Several of the guys at Uncommon Descent and Evolution News and Views have reviewed (Francis) Collins' book.
The major problems with Collins' arguments are:
1) He presents a straw-man of ID. He obviously has never read any ID works.
2) He constantly assumes methodological naturalism to attack ID but does not apply MN to his own arguments for God's existence (such as the physical constants of the universe). [Also, MN has been dealt with in philosophical literature, and he completely ignores that as well.]
3) His Darwinism undercuts his argument for God's existence from aesthetics. According to Darwinism, the only reason why he believes in God is because natural selection has caused him to for survival purposes, not necessarily because it is true.
4) His belief in methodological naturalism undercuts his Christianity entirely as it would eliminate the Resurrection of Jesus as a possibility in favor of naturalistic options (no matter how implausible).
5) He uses the argument from 'Junk' DNA when, in reality, that argument has been debunked for a long time. 'Junk' DNA is fully functional. Other arguments are dealt with in Dembski and Wells' book mentioned by Steve above.
The major problems with Collins' arguments are:
1) He presents a straw-man of ID. He obviously has never read any ID works.
2) He constantly assumes methodological naturalism to attack ID but does not apply MN to his own arguments for God's existence (such as the physical constants of the universe). [Also, MN has been dealt with in philosophical literature, and he completely ignores that as well.]
3) His Darwinism undercuts his argument for God's existence from aesthetics. According to Darwinism, the only reason why he believes in God is because natural selection has caused him to for survival purposes, not necessarily because it is true.
4) His belief in methodological naturalism undercuts his Christianity entirely as it would eliminate the Resurrection of Jesus as a possibility in favor of naturalistic options (no matter how implausible).
5) He uses the argument from 'Junk' DNA when, in reality, that argument has been debunked for a long time. 'Junk' DNA is fully functional. Other arguments are dealt with in Dembski and Wells' book mentioned by Steve above.
I pretty much agree with all of your points, except for (4). My understanding of "methodological naturalism" is that it does not restrict what claims can be true but instead restricts which claims may be fruitfully studied methodically. Dr. Collins appears to believe two basic claims:
ReplyDelete1) The Resurrection happened
2) The Resurrection cannot be investigated methodically
These two statements appear to be compatible, as long as philosophical naturalism is not assumed.
Perhaps your criticism left out some steps in an argument. If so, would you mind filling in those gaps? I'd be interested to know where you feel the inconsistency lies.
Hi NSC,
ReplyDeleteAn outstanding of this kind of reasoning in action is the Ehrman - William Lane Craig debate. WLC brings up his standard presentation and facts (which, though a classical presentation, is still quite strong IMHO) and Ehrman's principal point is that "history cannot examine the supernatural". I don't know how many times he says it, but it's a lot. It becomes pretty pathetic after a while - WLC keeps saying "So what's your response to these facts?" and Ehrman keeps saying "A historian cannot access the supernatural!" It makes me laugh every time I hear it! Does Ehrman ever give a good reason for assuming naturalistic, atheistic history? Nope - he presupposes it, and if you question him, he'll tell you he's been in the field for 30 years or something and you should just accept that!
Would Collins, then, just say "I believe the Resurrection happened, but I have no way to defend its veracity"? What good is that to anyone?
Oops, meant:
ReplyDelete"An outstanding *example* of this kind of..."
Rho said: Would Collins, then, just say "I believe the Resurrection happened, but I have no way to defend its veracity"? What good is that to anyone?
ReplyDeleteFrom what I know of Collins, he would indeed say something like that. It is sufficient for him to believe it. That his belief is of no use anyone else doesn't seem to be a problem to him.
I can understand that. We don't need to be in a constant state of argumentation with those who do not share our beliefs. It's possible to be a Christian and not an apologist, is it not? It doesn't mean that you don't want others to share your beliefs--you may just think that the best way to share the message is to lead by example, rather than spend your time making arguments.
OK, well, I don't think there's much meat to that position. Fideistic, really. I'm interested in TRUTH, and how one knows it. That's always been the grounding rod for me - when I was an atheist and when I was an agnostic, I needed sthg to satisfy me intellectually. I'm happy to say that I've found that satisfaction in Jesus. Collins seems to have found it in evolution and naturalistic science, and more's the pity for him. Jesus wants Collins to love Him in body, soul, strength, AND MIND.
ReplyDeleteIt's possible to be a Christian and not an apologist, is it not?
Well, sure, but it's not possible to be a consistent Christian, actively pursuing God's will for him, and not engage in consistent thinking and consistent explanations of one's faith to those who ask.
you may just think that the best way to share the message is to lead by example
Biblically, the Christian is called to BOTH.
NSC,
ReplyDeleteI'm no Biblical scholar, but I think you're right that the Bible does not support fideism (e.g. Romans 1:20).
To respond to your earlier remarks about Ehrman, I just wanted to clarify something. He is not declaring that supernatural events did not occur in the past. He's saying that the tools available to historians cannot be used to determine if supernatural events occurred in the past. You may still disagree with this position, it just sounded like you had interpreted his statement to be stronger than that.