Lord Kenneth
26th June 2003, 06:38 PM
The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict Rebuttal
Introduction
Page xxIv, Section 3B
There is still no evidence of the supernatural claims presented in the Bible. All mentions of miracles in the Bible are anecdotal... no evidence, archaelogical or otherwise, shows that these (miracles, and many other events in the Bible as well) events actually took place, in any shape or form.
The difference between Abraham Lincoln and Jesus is a large one. While there may have been a Jesus (although not the "Son of God" and did not preform any miracles) that the Bible bases its version of Jesus Christ off of, nothing besides the Bible's own testimony exists to try to show that Jesus the son of God existed. Abraham Lincoln, on the other hand, existed much recently in history, and he was not claimed to be able to do what is physically impossible. While it is possible (while extremely unlikely) that Lincoln did in fact not exist, there is little reason to fully disbelieve Lincoln lived as President, while there is much room for doubting the claims made about Jesus.
Page xI, Quote
Aldous Huxley's views are his own, and they do not determine what the actual truth of the matter he writes about is. His own reasons may be lacking, but that does not decide if what his ideas are or are not true.
Page xI, 6B
"I have found that most people reject Christ for one or more of the following reasons:
1. Ignorance
2. Pride
3. Morals
The reasons people may have for rejecting something, whether it be a certain religion or all of them (or even any idea in particular), have nothing to do with THE actual truth behind the decision. Also, I have personally found that most people who have made an educated reason behind rejecting RELIGION (not simply "rejecting Christ" or Christianity) is because of the lack of evidence behind religion's claims, which is a far cry from the reasons the author cites.
Page xIIx, 3B
An atheist, to be consistently assured that is belief is accurate, must also claim to be omnicient, for there always exists the possibility of the existence of God outside his knowledge.
This argument is old and faulty on multiple levels. By that reasoning, one who believes there is a god can only be justified if they are God themselves!
Atheists do not believe in a god, which is not just the Christian interpretation of "God" but practically all interpretations of one. One may be an atheist for not being introducted to the concept of god in their lives and thus "not believing" in one, or, they may look at the evidence offered (or lack thereof) and may have come to that decision.
Many, if not most atheists recognize the fact that a god may IN FACT exist, but no evidence exists in the claim's favor, besides anecdotal evidence, which is word of mouth or written testimony. Anecdotal evidence cannot soley be trusted, as the reason for one claiming something can be incorrect, whether they lie, are mistaken, are insane, misled, etc... While history itself is based a lot on anecdotal evidence, archaeology is used to help back it up. History is not a science and tends to be very inaccurate, but there is little else to find out about events in the past, as we cannot travel back in time and verify what actually happened.
If miracles did in fact happen in the past, there is no evidence today to show that they in fact DID occur.
And considering the fact that most people would claim to possess only an infinitely small fraction of all knowledge in the universe, the odds of God existing outside of one's knowledge are extremely high.
Statements like these are what makes me conclude the author is, in fact, an idiot. Whether god exists or not is INDEPENDENT of what you, me, or anyone else thinks! If someone possesses more knowledge than another individual the "odds" of a god existing are objectively the same.
Atheists who consistently try to live without God tend to commit suicide or go insane.
Not only is no evidence of this provided of this claim, but the author also forgets that those following non-Christian religions (who, according to Christianity, are worshipping a deity that does not exist), have the same standing toward the Christian god (they do not believe in it), and thus should go insane as well. While the author may argue that believing in any god is necessary for mental health, it would require him to back that assertion up as well.
Page I, 5B
The author here again makes an unfounded assertion, which is that science is giving the greatest evidence in favor of God's existence. The author mentions Michael Behe and "scientists" like him who have "challenged the 'facts' of evolution". While I am not a scientist and neither is the author, critiques of Michael Behe's books can be found online. The majority of scientists accept evolution not because of arrogance or failure to admit they are wrong but because of the amount of evidence supporting evolution. Michael Behe's work, as well, has NOT ushered in a "new age of critique of Darwin's theory", as work and discoveries in evolution continue to progress, and evolution continues to be the base of modern biology.
Evolution itself is a basic concept, and it doesn't even collide with Christian dogma. A good example of evolution today would be the many breeds of domesticated canines today, all bred from wild dogs. If long hair, for example, was desired, breeders would continually breed dogs with longer and longer hair until they came up with dogs that had the desired length of hair. Evolution works on a more massive scale. Organisms more equipped to to adapt in an environment are more likely to survive and reproduce, and thus their genes are passed on. This goes on for thousands and millions of years until new species come about.
Abiogenesis (the theory that life came about through natural circumstances and that the first cell eventually formed in an earlier earth's atmostphere), is not evolution, but does collide with "intelligent design" (creationism).
Scientific theories should be falsifiable, which is to say that they cannot rely on circular logic (creationism can continually say that no matter how the earth or the first cell itself formed, a supreme being caused the events in which it formed). Intelligent design (creationism) is not, and cannot be shown to ever be wrong, which is actually a scientific weakness and not a strength. A falsifiable theory would be the theory of gravity. If the theory of gravity is incorrect then it would be possible to show that some objects are not affected by gravity or that gravity as we understand it does not exist.
Please critique it and point out any errors of reason I may have made. If I've done well I might continue on to the rest of the book (a lot of it's crap is a doozy!)
Introduction
Page xxIv, Section 3B
There is still no evidence of the supernatural claims presented in the Bible. All mentions of miracles in the Bible are anecdotal... no evidence, archaelogical or otherwise, shows that these (miracles, and many other events in the Bible as well) events actually took place, in any shape or form.
The difference between Abraham Lincoln and Jesus is a large one. While there may have been a Jesus (although not the "Son of God" and did not preform any miracles) that the Bible bases its version of Jesus Christ off of, nothing besides the Bible's own testimony exists to try to show that Jesus the son of God existed. Abraham Lincoln, on the other hand, existed much recently in history, and he was not claimed to be able to do what is physically impossible. While it is possible (while extremely unlikely) that Lincoln did in fact not exist, there is little reason to fully disbelieve Lincoln lived as President, while there is much room for doubting the claims made about Jesus.
Page xI, Quote
Aldous Huxley's views are his own, and they do not determine what the actual truth of the matter he writes about is. His own reasons may be lacking, but that does not decide if what his ideas are or are not true.
Page xI, 6B
"I have found that most people reject Christ for one or more of the following reasons:
1. Ignorance
2. Pride
3. Morals
The reasons people may have for rejecting something, whether it be a certain religion or all of them (or even any idea in particular), have nothing to do with THE actual truth behind the decision. Also, I have personally found that most people who have made an educated reason behind rejecting RELIGION (not simply "rejecting Christ" or Christianity) is because of the lack of evidence behind religion's claims, which is a far cry from the reasons the author cites.
Page xIIx, 3B
An atheist, to be consistently assured that is belief is accurate, must also claim to be omnicient, for there always exists the possibility of the existence of God outside his knowledge.
This argument is old and faulty on multiple levels. By that reasoning, one who believes there is a god can only be justified if they are God themselves!
Atheists do not believe in a god, which is not just the Christian interpretation of "God" but practically all interpretations of one. One may be an atheist for not being introducted to the concept of god in their lives and thus "not believing" in one, or, they may look at the evidence offered (or lack thereof) and may have come to that decision.
Many, if not most atheists recognize the fact that a god may IN FACT exist, but no evidence exists in the claim's favor, besides anecdotal evidence, which is word of mouth or written testimony. Anecdotal evidence cannot soley be trusted, as the reason for one claiming something can be incorrect, whether they lie, are mistaken, are insane, misled, etc... While history itself is based a lot on anecdotal evidence, archaeology is used to help back it up. History is not a science and tends to be very inaccurate, but there is little else to find out about events in the past, as we cannot travel back in time and verify what actually happened.
If miracles did in fact happen in the past, there is no evidence today to show that they in fact DID occur.
And considering the fact that most people would claim to possess only an infinitely small fraction of all knowledge in the universe, the odds of God existing outside of one's knowledge are extremely high.
Statements like these are what makes me conclude the author is, in fact, an idiot. Whether god exists or not is INDEPENDENT of what you, me, or anyone else thinks! If someone possesses more knowledge than another individual the "odds" of a god existing are objectively the same.
Atheists who consistently try to live without God tend to commit suicide or go insane.
Not only is no evidence of this provided of this claim, but the author also forgets that those following non-Christian religions (who, according to Christianity, are worshipping a deity that does not exist), have the same standing toward the Christian god (they do not believe in it), and thus should go insane as well. While the author may argue that believing in any god is necessary for mental health, it would require him to back that assertion up as well.
Page I, 5B
The author here again makes an unfounded assertion, which is that science is giving the greatest evidence in favor of God's existence. The author mentions Michael Behe and "scientists" like him who have "challenged the 'facts' of evolution". While I am not a scientist and neither is the author, critiques of Michael Behe's books can be found online. The majority of scientists accept evolution not because of arrogance or failure to admit they are wrong but because of the amount of evidence supporting evolution. Michael Behe's work, as well, has NOT ushered in a "new age of critique of Darwin's theory", as work and discoveries in evolution continue to progress, and evolution continues to be the base of modern biology.
Evolution itself is a basic concept, and it doesn't even collide with Christian dogma. A good example of evolution today would be the many breeds of domesticated canines today, all bred from wild dogs. If long hair, for example, was desired, breeders would continually breed dogs with longer and longer hair until they came up with dogs that had the desired length of hair. Evolution works on a more massive scale. Organisms more equipped to to adapt in an environment are more likely to survive and reproduce, and thus their genes are passed on. This goes on for thousands and millions of years until new species come about.
Abiogenesis (the theory that life came about through natural circumstances and that the first cell eventually formed in an earlier earth's atmostphere), is not evolution, but does collide with "intelligent design" (creationism).
Scientific theories should be falsifiable, which is to say that they cannot rely on circular logic (creationism can continually say that no matter how the earth or the first cell itself formed, a supreme being caused the events in which it formed). Intelligent design (creationism) is not, and cannot be shown to ever be wrong, which is actually a scientific weakness and not a strength. A falsifiable theory would be the theory of gravity. If the theory of gravity is incorrect then it would be possible to show that some objects are not affected by gravity or that gravity as we understand it does not exist.
Please critique it and point out any errors of reason I may have made. If I've done well I might continue on to the rest of the book (a lot of it's crap is a doozy!)