Re: [asa] Lawrence Krauss Defends New Atheism

From: Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
Date: Fri Jun 26 2009 - 11:30:33 EDT

This is a defense of the New Atheism? Krauss immediately conceding a
rational case for Deism, then complaining that no one is offering a
scientific explanation for a miracle? Has the New Atheist argument fallen
that far, that quickly?

And what do disagreements among religions have to do with anything? More
than that, what does it mean to be an "atheist regarding" tenets of other
beliefs? That sounds like some awkward attempt to stuff the word "atheist"
in there, since he realizes many/most Christians would assert they believe
in the same God as the Jews and at the very least mark Islam a grey area
since it's an Abrahamic faith. So point out they reject each other's tenets,
so they're... atheists about those tenets. Huh.

Like Ted, I'm not very concerned with what those two panel members responded
on the subject. But am I the only one who notices Krauss comes across as
rather cowed and grasping at straws here?

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com> wrote:

> Excerpt From God and Science Don't Mix by Lawrence Krauss:
>
> Though the scientific process may be compatible with the vague idea of some
> relaxed deity who merely established the universe and let it proceed from
> there, it is in fact rationally incompatible with the detailed tenets of
> most of the world's organized religions. As Sam Harris recently wrote in a
> letter responding to the Nature editorial that called him an "atheist
> absolutist," a "reconciliation between science and Christianity would mean
> squaring physics, chemistry, biology, and a basic understanding of
> probabilistic reasoning with a raft of patently ridiculous, Iron Age
> convictions."
>
> When I confronted my two Catholic colleagues on the panel with the apparent
> miracle of the virgin birth and asked how they could reconcile this with
> basic biology, I was ultimately told that perhaps this biblical claim merely
> meant to emphasize what an important event the birth was. Neither came to
> the explicit defense of what is undeniably one of the central tenets of
> Catholic theology.
>
> Science is only truly consistent with an atheistic worldview with regards
> to the claimed miracles of the gods of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
> Moreover, the true believers in each of these faiths are atheists regarding
> the specific sacred tenets of all other faiths. Christianity rejects the
> proposition that the Quran contains the infallible words of the creator of
> the universe. Muslims and Jews reject the divinity of Jesus.
>
> So while scientific rationality does not require atheism, it is by no means
> irrational to use it as the basis for arguing against the existence of God,
> and thus to conclude that claimed miracles like the virgin birth are
> incompatible with our scientific understanding of nature.
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597314928257169.html
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jun 26 11:31:27 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jun 26 2009 - 11:31:27 EDT