Expelled
I saw Ben Stein’s movie expelled this week. I thought that in general it was very interesting. If you do not like a philosophical documentary, you may not enjoy it. It is certainly a piece of propaganda, and some of the claims of ‘expelled’ professors and writers may be a bit exaggerated. But there are some very interesting points he makes, and in general, it was well done. Some general thoughts:
1. I hope his main point is not lost. The point of the movie is that the debate between Intelligent design and evolution is over the interpretation of the data, not necessarily the data itself. Since there is agreement on most of the data, it is the interpretation of that data which is up for grabs. This being the case, the ID-evolution discussion is a theoretical one. Stein’s point: the discussion in educational institutions should not be one sided.
2. Some may get lost in the discussion over Nazism. However, it does show the rational end (eugenics) to consistent naturalistic-darwinistic thinking.
3. Here is an argument to consider:
A. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design
B. It is not due to physical necessity or chance
C. Therefore, it is due to design
There are no other options to A
There are scientific reasons to support B
It could be said that since the science is agreed upon, then the science classroom is not the place for the debate. It should be in the philosophy department. However, when other theories of science (quarks and dark matter for instance) were theorized, these discussions on the interpretation of the evidence were held in the science classroom as well. So why not this one? Obviously because one of the viable options has a theological attachment, it has been excluded.
I just saw a debate in which atheist Peter Singer dismantled Christian Dinesh D’Souza. It was not on the basis of facts, but on the basis tactics and ability. At any rate, Singer says we should not denounce atheism simply because it leads to subjective morals. If something is correct and but it leads to undesired ends, it is still correct. To quote Singer’s own words, “sometimes things are true, even if we do not like the consequences.” Maybe the atheists should take a page from one of their own and open up classrooms to discuss the interpretation of the data even if they do not like the consequences of the truth.
“I just saw a debate in which atheist Peter Singer dismantled Christian Dinesh D’Souza. It was not on the basis of facts, but on the basis tactics and ability.”
I highly agree with your assessment. I believe it’s because D’Souza takes a more naturalistic apologetics approach to his debate. WIth this I mean, he doesn’t quote any scripture. Isn’t that what his whole worldview is based on? So why shouldn’t he? What sources do atheists use to explain their reasons for disbelief. Dinesh’s is approach is biblical humanism.
Interesting point about the debate. Everyone on campus is saying that Singer was the one who “lost”–even more so, who was destroyed as some put it. To be fair, they also said things along the lines of, “of course we won, we are on the right side,” which tends to take away any of their credence; but, is interesting nonetheless.
Oh, and apparently I can comment now. =)
On a side note, does it count towards a person’s virtue if they are at least consistent with their ideas like Singer even when the consistency leads to utter darkness? It makes him more powerful in one sense; but, it also makes it more difficult for the general public to swallow. I cannot help but think that it is good for people to hear the logical conclusions to their trendy, enlightened, “tolerant”, pop-culture thoughts. Of course, when they see the hideous sight their logical conclusions lead to and still accept it…well, that is a whole new beast to tackle….
I am glad D’Souza did not quote Scripture in the debate, since Singer would not except it as evidence. Just as D’Souza 15 minute statement on why atheism is bad (not the topic of the debate) was dismissed by Singer in 30 seconds, so could an argument based on Scripture. Besides, an argument from Scripture for the existence of God is circular.
After the debate, I was at a loss as to how to describe the affair. I actually lost some sleep over it. Dr. William Lane Craig’s assessment was best though: “It was painful to watch.” How does D’Souza spend 15 minutes not giving one reason to believe God exists when that is the topic of the debate? He put himself on the defensive with his own opening argument. Singer was consistent, well spoken, and on topic. Three things D’Souza struggled to be.
As a side note, what was a political commentator doing debating a professional philosopher? The correct answer was selling books. He arranged the debate himself and called Biola to see if they would host it. D’Souza appeared to be way out of his league.
Singer’s ‘dark side’ is indeed consistent. It is also true, however, that what makes his views respectable also makes them scary. The consistent application of darwinism does end in eugenics. It is humorous that darwinism is not tolerant at all, and yet, that is the necessary quality to have a voice in today’s world.
“I am glad D’Souza did not quote Scripture in the debate, since Singer would not except it as evidence.”
So what. Who cares if he “wouldn’t” have accepted it. It’s the Christian’s benchmark. It’s the Christian’s guide to His/Her worldview. I highly disagree about your assertion that Singer would not have accepted it as evidence. He didn’t, and probably wouldn’t, accept any evidence anyway.
D’Souza could’ve layered many evidences for the validity of the bible as He did for the existence of God. But that’s a moot point. Asking atheists what would suffice as evidence for them is a better question.
My point is, where do atheists like Singer get their authority from? D’Souza’s guide is the Bible. This non-use of scripture by Christians is biblical humanism and is what the late Frances Shaffer predicted would happen in the apologetics community.
You may say it’s “circular reasoning”. Again, I say, “So what!” I know I’m building a straw man here but, we all argue and reason that way… atheists and christians alike. However, atheists are philosophically arbitrary when they debate. Christians like D’Souza should have no problem quoting from scripture in debates. Intellectually honest atheists, which I assume most are, know this already, that Christians live and breathe their faith by everything found in scripture.
I believe the reason Christians should care about what counts for evidence with unbelievers is that we care about their souls. Notice Paul in Athens (Acts 17:16-34). He is essentially arrested and told to preach the gospel to the religious rulers of the city. In his gospel presentation, he did not use Scripture, since the Greeks would not consider it evidence, but he used their culture (the unknown god) and their literature (epicurean and stoic poetry) to bring the listeners to Christ’s resurrection. Paul certainly thought using evidence which is acceptable to unbelievers was very important, and therefore I believe we should do the same.
As a side note, the building the Areopogus met in is gone, but the foundation of the 1st Christian church (lead by Dionysius v. 34) is still there. It was an awesome and wonderful sight on my trip to Greece in April 2007.
Secondly, it does matter that Christians use intelligent arguments. If people are to take the claims of Christianity seriously, it will be because our arguments are cogent and logical. If we say the sun revolves around the earth because the sun rises and sets (Ecc. 1:5), and the earth does not move (1 Chr. 16:30) because the Bible says so (hermenutical considerations aside), then how will we convince unbelievers our points are valid and truthful? I met with the head of a university Biology department for a couple of hours one day. He was a weak atheist or an agnostic. After discussing stem cells, teleological and cosmological arguments, as well as the origins of morality, he told me he enjoyed our conversation since it was the first time a Christian had approached the topic of sanctity of life and the existence of God logically. He did not accept my arguments, but he respected my positions. He would have discounted all arguments based on Scripture.
To be a light, we must use the culture we are in, not just the Scripture. Paul did. If we are trying to win over souls, we cannot make them play by our rules when it comes to evidence.