Comments on: Science Gives Christians Upper Hand… http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2006/11/19/science-gives-christians-upper-hand/ by Hemant Mehta Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:14:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Amy Alkon http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2006/11/19/science-gives-christians-upper-hand/#comment-1103 Amy Alkon Sat, 25 Nov 2006 09:26:42 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/11/19/science-gives-christians-upper-hand/#comment-1103 "intellectually dishonest" -- sorry, I'm half-asleep. “intellectually dishonest” — sorry, I’m half-asleep.

]]> By: Amy Alkon http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2006/11/19/science-gives-christians-upper-hand/#comment-1102 Amy Alkon Sat, 25 Nov 2006 09:26:16 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/11/19/science-gives-christians-upper-hand/#comment-1102 Strobel is yet another intellectual dishonest shallow pond. I appeared on his show where he made much hay of his journalistic background. In fact, I believe they marketed him back then as a "New York Times reporter," although I could be wrong -- as if that gives somebody a pass (unfortunately, I think many other shallow ponds would believe that's the case). Strobel is yet another intellectual dishonest shallow pond. I appeared on his show where he made much hay of his journalistic background. In fact, I believe they marketed him back then as a “New York Times reporter,” although I could be wrong — as if that gives somebody a pass (unfortunately, I think many other shallow ponds would believe that’s the case).

]]> By: King Aardvark http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2006/11/19/science-gives-christians-upper-hand/#comment-1032 King Aardvark Tue, 21 Nov 2006 20:36:11 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/11/19/science-gives-christians-upper-hand/#comment-1032 cautiousmaniac: My wife made me read the whole damn book by Lee Strobel. Utter piece of crap. The Gish Gallop of lies hurt my brain. For those of you who want to know, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_for_a_Creator" rel="nofollow">wikipedia article</a> is a good jumping off point for what's involved in it (though the whole POV rules are a bit annoying because they prevent me from writting about how utterly crappy it is). I never got around to writing the full review of it for my blog, but there are a few other good reviews out there, as long as you avoid those written by people who have no understanding of science and are utterly swayed by the book. cautiousmaniac: My wife made me read the whole damn book by Lee Strobel. Utter piece of crap. The Gish Gallop of lies hurt my brain.

For those of you who want to know, the wikipedia article is a good jumping off point for what’s involved in it (though the whole POV rules are a bit annoying because they prevent me from writting about how utterly crappy it is). I never got around to writing the full review of it for my blog, but there are a few other good reviews out there, as long as you avoid those written by people who have no understanding of science and are utterly swayed by the book.

]]> By: Mark Plus http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2006/11/19/science-gives-christians-upper-hand/#comment-1025 Mark Plus Tue, 21 Nov 2006 14:23:50 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/11/19/science-gives-christians-upper-hand/#comment-1025 <blockquote>Sure, there are more prominent Christian philosophers then there were 50 years ago. But then again, that’s because there were no prominent Christian philosophers 50 years ago.</blockquote> We also have more academic philosophers in general than 50 years ago because many countries have invested heavily into higher education in recent decades.

Sure, there are more prominent Christian philosophers then there were 50 years ago. But then again, that’s because there were no prominent Christian philosophers 50 years ago.

We also have more academic philosophers in general than 50 years ago because many countries have invested heavily into higher education in recent decades.

]]> By: Johnny http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2006/11/19/science-gives-christians-upper-hand/#comment-1021 Johnny Tue, 21 Nov 2006 05:50:30 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/11/19/science-gives-christians-upper-hand/#comment-1021 <em>Why? Philosophy has never been a ‘hard’ science</em> The statement in the article seemed to imply that if philosophy is not 'hard-core' or 'hard' science, then it's intellectual developments are immediately discounted. I don't see why that should automatically be the case. I think a better counter-argument against this author would be that she overstates her case. Sure, there are more prominent Christian philosophers then there were 50 years ago. But then again, that's because there were <em>no</em> prominent Christian philosophers 50 years ago. You can breathe a sigh of relief that most of us in the cooky-hairbrained world of philosophy are materialists. Why? Philosophy has never been a ‘hard’ science

The statement in the article seemed to imply that if philosophy is not ‘hard-core’ or ‘hard’ science, then it’s intellectual developments are immediately discounted. I don’t see why that should automatically be the case.

I think a better counter-argument against this author would be that she overstates her case. Sure, there are more prominent Christian philosophers then there were 50 years ago. But then again, that’s because there were no prominent Christian philosophers 50 years ago. You can breathe a sigh of relief that most of us in the cooky-hairbrained world of philosophy are materialists.

]]> By: spin sycle http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2006/11/19/science-gives-christians-upper-hand/#comment-1018 spin sycle Mon, 20 Nov 2006 23:29:20 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/11/19/science-gives-christians-upper-hand/#comment-1018 Why? Philosophy has never been a 'hard' science.... Why? Philosophy has never been a ‘hard’ science….

]]> By: HumanistPR http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2006/11/19/science-gives-christians-upper-hand/#comment-1016 HumanistPR Mon, 20 Nov 2006 17:04:17 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/11/19/science-gives-christians-upper-hand/#comment-1016 >>>Yes, philosophy, with all of its hard-core research… Uh oh. You have quite a few friends in the field of humanism with degrees in philosophy who might not take too kindly to that remark. ;) >>>Yes, philosophy, with all of its hard-core research…

Uh oh. You have quite a few friends in the field of humanism with degrees in philosophy who might not take too kindly to that remark. ;)

]]> By: cautiousmaniac http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2006/11/19/science-gives-christians-upper-hand/#comment-1009 cautiousmaniac Mon, 20 Nov 2006 00:12:59 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/11/19/science-gives-christians-upper-hand/#comment-1009 I picked up and leafed through Strobel's "The Case for a Creator" yesterday. (At a book store that had "Darwin's Black Box" but no actual books by Darwin...) He does a great job of interviewing Michael Behe, who is the most scientific of all of the ID proponents, and mentions the Cambrian explosion, but he does not interview anyone who: a) works in evolutionary biology b) works with the fossil record c) comes to a conclusion about science contradictory to that of Behe Which strikes me as rather...well, horrible and awful interviewing. I thought Lee Strobel was a journalist? In journalism school did they teach him to only ask questions of one side of debates? ...particularly when the "debate" is between 99% of scientists who are objective and 1% of scientists who are subjective and can't divorce their faith from their research? Note: I did not read the Cambrian explosion section of the book as much as I should have. Maybe Lee quoted some scientists who actually study it. More likely he quote-mined some people, e.g. Stephen Jay Gould, who have been quote-mined to death by both the creationist and ID movements. I will have to look to find out! I picked up and leafed through Strobel’s “The Case for a Creator” yesterday. (At a book store that had “Darwin’s Black Box” but no actual books by Darwin…) He does a great job of interviewing Michael Behe, who is the most scientific of all of the ID proponents, and mentions the Cambrian explosion, but he does not interview anyone who:

a) works in evolutionary biology
b) works with the fossil record
c) comes to a conclusion about science contradictory to that of Behe

Which strikes me as rather…well, horrible and awful interviewing. I thought Lee Strobel was a journalist? In journalism school did they teach him to only ask questions of one side of debates?

…particularly when the “debate” is between 99% of scientists who are objective and 1% of scientists who are subjective and can’t divorce their faith from their research?

Note: I did not read the Cambrian explosion section of the book as much as I should have. Maybe Lee quoted some scientists who actually study it. More likely he quote-mined some people, e.g. Stephen Jay Gould, who have been quote-mined to death by both the creationist and ID movements. I will have to look to find out!

]]> By: Mark Plus http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2006/11/19/science-gives-christians-upper-hand/#comment-1008 Mark Plus Sun, 19 Nov 2006 23:35:20 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/11/19/science-gives-christians-upper-hand/#comment-1008 I find it ironic that until well into the 20th Century, scientists had accepted the implicit assumption of premodern cosmologies, including the bible's, that we live in a relatively static universe. The discovery of the universe's expansion came as a complete surprise, because as far as I know, nobody before then had even thrown out this idea as a wild-ass, evidence-free speculation. The idea certainly didn't come from the bible and christian theology. I find it ironic that until well into the 20th Century, scientists had accepted the implicit assumption of premodern cosmologies, including the bible’s, that we live in a relatively static universe. The discovery of the universe’s expansion came as a complete surprise, because as far as I know, nobody before then had even thrown out this idea as a wild-ass, evidence-free speculation. The idea certainly didn’t come from the bible and christian theology.

]]> By: Karen http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2006/11/19/science-gives-christians-upper-hand/#comment-1002 Karen Sun, 19 Nov 2006 17:27:42 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/11/19/science-gives-christians-upper-hand/#comment-1002 Man, there are so many things just plain wrong in that article, I don't know where to start. The misinformation is stunning. And this has to be one of the worst ledes I've ever seen: <blockquote>Today’s Christian no longer has to try to maintain only by faith their belief in the origin of the universe. The atheist now does.</blockquote> Umm... subject/verb agreement? avoid awkward phrasing? don't make unsupported blanket statements? This writer needs to go back to her Strunk & White, STAT! Sad thing is, that's all the "news" that a lot of fundamentalist believers (of all stripes, not just Christians) think they need. It's a dangerous thing. Man, there are so many things just plain wrong in that article, I don’t know where to start. The misinformation is stunning. And this has to be one of the worst ledes I’ve ever seen:

Today’s Christian no longer has to try to maintain only by faith their belief in the origin of the universe. The atheist now does.

Umm… subject/verb agreement? avoid awkward phrasing? don’t make unsupported blanket statements? This writer needs to go back to her Strunk & White, STAT!

Sad thing is, that’s all the “news” that a lot of fundamentalist believers (of all stripes, not just Christians) think they need. It’s a dangerous thing.

]]>