Re: [asa] Lawrence Krauss Defends New Atheism

From: Schwarzwald <>
Date: Sat Jun 27 2009 - 00:41:22 EDT

Heya Alexanian,

I think Krauss' point here is that he wants A) a scientific explanation of
the virgin birth, and B) at least implicitly he wants this to be "natural".
If both requests cannot be satisfied, then to believe such a thing took
place is a departure from scientific rationality. Which he would take to
show that the claims of religion are incompatible with science.

I'd agree with you though - this seems like an exceptionally weak argument.
First because it reduces the claimed incompatibility of science and religion
from arguing that science shows that God does not exist (See Victor Stenger,
etc for that claim) to a claim that science cannot verify the tenets of
religion. It's hard to think of a response to that other than "So what?"

Second, and perhaps more controversially, I think there's a fun response
Miller could give: Appealing to technology rather than bare nature. God is
simply in a position with respect to nature (very roughly) analogous to the
position of a programmer to his program. Trying to find a "biological
explanation" of the virgin birth is (again, very roughly) akin to trying to
find a "biological explanation" of how a human being could end up on the
moon. It's not the basic biological features that matter most, but questions
of agency and relation of subject to event.

I also think it would be interesting to get into questions of physics and
what is "possible, but extremely (on the order of googleplexes, I imagine)
unlikely" to happen. The old example of a baseball passing through a brick
wall comes to mind. I think the mere acknowledgment of such raw "natural"
possibilities makes discussion of miracles and science interesting to say
the least.

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Alexanian, Moorad <>wrote:

> The virgin birth is peanuts compared with the notion of a Creator God. I
> never quite understood why that issue is ever brought up. The virgin birth
> must be something to be doubted only by atheists.
> Moorad
> ________________________________
> From: [] On Behalf Of
> Cameron Wybrow []
> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 4:41 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [asa] Lawrence Krauss Defends New Atheism
> Mike:
> Re Miller: agreed. Not that I am claiming that Christianity is
> unthinkable without a literal virgin birth, but the virgin birth is (I
> believe) still a core Catholic doctrine. So if (as is reported) Miller
> would not defend it, what happened to Miller's claim to be "100% Darwinian
> and 100% Catholic"? I guess that one of those "hundred per cents" was a
> rhetorical exaggeration. But then, I suppose that we should not expect
> theological clarity from a Catholic who claims to believe in Darwin's God,
> when Darwin was an agnostic.
> Cameron.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Nucacids<>
> To: Nucacids<> ;<mailto:
> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 11:50 AM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Lawrence Krauss Defends New Atheism
> Two immediate observations:
> 1. It is very disappointing to see Miller back away from the virgin birth
> of Christ. Given his position and status, this will feed into the
> perception that once Christians accept evolution, it's a slippery slope that
> leads to rejection of a literal virgin birth and resurrection of Christ.
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jun 27 00:42:19 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jun 27 2009 - 00:42:19 EDT