withallyourmind.net

A commenter on my last post made the following comments:

Having been interviewed under false pretenses by the film’s producers, then being expelled from a public showing of the film for which he’d registered, I think Myers deserved some honest answers from the film’s producers. The problem is they never actually addressed the issues, and have not yet answered his questions. Actually the biggest problem is that he was expecting honest answers from the film’s producers who claim to be promoting dissent but do everything they can to suppress anyone who disagrees with them. Given the behavior of its producers, a more appropriate title would be “Expelled: Do As We Say, Not As We Do”.

I’d like to add that I’m tired of the “Myers is at it again” rhetoric that defenders of the film have been using. Myers crashed the conference call, but he did not crash the film screening. He registered, and was allowed to come. It wasn’t until he was in line to see the film that he was kicked out. If the film screening really was “invitation only”, why didn’t the producers kick out Richard Dawkins as well? Or were the only kicking out people they interviewed under false pretenses?

Many of these objections have been dealt with elsewhere on many sites, but here are a few brief points.

1. The Minnesota screening (and all screenings) have been invitation only, RSVP affairs. Both Myers and Dawkins did RSVP, according to the producers, but were not invited. It certainly is not appropriate to RSVP to an affair to which one is not invited and then be upset that you were denied entrance. The Expelled producers knew that the pair would be attending and chose to allow Dawkins in and keep Myers out. The reason for that decision was related to Myers ongoing, relentless criticism of the film for months. If he was to see it, he would be paying for a ticket.

2. The charge about obtaining interviews under false pretenses is wearing extremely thin. There is absolutely no truth to the allegation, in Ben Stein’s words, “Ludicrous!” Each interviewee was contacted by email and phone and told that the film was involving an issue which is a cultural flashpoint that has aroused the passions of many. They were also told that because they have been outspoken on the subject, the producers wished to interview them. Most received questions well in advance of the interview. They were all paid for their interview. They signed a release stating the contents of the interview could be used as the producers saw fit. There was no deceit or trickery involved. The views presented in the film are the same as those stated by them which are available elsewhere. Nothing was taken out of context. None claim they were misquoted.

3. Perhaps, the most interesting point concerning this whole affair, is that none of those who were interviewed, to my knowledge, have contested that their views were misrepresented. Their has been a smokescreen of cries of foul play and an almost total ignoring of the issues of academic injustice against those who do not bow to the Darwinian god. No one has produced any substantive or persuasive arguments showing that the allegations made in the movie of suppression of academic inquiry and free thought are false. That should be the focus of the opponents of this movie.

A conference call press junket in which Ben Stein and the producers of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed answered questions and provided information about the film ended a few moments ago. I was fortunate to have had the opportunity to take part in this press conference. I hope to comment on some of the discussion in a couple of posts, however, for the moment the news is that somehow University of Minnesota biologist, PZ Myers, was able to break into the invitation only conference call. I’m not quite sure how this was accomplished since those participating (other than the featured speakers) could not just blurt out questions and interrupt the conference. An intermediary was set up to field questions. PZ somehow had free reign to speak over the top of other speakers, which he did.

He interrupted the conversation demanding responses to his challenges to the upcoming film, specifically the affect of Darwinism upon the horrendous actions of Nazi Germany. After the producers pointed out those challenges had been answered earlier in the call and attempting to briefly answer them again, Myers was not satisfied and continued to demand answers. When asked to do the “honorable thing” and allow the conference to continue without his interruptions, he at first contested by challenging that the film’s producers should do the honorable thing and admit that they have been dishonorable in their production of the film. Shortly thereafter, however, he agreed to hang up and allow the phone call to proceed.

As he and “Clinton” Richard Dawkins did in a screening in Minnesota, Myers has done again - disrupted a meeting to which he was not invited. I’m encouraged that the atheists and the Darwinists are so worried about the potential influence of this film that they are resorting to such tactics in an attempt to discredit it. Expelled is a powerful film that can do great good in America by raising public awareness of the academic heavy-handedness of the science establishment against anyone who questions Darwinism, and by motivating them to do something about it.

Update: Tom Gilson has just posted on this same subject.

There is and has been an ongoing effort to attempt to explain away belief in God as purely naturalistic, physicalistic, and/or evolutionary phenomenon which has no basis in reality. We believe in God because we were somehow “wired” to do so. It seems efforts have become more fervent and feverish over the past few years. Al Mohler, in his post Is Belief in God Just a Natural Phenomenon?, explores new efforts by…

a group of scientists, armed with a multi-million-dollar budget, are working together in this effort, known as “Explaining Religion.” The magazine (The Economist) explains that “Explaining Religion” is “the largest-ever scientific study of the subject. It began last September, will run for three years, and involves scholars from 14 universities and a range of disciplines from psychology to economics. And it is merely the latest manifestation of a growing tendency for science to poke its nose into the God business.”

Will this program to explain belief in God from a materialist or naturalist standpoint succeed? There is no other choice. Mohler notes:

Well, in one sense this is just made necessary by the intellectual commitments of those who believe that everything must have a natural explanation. On this question, those committed to naturalism and materialism have nowhere to look but the human brain and its biochochemistry.

Mohler’s post reminded me of lectures I’ve attended of philosopher Michael Murray on studies in cognitive psychology which attempt to undermine justification for belief in God. An excellent examination of four arguments offered by naturalistic cognitive psychologists to explain away belief in God are examined and addressed in the paper, Four Arguments that the Cognitive Psychology of Religion Undermines the Justification of Religious Belief. Murray sets up the discussion with a few preliminary comments, among which are:

Do these contemporary cognitive models of religion show us that religious beliefs are nothing but “a trick fobbed off on us by our genes?” Our first reaction to such a question should be: well if they do, it is not clear how. These models, if correct, show not one thing more than that we have certain mental tools (perhaps selected for, perhaps spandrels) which under certain conditions give rise to beliefs in the existence of entities which tend to rally religious commitments. But pointing that out does nothing to tell us about whether those beliefs are justified or not. After all, we have mental tools which, under certain conditions, give rise to belief in the existence of palm trees and electrons. We don’t regard those belief forming mechanisms as unreliable, nor (typically) the beliefs formed as unjustified.

Both Mohler and Murray make for interesting reading.

Justin Taylor interviews New Testament Scholar Craig Blomberg here. One of the questions asked of Blomberg was, “Even if we didn’t have the New Testament, what would we know about Jesus from non-Christian sources?” After recommending Jesus outside the New Testament by Robert van Voorst, he gave this amazing summary which by itself (without the Bible) gives one reason to think seriously about the claims of Christianity:

Jesus was a first-third of the first-century Jew, who lived in Israel, was born out of wedlock, whose ministry intersected with that of John the Baptist, who became a popular teacher and wonder-worker, who gathered particularly close disciples to himself, five of whom are named (though some of the names are a bit garbled), who consistently taught perspectives on the Law that ran afoul of the religious authorities’ interpretations, who was believed to be the Messiah, who was eventually crucified under Pontius Pilate, Roman procurator in Judea (which enables us to narrow the date for that event to somewhere between A.D. 26 and 36), and who was allegedly seen by many of his followers as bodily resurrected from the dead. Instead of dying out, the movement of his followers continued to grow with each passing decade and within a short period of time people were singing hymns to him as if he were a god.

About 2 weeks ago, I provided a couple of posts, Skyhooks and Cranes, and Agency Reductionism, covering the first chapter of Angus Menuge’s book Agents Under Fire. I didn’t think it would take me another two weeks to finish the second chapter, but such is life.

Chapter 2 begins with a quote from Thomas Nagel:

There seems to be no room for ageny in a world of neural impulses, chemical reactions, and bone and muscle movements.

This sets the stage for dealing with the problem strong agent reductionism (SAR) presents for science. SAR thinks that the concept of agency in which an agent is understood as one who has representations that (1) exhibit intentionality, that (2)serve as reasons for action, and that (3) involve self-representation, is bankrupt. This “old” concept of agency, Menuge refers to as folk psychology (FP) throughout this chapter. SAR applies the same strategy provided by Darwin to eliminate agency in our natural environment to ourselves. Talk of human agency is replaced with the scientific explanation of blind automatic mechanisms of neuropsychology.

This chapter was a little tougher to get through. It was much more philosophically rigorous than chapter 1. A great deal of time is spent explaining Paul Churchland’s program of Eliminative Materialism (EM) as an example of SAR, and then providing reasons that Churchland’s EM (and, also SAR) is untenable. Without attempting to provide a detailed summary of Menuge’s discussion (which I would probably not do very well anyway), I’ll just provide a summary of the conclusions of the arguments (For the details, you’ll just have to read it yourself).

Menuge asserts that the scientific materialist cannot adopt SAR in any form because it undermines the rational practice of science. It is incompatible with the rational principles of scientific method. SAR attempts to remove any concept of design and intentionality from nature. Menuge makes an interesting observation that when Darwin discarded design from nature, he still generally assumed that huamsn themselves designed things and had intentions. He contrasted apparent design with real design (like a watch). The force of this comparison rested on the idea that design is a legitimate concept. According to SAR, however there is no real design at all - all design is only apparent. The proponents of SAR have no real design left from which to distinguish apparent design. Design is an illegitimate concept.

Menuge makes the pont that SAR undermines the very idea of scientific explanation:

It does so by robbing explanations of the appearance of design or intentionality of a meaningful contrast with real cases and by denying the very notion of understanding that explanation presupposes. Science is a particular exercise in practical rationality, and this exercise cannot be understood, indeed cannot exist, in the absence of desgin and intentionality. SAR thus proposes a program of materialism that cannot claim to be scientific.

The second quote with which Menuge began the chapter is from C.S. Lewis:

You cannot go on “explaining away” forever: you will find that you have explained explanation itself away… To “see through” all things is the same as not to see.

Menuge restates this point by saying that:

… unlimited reductionism in science would be self-refuting since it would explain away the very notion of explanation upon which the project of scinece relies.. It is as if a man who wants nothing more than peace and quiet starts by eliminating all the noisy distractions in his environment and ends by committing suicide because he cannot bear the sound of his own heart beat.

That last statement vividly illustrates the problem with SAR. Removing design and intentionality from science renders it “inscrutable, pointless, and practically impossible” since scientific rationality is fully dependent on intentionality and design. I’ve, of course, not provided Menuge’s full reasons and argumentation for these statements. That would take a chapter in a book… which it did.

In his next chapter, he addresses a weaker form of agent reductionism (WAR). After I’ve read that I’ll try to summarize.

Here’s one of the cutest performances of “The Lord’s Prayer” you’ll ever see. It is perfromed by 2-year old Zoie Toh.

This Google Map presents an overview of the chronology and geography of the Passion Week. It is based on a harmonization by New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg.

HT: Justin Taylor

Historian Thomas Madden, of the National Review, takes a look back at the so-called Lost Tomb of Jesus one year later in his article, Not Dead Yet. I mentioned to my apologetics small group last week the uproar that was caused by the Discovery Channel documentary claiming Jesus was indeed dead, and that the tomb which contained Jesus’ bones was found providing significant evidence. When none knew what I was talking about, it dawned on me that perhaps there was not so much controversy after all.

Madden examines the events which have taken place since that documentary including the Princeton Theological Seminary symposium which took place in January of this year. He concludes his piece:

The scholarly case on the tomb may be essentially closed, but the sensationalist fantasies are alive and well. After all, Dan Brown, author of The Da Vinci Code, can’t make all the money, can he? It’s frustrating, though — particularly for scholars who have spent their careers trying to uncover and disseminate the truth. One cheesy documentary, it seems, is worth a thousand good books and journal articles…

Christians will just have to make due with the Empty Tomb.

The empty tomb will do just fine, thank you!

Last evening, I had the privilege of attending my first live performance of George Frideric Handel’s Messiah. It was unforgettable. The oratorio, composed in 1741 and premiered on April 13, 1742 in Dublin, was performed by the Florida Orchestra and a number of choral groups. The only disappointment was that the first portion of the oratorio, that regarding the birth of Jesus was not performed. Parts II and III, covering the death and resurrection, were beautifully performed and moving. The text for the entire work is drawn directly from scripture. The libretto can be found here.

Handel completed Messiah in just 24 days. The story is told that he shut himself up in his room, eating and sleeping little, while he completed this work. On September 14, 1741, he emerged with the words:

I did think I did see Heaven before me and the great God Himself!

It is also told that Handel’s assistant walked in to Handel’s room after shouting to him for several minutes with no response. Handel, in tears, held up the score to the movement known as the Hallelujah Chorus, and said:

I have seen the face of God.

We stood, last evening, for the Hallelujah Chorus, as has been done almost universally at the performance of this piece. Tradition states that when the first few notes were played, King George II rose from his chair and stood. Protocol demands that when the King stands, all stand. Men have suggested that King George stood in accordance with the custom that one stands in the presence of royalty as a sign of respect. The Hallelujah Chorus clearly places Christ as the King of Kings. In standing, King George II accepted that he too is subject to the Lord of Lords.

A few days ago, I blogged on the recent Obama controversy concerning his association with and membership in the church pastored by Jeremiah White. Since that time, Obama has made an excellent speech in which he addresses the issue. John Mark Reynolds, whose insight I always find instructive, has some commentary on the speech here.

On whether the recent flap should affect how one votes, Reynolds states:

In my opinion, Obama’s religion and even his association with his pastor do not disqualify him from office in and of themselves. Understood contextually, he stands in the mainstream of liberal thought about Christianity and politics.

However, as a I pointed out with Mitt Romney, the implications of his religious views mean that no conservative or moderate voter is likely to vote for Barack Obama. Obama’s choice of church home confirms his general instincts as a person, just as Romney’s did.

Obama’s membership in the very liberal (very, very liberal) United Church of Christ suggest a deeply liberal view of the world. A conservative is not being a religious bigot to say:

“Obama’s religion does not disqualify him nor does his pastor, but what it implies about his politics will mean I shall not vote for him. Of course, I might examine his political views and discover that he is a conservative in a liberal church.”

Andrew Jackson, at Smart Christian was not at all impressed.