is the case, you cannot simply non-question-beggingly hand-wave it away, but must demonstrate that the facts were given an unfair hearing and that it is at least plausible it was deliberate.

Its written all over their website. For example they advocate for a literal interpretation of the flood thusly:
biblearchaeology.org/post/2013/01/23/Insights-from-the-Animal-Kingdom-on-the-Scope-of-Noahe28099s-Flood.aspx

In particular, many who are steeped in the sciences say that it is impossible, scientifically speaking, for the Earth to have been created in six literal 24-hour days and for the Flood to have been a worldwide cataclysm… They thus place Science over Scripture—although they will deny it, saying that God reveals Himself through both the written Word and the visible creation, and the two speak with one voice. But one still takes precedence, and they have chosen that which depends on human efforts to understand, rather than simple trust in what is revealed.

That is not intellectually honest. If the organization cared at all about scientific credibility, they would nowhere defend the concept of a global flood based on “the bible says so” as evidence.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Oh, my

Do the names Lawrence Krauss, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Peter Atkins, Sean Carroll, Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, PZ Myers, Victor Stenger or Lewis Wolpert ring any bells?

They seem to think there is no difference - in fact, that science, atheism and evangelism are identical in essence, if not form.

As I said, you can evangelize science to people, you can’t go out and “make some science” for the express purpose of using in your evangelism.

 

[ccmnxc]

That is not intellectually honest. If the organization cared at all about scientific credibility, they would nowhere defend the concept of a global flood based on “the bible says so” as evidence.

Their intended audience is Christians - people who believe the Bible. They are not going to use the same line against those who reject the Bible. Now, I’m not particularly beholden to a literal reading of the relevant Gensis stories, but I don’t think it is exactly dishonest to use premises Christians already accept in an argument, even if the other premises aren’t all that promising.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Their intended audience is Christians - people who believe the Bible. They are not going to use the same line against those who reject the Bible. Now, I’m not particularly beholden to a literal reading of the relevant Gensis stories, but I don’t think it is exactly dishonest to use premises Christians already accept in an argument, even if the other premises aren’t all that promising.

Sure, they may try to dress it up for other audiences. Unfortunately, the only reason someone would propose a recent global flood is biblical say-so. There is no way:

1. the relevant beliefs were arrived at prior to evaluation.
2. the writer wasn’t angling for a conclusion and instead following the evidence as it became apparent.
3. the author was not knowingly ignoring, distorting, or outright lying about facts.