Re: [asa] Responding to Atheists, Agnostics & Apatheists

From: John Walley <>
Date: Wed Oct 29 2008 - 19:28:51 EDT

> The closest non-ID alternative I've found is Reasons To Believe.

At the height of the ID controversy RTB generated a lot of dissension by publicly discredited ID and releasing statements calling it "not science" etc. I personally discussed this with Bill Dembski and he was visibly pained by RTB's position at the time.

However in Fuz Rana's new book, "The Cell's Design: How Chemistry Reveals the Creator's Artistry" they seemed to have buried the hatchet as he is all over ID in this book. He attempts to take it further by differentiating his argument from IC, but it is no longer accurate to think that RTB is not on the ID bandwagon.



--- On Wed, 10/29/08, Schwarzwald <> wrote:

> From: Schwarzwald <>
> Subject: Re: [asa] Responding to Atheists, Agnostics & Apatheists
> To:
> Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2008, 6:21 PM
> Greetings all, and thanks for the responses!
> For myself, my main concern is less one on one
> correspondence (important as
> that is) and more an issue of broader evangelism. Websites,
> mailing lists,
> books, and such - I really consider those to be invaluable,
> particularly
> nowadays. Part of this is just due to my personality -
> I'm very much a
> computer-creature, so while I think about the importance of
> these things in
> day to day life or in my neighborhood, the internet is
> something I'm
> particularly concerned with. Especially in a day where,
> frankly, many people
> are online more than they're involved with their
> communities besides.
> Towards that end, I'll throw out some things I'd
> like to see more - maybe
> others will chime in on this as well.
> * I would love to see a more generally aggressive, rather
> than merely
> defensive, attitude coming from specifically TEs when it
> comes to questions
> of science. Let me be clear on something: I'm pretty
> much what you could
> call a TE. I accept common descent and evolution. While I
> think evidence
> points at something singular and special happening with
> human development, I
> don't expect science to entertain thoughts of miracles
> in history (though I
> believe not only in the resurrection, but that believing in
> the resurrection
> is itself largely a reasonable position to hold.) I'm
> very skeptical of
> 'scientific' ways of determining or ruling out
> design in nature (though I
> think natural theology/philosophy has power behind it.) But
> the fact is,
> whenever I read about someone talking about how nature is a
> brilliant
> design, or see the fact that engineers take so many cues
> from nature, or
> attacks on atheistic overreaches with regards to scientific
> questions
> (neurology and the soul, etc), I can almost guarantee that
> I'm on an ID
> site. Just now I finished reading an article by Michael
> Egnor hitting PZ
> Myers hard on the subject of neurology as it relates to
> mind, self, and
> soul. The ID sites in general routinely approach science in
> a thoughtful,
> provocative way that points out the validity of seeing
> (whether scientific
> or not, mind you) design in nature, whether on Mike
> Gene's cautious
> inferment side of the spectrum, or Dembski's bold (and
> to me, overreaching)
> declarations of obvious design. I tried finding TE
> equivalents online or in
> book form - and I turn up next to nothing. The closest
> non-ID alternative
> I've found is Reasons To Believe. This, I think, should
> be seen as a
> problem.
> * I would also love to see a more aggressive attitude
> towards atheism
> (particularly the scientism-prone New Atheism) itself, as
> well as the
> conclusions one is forced to confront in a worldview where
> atheism is not
> merely a possibility, but a certainty. John Lennox, William
> Lane Craig, and
> others do this to great effect - but frankly, I think it
> needs to be done
> more. Let me qualify that when I say 'aggressive',
> I don't mean insulting or
> dismissive. I mean assertive - a willingness to point out
> contradictions,
> points of ignorance, and otherwise that are, frankly, many
> times glossed
> over. Lennox and Craig, for example, are more than willing
> to cede that AAAs
> are capable of leading moral lives - but they also stress
> that what
> constitutes a 'moral life' only makes sense within
> an ultimately
> theistic/teleological framework, and that sacrificing the
> objective
> morality, measures, and standards that consistent atheism
> cannot accomodate
> has wide-reaching implications that are so often ignored.
> * I'd love to see AAAs targetted in particular, rather
> than written off as
> lost causes or worse. While it would be a new area to
> explore, I think a
> balance between taking skeptical questions seriously,
> addressing concerns
> about the compatibility between Christianity and science,
> stressing the
> value of Christianity's truth and hope, and more. In
> fact, there's a
> category I would hope people give some thought to - that of
> the agnostic
> theist. I think for a decent number of AAAs, their position
> is taken in part
> because they see Christianity as a faith you're either
> direly certain of, or
> you simply are not a Christian. They see no room for
> entertaining doubt,
> therefore no room for overcoming doubt - and ultimately, no
> room for hope.
> So towards the AAAs, I would see two points of importance -
> stressing that
> the Christian message is one worthy of hope, and at the
> same time that there
> is a strong foundation upon which to ground that hope.
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 12:26 PM, John Burgeson (ASA
> member) <
>> wrote:
> > On 10/28/08, Schwarzwald <>
> wrote:
> >
> > "* How would you approach an atheist, agnostic,
> or apatheist about
> > christianity? Would the approach differ from how you
> would approach
> > someone of another faith, or a lapsed member of your
> own faith?"
> >
> > This is always a good question. My own approach is to
> listen a lot to
> > what the other person has to say, and respond about
> Xtianity ONLY when
> > the opportunity appears. I have one person in mind
> right now -- a
> > professed atheist, although she probably has never
> thought things
> > through very much. She is the owner/editor of a
> publication I write
> > for -- always open to my writing on Xtian issues as
> they pertain to
> > the subject -- and was quick to offer my wife, pastor
> of the local
> > church, a half page to write whatever she wanted to. I
> keep tossing
> > this good lady "teasers," so far (3 + years)
> she has not (yet) pursued
> > any of them. Maybe she never will (with me). But I try
> to "plant
> > seeds."
> >
> > I have another person in mind -- a long time (60+
> years) friend, who
> > WAS a frervent Xtian when I was not anything,
> witnessed to us while we
> > were in high school, etc. At college he totally lost
> his faith and
> > embraced atheism. To this day he simply avoids the
> subject. With him,
> > I try to be a little more forceful, but so far no
> success at all. He
> > has decided that Xtianity is simply not credible, and
> that's that.
> >
> > I have a few others -- each one, as I think of it, a
> different
> > situation. There is no "silver bullet." So I
> try to listen a lot,
> > speak less, for I'm not likely to be heard if I
> start preaching! <G>
> >
> > * Do you see science, or an understanding of science,
> as having a role
> > to play in such a conversation?"
> >
> > If that's of interest to the other person, yes.
> Generally, it is not.
> >
> > * What common misconceptions or misunderstandings do
> you think exist
> > among AAAs about Christianity?"
> >
> > They see the Ken Hams, the Hagees, the sorry excuses
> for Xtianity
> > represented by many televangelists, and think they
> represent Xtianity.
> > Maybe they try a church -- a dull of sloppy sermon
> turns them away.
> > Friend wife and I went to a different church a month
> or so ago -- the
> > minister mumbled and it was next to impossible to
> understand him. We
> > left early and that place will not see us again.
> >
> > * Have you seen any effective targetting of AAAs by
> any particular
> > person, ministry, or even faith?"
> >
> > I wish the answer could be "yes." The ASA is
> the best around; we are
> > not doing a good job. But we try, and, I think, have
> some influence
> > in the science community.
> >
> > Welcome to the list.
> >
> > Burgy
> >


To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Oct 29 19:29:37 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Oct 29 2008 - 19:29:38 EDT