Excluding the natural!

Kirsten Birkett accuses some scientists for totally excluding the supernatural. She says this is an unjustified ideological stance.

Actually what she is doing is to exclude the natural totally! She says that according to the Bible there is no distinction between natural and supernatural because everything is ultimately caused by God. Also she says that God continually upholds the world, and every single thing occurs according to God's explicit will.

What do you say Prof. McKenzie?

I love George Carlin!

"But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bullshit story. Holy Shit!"

The message sent out by Catholic answers forum reminded me the above quote from George Carlin. Here is the link to the message: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=3743117#post3743117

What strikes me most is the following paragraph:

"We're praying that you'll pledge your support of just $15/month--or more if you can--so that we can meet this shortfall. In exchange, you'll receive 2 FREE gifts that will aid your spiritual journey."

Why should they pray God, so that God makes people donate? It's a foolish indirect method. Shouldn't they pray for money directly from God? God could just sprinkle money from the heavens! Also, what's that free gift nonsense? If God makes people donate, they will donate regardless of the gifts offered!

It's an insult to God!

Orderly Universe: Evidence of God?

Here is a link to an article in 3quarksdaily. The post is titled Orderly Universe: Evidence of God?.

It clearly summarizes what's wrong with arguments like Kirsten Birkett's.

Here is an excerpt from Unnatural Enemies

"When science becomes a metaphysical position, in which scientific explanation is the only explanation and the objects of the scientific enquiry the only existing objects, then it has claimed far too much territory-more than it can sustain."

Here is my reply to this:

When you explain something, that is always a physical (as opposed to metaphysical) position and is also scientific. The problem with the argument that there is a metaphysical "explanation" is that, the metaphysical "explanation" does not actually explain. It just puts an unexplained cause behind everything, which makes all further explanations invalid.

The argument actually says that claiming the absence of metaphysics is a metaphysical position. This is nonsense.

How naive I was

In my first post I questioned the fact that Ross McKenzie, a theoretical physicist, was listed as one of the previewers of Kirsten Birkett's book Unnatural Enemies.

I naively thought that he was just given an unfinished version of a part of the book and asked to preview. I thought, most probably he was unaware of the real intention of the book.

How stupid I am. He is a Christian. He really believes that Jesus died and then rose.

He does a good job of criticizing Alistair McGrath. But, he is a believer and he also believes in the compatibility of science and Christianity. An of course, as usual, he gives no reason, for his faith.

I repeat: Christianity may accept that science is compatible, because it mostly accepts the scientific method. But, science cannot accept Christianity's compatibility because it mostly considers it as invalid and untrue-not because Christianity's tenets are contrary to itself, but because it is not true.

Ross H. McKenzie

I criticized Ross McKenzie of endorsing Kirsten Birkett's book, and asked if he really thinks so. Now I discovered this document. I haven't read it all yet (I will) but he clearly ponders about naturalism and theology. I will write on it after reading.

Wrong diagnosis of the problem

In Chapter 9 of Unnatural Enemies by Kirsten Birkett, the author starts by saying "...people are ignorant about its [Bible's] content...".

This is the typical argument repeated: the argument of wrongly interpreting the Bible.

Of course there is a more fundamental problem that the author, deliberately misses. There are a lot of people in the scientific community that really do not know the Bible, not because they are ignorant, but just the opposite, because they are informed and reasonable enough to ignore what Bible says.

The Bible is no authority and no reference. The author must acknowledge that the advocates of the scientific method are not rejecting the Bible in the sense of a child rebelling against his/her father, but they reject the validity of the Bible.

How can there not be conflict if one side rejects the other sides most firm assumption?

This is not about ideology. Only facts.

Reasonable Evangelicals?

I have never seen an article such disconnected from reality! I know what is an evangelical. I have seen them in action. I talked to them, I dined with them.

The whole article consist of just wishful thinking. It's so dishonest.

The point of the book

The point of the book is that there really is no conflict between science and Christianity. Giving Bible references, the author argues that the Bible actually endorses the scientific method. Moreover, says that a believer can make a better scientist than a non-believer.

Of course, the given Bible references are disputable, also one can easily find other Bible references that supports exactly the opposite idea. But, even if we accept these arguments, they only instruct Christians thinking that their beliefs contradict science. There are no arguments aimed at the scientists that think any dogmatic belief system contradicts science, The whole book just assumes the validity of the Bible. It does not even attempt to give reasons for this assumption.

So it is just one-sided, incomplete and insufficient.