Rob Monti,
Your Favorite MonT-SteR!
Blogs with
MonT-SteR Appeal
Alpha & Omega Min.
Atheism Presupposes Theism
Atheism Sucks!
Christians Behaving Badly
Come Reason Ministries
Facing the Challenge
His Hand is On the Door
Let's Try Freedom
ProLifeBlogs
The Thinklings
World Magazine Blog
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Atheistic gambits
Saw most of the NOVA documentary on the Intelligent Design (ID) movement on PBS tonight, and I thought it was poorly conceived. In essence, it amounted to a one-sided, ad hominem attack whose chief argument was that ID proponents are dunces and perjurers.
The response to irreducible complexity was particularly bad. Sure, there may be other molecular designs in nature that share many common components with a full-fledged flagellum (like that alliteration there?), but do they serve the same purpose? Are they attempting to perform the same function in a "less evolved" way? (Such questions highlight why the "mousetrap" stunt the anti-ID folks employed fails to refute irreducible complexity.) And even if there is commonality of design, it doesn't prove that less complex forms are necessarily transitory in an evolutionary sense. The only way one would come to such a conclusion by default is if he or she presupposes a naturalistic framework.
And that's really the key issue, I think. Why should presuppositional naturalism and its proffered theory of origins receive unqualified state sanction and preference? The inference to design is reasonably performed by every human being every day vis-a-vis objects and systems that are less complex by orders of magnitude than the molecular machinery present inside a single cell. ID makes the same logical inference with respect to origins theory; the real problem people have with it is not that it is a bastardization of science that would unhinge our entire education system, but rather the fact that it deigns to compete with some of atheism's underlying sacred cows, as well as its choke hold on our public schools.
I have an idea. If we can't see our way clear to allow ID to be taught at the very least as a possible inference from scientific data that's available to us, let's get ideology out of the picture entirely and not teach naturalism either. And for all of you who are squealing that ID is not falsifiable and therefore nonscientific, the same could be said of the atheist's pet assertion that philosophical naturalism is a necessary corollary of the scientific method.
William Lane Craig, one of my favorite apologists, has an audio blog full of commentary on current events. In a recent post, he discusses "the new atheism" and its designs on our children and parental rights, as well as the faulty premise that polytheism is innately more "tolerant" than monotheism.
Some of this is disturbing stuff, some of it gets downright funny (listen to Craig's voice crack when he's describing the absurdity of a professor's assertions about polytheism). All of it is important listening. Check it out...
Saw most of the NOVA documentary on the Intelligent Design (ID) movement on PBS tonight, and I thought it was poorly conceived. In essence, it amounted to a one-sided, ad hominem attack whose chief argument was that ID proponents are dunces and perjurers.
The response to irreducible complexity was particularly bad. Sure, there may be other molecular designs in nature that share many common components with a full-fledged flagellum (like that alliteration there?), but do they serve the same purpose? Are they attempting to perform the same function in a "less evolved" way? (Such questions highlight why the "mousetrap" stunt the anti-ID folks employed fails to refute irreducible complexity.) And even if there is commonality of design, it doesn't prove that less complex forms are necessarily transitory in an evolutionary sense. The only way one would come to such a conclusion by default is if he or she presupposes a naturalistic framework.
And that's really the key issue, I think. Why should presuppositional naturalism and its proffered theory of origins receive unqualified state sanction and preference? The inference to design is reasonably performed by every human being every day vis-a-vis objects and systems that are less complex by orders of magnitude than the molecular machinery present inside a single cell. ID makes the same logical inference with respect to origins theory; the real problem people have with it is not that it is a bastardization of science that would unhinge our entire education system, but rather the fact that it deigns to compete with some of atheism's underlying sacred cows, as well as its choke hold on our public schools.
I have an idea. If we can't see our way clear to allow ID to be taught at the very least as a possible inference from scientific data that's available to us, let's get ideology out of the picture entirely and not teach naturalism either. And for all of you who are squealing that ID is not falsifiable and therefore nonscientific, the same could be said of the atheist's pet assertion that philosophical naturalism is a necessary corollary of the scientific method.
William Lane Craig, one of my favorite apologists, has an audio blog full of commentary on current events. In a recent post, he discusses "the new atheism" and its designs on our children and parental rights, as well as the faulty premise that polytheism is innately more "tolerant" than monotheism.
Some of this is disturbing stuff, some of it gets downright funny (listen to Craig's voice crack when he's describing the absurdity of a professor's assertions about polytheism). All of it is important listening. Check it out...
Labels: apologetics, atheism, evolution, intelligent design, neo-paganism, William Lane Craig
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Pointing the finger at Jesus?
I recently registered my blog at BlogCatalog, and in the process I stumbled upon A Penitent Atheist.
What's that? Is he okay, you ask?
No, no, no, silly -- it's a blog, not an actual penitent atheist. And besides, if I actually did trip over a penitent atheist, shouldn't you be asking ME if I'M okay? I mean, I'm the one who tripped, right?
Anyway, the guy behind the A Penitent Atheist blog (APAB) was once involved in pastoral ministry -- a fact that he seems to regret deeply:
Now, the puckish side of me wants to respond by saying, "Dude, what's with the guilt? Atheistic morality is all about human whimsy anyway. Embrace your worldview, man -- if it's true, feeling 'bad' about your past is a meaningless exercise."
For now, we won't go there (not in detail, anyway). I'm more interested in responding to a post on APAB asserting that Jesus didn't live up to his own teachings:
Interesting claim. Let's see how he backs it up:
Ugh. There are a number of problems with the way this example is presented and how APAB reasons from it:
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
I recently registered my blog at BlogCatalog, and in the process I stumbled upon A Penitent Atheist.
What's that? Is he okay, you ask?
No, no, no, silly -- it's a blog, not an actual penitent atheist. And besides, if I actually did trip over a penitent atheist, shouldn't you be asking ME if I'M okay? I mean, I'm the one who tripped, right?
Anyway, the guy behind the A Penitent Atheist blog (APAB) was once involved in pastoral ministry -- a fact that he seems to regret deeply:
The title of my blog, A Penitent Atheist, indicates a degree of regret, even remorse, that exists in me because of the things I taught and preached as a Christian minister.
Now, the puckish side of me wants to respond by saying, "Dude, what's with the guilt? Atheistic morality is all about human whimsy anyway. Embrace your worldview, man -- if it's true, feeling 'bad' about your past is a meaningless exercise."
For now, we won't go there (not in detail, anyway). I'm more interested in responding to a post on APAB asserting that Jesus didn't live up to his own teachings:
I submit to you that even Jesus, as portrayed in the Bible, could not live up to his own edicts.
Interesting claim. Let's see how he backs it up:
Luk 6:27-28 NASB "But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, (28) bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.An admirable, if somewhat naive command. Did Jesus always obey it? According to the story, Jesus had some enemies. He had some folks who hated him, who cursed him. Who seemed to dog him at every turn. Did Jesus show them love? Did he do good to them? Did he bless them? Let's see.
Mat 23:33 NASB "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?Those words sound more like a curse than a blessing, do they not?
Ugh. There are a number of problems with the way this example is presented and how APAB reasons from it:
- He divorces Matthew 23:33 completely from its context. Note how APAB subtly frames Jesus' words as though they were were a random execration he just let fly with when his anger at detractors got the best of him. That's part of the luxury proof texting affords, but unfortunately it doesn't do anything to help us understand what Jesus really said or why he said it.
- He hasn't shown that this is actually a curse. Why couldn't Jesus have been openly telling the truth about the character of his adversaries? And if the condition of their hearts and eternal destinies really were at stake, wouldn't such truth telling actually be an act of "[doing] good to those who hate you?" APAB simply assumes instead that Jesus is throwing a hateful verbal fit that falls short of his own teaching. For all the derisive talk in his post about the assumptions Christians make, this seems a lot like the pot calling the kettle black.
- APAB's treatment of Luke 6:27-28 assumes (there's that nasty word again) that those verses exhaust the responses one could licitly have to one's enemies. Why couldn't Jesus' response in Matthew 23:33 be a non-contradictory complement to the prescriptions of Luke 6:27-28?
- Just because Jesus was angry with his enemies, does it necessarily follow that he ceased to love them? After all, we're talking about the same Jesus who prayed, "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do," while being crucified as a direct result of the machinations of his enemies. Besides, how many of you out there have kids? You ever get angry with them? Do you stop loving them or doing good to them when they make you angry? Do you ever get angry with them because you love them?
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: atheism, blessing, cursing, enemies, Jesus, sinlessness
Sunday, June 10, 2007
From the apologetics dept.
I'm teaching what basically amounts to a crash course in apologetics for one of our Sunday school classes (we call these classes "PrimeTime", which sounds much cooler).
We're discussing atheistic materialism right now, and we have started dealing with some of the traditional proofs of God's existence and how atheists attack them. This week, we focused on the moral argument for God's existence. Here are the notes I drew up for the class.
Thoughts on the Moral Argument for the Existence of God
The moral argument for the existence of God traditionally consists of the following premises:
1. They will deny premise 1, stating that morality is merely a function of human convention.
2. They will deny premise 2, asserting that:
a. The premise itself depends on a logical leap that is unfounded, or
b. Universal moral law does not require a moral law giver in order to exist.
Christian theism's understanding of morality has the explanatory power to stand up to such arguments. Christianity's general assertion on the question of morality is that the very notions of good and evil are utterly meaningless apart from the existence of God. Morality itself does not exist as an object that is separate from or independent of God. Rather, morality merely expresses and defines for humanity what kind of character and behavior are consistent with God's own character and behavior. The Bible states repeatedly that "good" is entirely theonomous in that it is inextricably linked to the God's person and the essential quality of His volition:
The problem with this line of argumentation is that it misunderstands Christian ethics completely. Morality is universal because it is grounded in the unchanging, eternal character of God Himself. He is the fundamental, existential standard of moral good. What we call objective morals (e.g., do not murder, do not steal, do not falsely accuse, etc.) are actually part of God's self-revelation to Man. In essence, God is saying, "Morality shows what I'm like in heart and deed. Living a moral life means living in a manner that's consistent with who I Am and what I do." As Jesus puts it, "You are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matthew 5:8).
So, for the Christian, objective morality is a matter not of living according to a self-contained ethical code, but of being like our Father in Heaven. Under this definition, the atheist's objection breaks down. It also dispenses with the notion that following God's ways is entirely prudential (i.e., done out of self-interest to procure blessing and avoid eternal damnation). If God is truly good and we purport in any measure to value that which is good, then genuine altruism (not prudentialism) should motivate us to strive to be like Him.
The non-existence of God also poses serious difficulties for atheists who wish to maintain that moral standards can be reasonably held within an atheistic framework. If morality is dependent on God's nature in terms of both existence and content, there is no compelling reason to live morally without Him. Atheists may say that societal moral conventions constrain us to live by a moral code that is both generally agreed upon by our culture and pragmatically necessary for its continued survival, but this does not prove that following such a code is innately compulsory. In other words, there simply is no authoritative means of declaring that it is wrong to reject societal moral conventions for one's individual gain (like bank robbers or corrupt politicians do). Moreover, one cannot rationally distinguish the value or goodness of differing moral conventions. For example, one society may be conventionally philanthropic, the other conventionally cannibalistic. Which is morally superior? It's just human convention against human convention; preferring one over the other is the rational equivalent of saying royal blue is morally superior to orange.
Taken to its logical end, atheism inevitably descends into complete moral nihilism.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
I'm teaching what basically amounts to a crash course in apologetics for one of our Sunday school classes (we call these classes "PrimeTime", which sounds much cooler).
We're discussing atheistic materialism right now, and we have started dealing with some of the traditional proofs of God's existence and how atheists attack them. This week, we focused on the moral argument for God's existence. Here are the notes I drew up for the class.
Thoughts on the Moral Argument for the Existence of God
The moral argument for the existence of God traditionally consists of the following premises:
- There is a universal moral law.
- A universal moral law presupposes a moral law-giver.
- Therefore, God exists.
1. They will deny premise 1, stating that morality is merely a function of human convention.
2. They will deny premise 2, asserting that:
a. The premise itself depends on a logical leap that is unfounded, or
b. Universal moral law does not require a moral law giver in order to exist.
Christian theism's understanding of morality has the explanatory power to stand up to such arguments. Christianity's general assertion on the question of morality is that the very notions of good and evil are utterly meaningless apart from the existence of God. Morality itself does not exist as an object that is separate from or independent of God. Rather, morality merely expresses and defines for humanity what kind of character and behavior are consistent with God's own character and behavior. The Bible states repeatedly that "good" is entirely theonomous in that it is inextricably linked to the God's person and the essential quality of His volition:
And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. (Luke 18:19)Atheists attempt to create a conundrum for Christians by asking the question, "Is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it's already good?" If the former is true, then God can act in an arbitrary or evil fashion and yet call it good simply because He commanded it. If the latter is true, then moral good can exist on its own, rendering God's existence, feelings, or opinions about morality irrelevant and unnecessary.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect. (Romans 12:12)
The problem with this line of argumentation is that it misunderstands Christian ethics completely. Morality is universal because it is grounded in the unchanging, eternal character of God Himself. He is the fundamental, existential standard of moral good. What we call objective morals (e.g., do not murder, do not steal, do not falsely accuse, etc.) are actually part of God's self-revelation to Man. In essence, God is saying, "Morality shows what I'm like in heart and deed. Living a moral life means living in a manner that's consistent with who I Am and what I do." As Jesus puts it, "You are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matthew 5:8).
So, for the Christian, objective morality is a matter not of living according to a self-contained ethical code, but of being like our Father in Heaven. Under this definition, the atheist's objection breaks down. It also dispenses with the notion that following God's ways is entirely prudential (i.e., done out of self-interest to procure blessing and avoid eternal damnation). If God is truly good and we purport in any measure to value that which is good, then genuine altruism (not prudentialism) should motivate us to strive to be like Him.
The non-existence of God also poses serious difficulties for atheists who wish to maintain that moral standards can be reasonably held within an atheistic framework. If morality is dependent on God's nature in terms of both existence and content, there is no compelling reason to live morally without Him. Atheists may say that societal moral conventions constrain us to live by a moral code that is both generally agreed upon by our culture and pragmatically necessary for its continued survival, but this does not prove that following such a code is innately compulsory. In other words, there simply is no authoritative means of declaring that it is wrong to reject societal moral conventions for one's individual gain (like bank robbers or corrupt politicians do). Moreover, one cannot rationally distinguish the value or goodness of differing moral conventions. For example, one society may be conventionally philanthropic, the other conventionally cannibalistic. Which is morally superior? It's just human convention against human convention; preferring one over the other is the rational equivalent of saying royal blue is morally superior to orange.
Taken to its logical end, atheism inevitably descends into complete moral nihilism.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Friday, May 04, 2007
Men of whom the world was not worthy (Heb. 11:38)
Christians are often derided as narrow-minded prigs who are virulently intolerant of competing ideologies. Many fail to realize that atheistic paradigms have themselves been guilty of gross intolerance and conversion by force.
Tonight, I heard the story of Hin, a Christian who found himself on the wrong side of the Viet Cong when Vietnam fell to communism. He was imprisoned and force-fed a steady diet of Marx and Engels each day. Many are familiar with Marx's famous quote about religion being the opiate of the masses. Some may not know that Marxism actually views religion as an instrument of oppression used by the bourgeoisie to keep the proletariat under its heel. In Marx's dialectical synthesis, the victory of the proletariat results in a classless society that is free from the shackles of any faith perspective. This is why people of faith suffer cruelly in communist revolutions and governments; it was also the impetus behind the attempt to reprogram Hin. Stalin's purgings and the current persecution of the underground church in China are both examples of the practical outworkings of atheistic paradigms.
Atheists frequently take offense at this assertion, which I find both ironic and amusing, since they are wont to derive a certain amount of glee and pleasure from throwing the likes of the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition in Christianity's collective face. Well, atheism has its own inquisitions and crusades to answer for, and that, my friends, is incontestable. Either way, saying that people who called themselves Christians or atheists committed evil acts doesn't prove or disprove either worldview. It simply amounts to an ad hominem attack that only serves to tick people off.
In any case, on a day when Hin had finally given up and chosen to let go of his faith, he was ordered to clean the latrines in the prison camp. There, as he toiled in the midst of filth and stench, he saw a piece of paper on the ground. Although it was smeared with human excrement, Hin was able to discern that it had English words printed on it. He took it, washed it, put it in his pocket, and when he was alone that night he read the following words:
This one page of the Bible was so precious to Hin that he went the next day and asked to clean the latrines. For weeks thereafter, Hin willingly braved his foul daily chore in the hope of finding more of the Scriptures. Every page Hin found was soiled with waste; he cleaned and treasured them all. Eventually, he assembled the entire book of Romans and other parts of the Bible. And there, in that place of despair, a crushing, oppressive, atheistic government's best efforts to recreate a believer's heart in its own image were subverted and overthrown by the King of Kings.
I am moved by Hin's story. I have multiple copies of the Bible. Do I treasure them as much as Hin did? Would I, if I ever found myself in a similar situation, be willing to muck around in human waste just because it might afford me an opportunity to possess a page of the Bible? Is the Word of God that precious to me now?
Here is portion of a message given by one of my favorite Christian authors and speakers, Ravi Zacharias. At about halfway through the clip, he starts sharing Hin's story. It's worth a listen:
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Christians are often derided as narrow-minded prigs who are virulently intolerant of competing ideologies. Many fail to realize that atheistic paradigms have themselves been guilty of gross intolerance and conversion by force.
Tonight, I heard the story of Hin, a Christian who found himself on the wrong side of the Viet Cong when Vietnam fell to communism. He was imprisoned and force-fed a steady diet of Marx and Engels each day. Many are familiar with Marx's famous quote about religion being the opiate of the masses. Some may not know that Marxism actually views religion as an instrument of oppression used by the bourgeoisie to keep the proletariat under its heel. In Marx's dialectical synthesis, the victory of the proletariat results in a classless society that is free from the shackles of any faith perspective. This is why people of faith suffer cruelly in communist revolutions and governments; it was also the impetus behind the attempt to reprogram Hin. Stalin's purgings and the current persecution of the underground church in China are both examples of the practical outworkings of atheistic paradigms.
Atheists frequently take offense at this assertion, which I find both ironic and amusing, since they are wont to derive a certain amount of glee and pleasure from throwing the likes of the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition in Christianity's collective face. Well, atheism has its own inquisitions and crusades to answer for, and that, my friends, is incontestable. Either way, saying that people who called themselves Christians or atheists committed evil acts doesn't prove or disprove either worldview. It simply amounts to an ad hominem attack that only serves to tick people off.
In any case, on a day when Hin had finally given up and chosen to let go of his faith, he was ordered to clean the latrines in the prison camp. There, as he toiled in the midst of filth and stench, he saw a piece of paper on the ground. Although it was smeared with human excrement, Hin was able to discern that it had English words printed on it. He took it, washed it, put it in his pocket, and when he was alone that night he read the following words:
And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. (Romans 8:28)One of the officers in the prison camp was using the pages of the Bible as toilet paper.
This one page of the Bible was so precious to Hin that he went the next day and asked to clean the latrines. For weeks thereafter, Hin willingly braved his foul daily chore in the hope of finding more of the Scriptures. Every page Hin found was soiled with waste; he cleaned and treasured them all. Eventually, he assembled the entire book of Romans and other parts of the Bible. And there, in that place of despair, a crushing, oppressive, atheistic government's best efforts to recreate a believer's heart in its own image were subverted and overthrown by the King of Kings.
I am moved by Hin's story. I have multiple copies of the Bible. Do I treasure them as much as Hin did? Would I, if I ever found myself in a similar situation, be willing to muck around in human waste just because it might afford me an opportunity to possess a page of the Bible? Is the Word of God that precious to me now?
Here is portion of a message given by one of my favorite Christian authors and speakers, Ravi Zacharias. At about halfway through the clip, he starts sharing Hin's story. It's worth a listen:
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: atheism, faithfulness, persecution
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Evangelism via PayPal?
And now for something completely different.
An atheist is offering to go to church. If someone will pay him, that is.
eBay has given rise to the sale of anything you can think of -- from celebrity kidney stones to hot dogs from NFL playoff games -- for the most ridiculous prices you can imagine. Now, an enterprising 22-year-old from Chicago is using an eBay auction to issue a challenge to proselytizers everywhere. His offer: to attend 1 religious service of the winning bidder's choice for every $10 he is paid. He promises to attend said religious services with an open mind, and to learn as much as he can about the beliefs and practices of the associated faith system.
Thoughts, anyone, on how a sincere Christian ought to respond to this? I'm torn -- on one hand, I'd like to be the winning bidder and have the privilege of influencing him with the Gospel. On the other, I can't help but wonder if throwing a bunch of money at this guy to bribe him into going to church is wasteful. If he's really open minded and willing to consider that atheism is false, I would think that the gravity of the associated questions and the value of having them answered would be motivation enough for him to just go to church of his own volition -- without having to be bribed.
Well, there may be a way to have our cake and eat it too. I have an idea, but I'll have to reflect and pray on it. Stay tuned.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
And now for something completely different.
An atheist is offering to go to church. If someone will pay him, that is.
eBay has given rise to the sale of anything you can think of -- from celebrity kidney stones to hot dogs from NFL playoff games -- for the most ridiculous prices you can imagine. Now, an enterprising 22-year-old from Chicago is using an eBay auction to issue a challenge to proselytizers everywhere. His offer: to attend 1 religious service of the winning bidder's choice for every $10 he is paid. He promises to attend said religious services with an open mind, and to learn as much as he can about the beliefs and practices of the associated faith system.
Thoughts, anyone, on how a sincere Christian ought to respond to this? I'm torn -- on one hand, I'd like to be the winning bidder and have the privilege of influencing him with the Gospel. On the other, I can't help but wonder if throwing a bunch of money at this guy to bribe him into going to church is wasteful. If he's really open minded and willing to consider that atheism is false, I would think that the gravity of the associated questions and the value of having them answered would be motivation enough for him to just go to church of his own volition -- without having to be bribed.
Well, there may be a way to have our cake and eat it too. I have an idea, but I'll have to reflect and pray on it. Stay tuned.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: atheism, evangelism
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
From the apologetics dept.
This morning I listened with interest as Tony Macrini, who hosts the morning news program on the local talk radio station (WNIS), discussed the intelligent design movement with a caller to his show.
I am a fairly regular listener to Macrini's show, and I have come to respect him as an intelligent and well versed man -- especially in matters of history. He is also a self-avowed atheist and candid declaimer of Christianity and all things theistic. I, on the other hand, am no friend to atheistic thought, so Macrini and Your One and Only Favorite MonT-SteR™ certainly part ways in matters of faith (or the lack thereof).
Given Tony's aversion to theism, his response to the aforementioned caller was not surprising. In essence, he debunked the notion of inferring a Designer from the complexity of the universe, but not by directly attacking the intelligent design movement. Instead, he took issue with the cosmological argument Christians typically use to posit a creator:
This very objection is why I don't find the standard cosmological argument to be very effective. It opens the door to an infinite regress of causes, which plays right into the atheist's hands. The way I see it, an infinite regress of causes is only possible in an infinite universe. Evolutionists are more comfy with the idea of an infinite space-time continuum, because the process of evolution itself practically requires an infinite timeline to be plausible. Happily, there is plenty of scientific evidence to suggest that the universe is a closed system that had its origin around 16 billion years ago. In such a system, an infinite regress of causes is not possible because it would result in circular causality (each effect becomes its own cause, which requires it to exist before it exists).
It seems to me that Macrini objected to the cosmological argument because he finds the kind of "self-existence" implicit in circular causality to be self-stultifying -- or, at the very least, a defeater of the notion of an uncaused First Cause. But I submit that Darwinian evolution depends on circular causality in order to be true. What we call "life" is merely the product of an endless stream of physical and chemical processes at work, which are themselves the product of physical and chemical processes at work, ad infinitum.
In light of this problem of infinite regress, the kalam cosmological argument offers a stronger foundation for building a case for intelligent design:
Food for thought.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
This morning I listened with interest as Tony Macrini, who hosts the morning news program on the local talk radio station (WNIS), discussed the intelligent design movement with a caller to his show.
I am a fairly regular listener to Macrini's show, and I have come to respect him as an intelligent and well versed man -- especially in matters of history. He is also a self-avowed atheist and candid declaimer of Christianity and all things theistic. I, on the other hand, am no friend to atheistic thought, so Macrini and Your One and Only Favorite MonT-SteR™ certainly part ways in matters of faith (or the lack thereof).
Given Tony's aversion to theism, his response to the aforementioned caller was not surprising. In essence, he debunked the notion of inferring a Designer from the complexity of the universe, but not by directly attacking the intelligent design movement. Instead, he took issue with the cosmological argument Christians typically use to posit a creator:
- The notion of existence implies agency, i.e., all things that exist are brought into being by some causal factor.
- The universe exists.
- Therefore, it owes its existence to a Beginner, a First Cause.
- By definition, this First Cause must be both greater than the universe and outside of it.
- Theists are wont to identify this Beginner or First Cause as God.
This very objection is why I don't find the standard cosmological argument to be very effective. It opens the door to an infinite regress of causes, which plays right into the atheist's hands. The way I see it, an infinite regress of causes is only possible in an infinite universe. Evolutionists are more comfy with the idea of an infinite space-time continuum, because the process of evolution itself practically requires an infinite timeline to be plausible. Happily, there is plenty of scientific evidence to suggest that the universe is a closed system that had its origin around 16 billion years ago. In such a system, an infinite regress of causes is not possible because it would result in circular causality (each effect becomes its own cause, which requires it to exist before it exists).
It seems to me that Macrini objected to the cosmological argument because he finds the kind of "self-existence" implicit in circular causality to be self-stultifying -- or, at the very least, a defeater of the notion of an uncaused First Cause. But I submit that Darwinian evolution depends on circular causality in order to be true. What we call "life" is merely the product of an endless stream of physical and chemical processes at work, which are themselves the product of physical and chemical processes at work, ad infinitum.
In light of this problem of infinite regress, the kalam cosmological argument offers a stronger foundation for building a case for intelligent design:
- All things which begin to exist have a cause.
- The universe began to exist.
- Therefore, the universe has a First Cause.
Food for thought.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: apologetics, atheism, creationism, theology
