My Story: Part 1

My Story: Index

Truth matters to me.  I'd like to think it always has.  I credit this to my parents.  I think they brought me up well.

I remember going to Catholic Church when I was very young.  My family would go almost every week.  As I got older and reached my teens, we started to go less often.  My younger sister's epilepsy became a bigger problem as time went on, and I think my parents, with 3 other busy children, had less and less energy to continue attending mass on a weekly basis.  Nevertheless, we continued to pray before meals, attend mass on holidays, and go through the sacraments of first-communion and confirmation.  

When I was 18, I had a political science class in which we studied debate.  During that unit, the class observed a mock-debate between an evolutionist and a creationist.  We were supposed to be learning about debate format, but I became interested in learning about creationism.  Being a lukewarm Catholic, I believed in God, and being a good student, I believed in evolution, but I had never really been exposed to biblical creationism, i.e. a literal, young-earth interpretation of the book of Genesis.  Nevertheless, I became very interested, and started researching it on my own time.  In fact, I became so interested that sometimes I would write myself out of class by forging a note from my parents, and then go next door to the public library to read.  

It wasn't long before I encountered the creation-science evangelistic videos of Kent Hovind.  And it wasn't long after that that I began to believe his entire message, from beginning to end.  I renounced my Catholicism, asked Jesus into my heart, started reading the Bible (as a catholic I hardly ever did), and prayed that my family and friends would get saved.  Thus began my life as a young, fundamentalist, and Protestant Christian.

Shortly after my conversion, I went to college at the U of M-Twin Cities, and immediately joined Campus Crusade for Christ.  I joined their Bible study, and eventually became an electric guitar player for their worship band.  My life was changing a lot, and it became very important that I had other Christian friends.  They were easy to befriend, however I always felt a bit different than them.  They didn't read the Bible as much as I did, and they seemed more interested in their future careers than in Jesus.  This pushed me to study the Bible even more, to pray, read biblical commentaries, and, one of my favorites, devour biographies of inspiring Christian missionaries.  I'd also go on short term mission trips with Campus Crusade.  I was, as they say, "on fire."

I began to lose interest in my academic studies.  It was frustrating for me to go to class and learn about evolution and the old age of the earth when I knew these things were false.  At the same time, I knew God was using the classes to test my faith.  However, it was tiring.  I didn't want to study secular subjects.  I wanted to study religious ones.  I needed more biblical knowledge and practice, not secular knowledge and a career.

One fall evening I attended a campus-wide Christian meeting on campus, and learned about a Christian humanitarian-aid organization called Friend Ships.  The speaker at this meeting told us this organization collected surplus supplies and donations from people all over the nation, and shipped them to poor countries.  Not only that, but the volunteers who worked for the organization lived off of donations, as well, such as donated groceries from their neighborhood grocery stores.  The speaker called this "living by faith."  I was hooked.  I wanted to do that.  I didn't need a career!  I could live by faith and trust in God-- He would provide, and these people I heard about were proving it.

Not long after that meeting, I dropped out of college and hopped on a bus to Louisiana to join the organization as a full-time volunteer.  Life was good.

Go to Part 2...

Update

Thankfully, I've gotten a new job and a new apartment.  I've been at the new job for a almost 2 months now.  It's a job that requires significantly more mental energy that my previous job, so I can't listen to mp3s all day long.  However, the salary is better.  I'm able to spend money on important things and life experiences, which is very nice.

One thing I've spent money on lately is travel.  This year, I went to Washington D.C., Sundance, UT, Boston, NYC, and Chicago a few times.  Each trip has been with family, which is really important to me.

I'd like to get moving again toward my goals of studying and learning, but I've been tired due to work.  I'm happy for the little bit of learning that I can do via my mp3 player during my rides to and from work.

I'm pretty sure that my new job is not what I want to be doing for the rest of my life.  I'm thankful for it, though.  It's good for me at this point of my life.  I'm learning a lot about computer science, which has been a goal of mine.  So, there are some great things about my job.  However, I know that my job won't satisfy the desire I have to become an expert at something really important in life.

Discussion on Miracles

There was an interesting article on miracles posted on the PleaseConvinceMe Blog.  Check out the comments for my thoughts.

Historiography as Scientific Inquiry

Aside from the part about Jesus perhaps not being a real person, I really enjoyed these comments by Robert Price.

Does God Exist? The Argument from Morality

I've been having an interesting discussion about this argument in the comments section at the blog Students for Christianity.

If you'd like, go check it out!

Yale Open Course: New Testament 12 & 13

The twelfth lecture is on the letters of John.

• In Gospel of John, Jesus talks in riddles, and responds to questions with non-sequiturs
• Mark includes atonement as a reason for Jesus' death, Luke doesn't
• 1 John says that everyone is a sinner, yet contradicts by saying no believers sin
• 1 John commands believers to love brothers, not the outsiders

The thirteenth lecture is on the Historical Jesus.

• Prof says no reputable historian believes we know anything about the birth or trial of Jesus
• Peasants, like the disciples, would not have been let into a Roman trial court
• All reputable scholars believe there was a Jesus of Nazareth
• Historians agree that the sign nailed to the cross and the baptism by John the Baptist of Jesus are historical
• Important criterion for historicity is multiple attestation (found in more than one source), e.g. Jesus' teaching against divorce
• Another important criterion is dissimilarity (something that "swims against the current" of early Christianity), e.g. Jesus' disciples being armed in the garden during the last Passover.  Another example is when Jesus says "nobody is good but God."
• Prof says Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet
• Says Jesus picked 12 disciples because of the idea that the 12 tribes would be reconstituted at the restoration
• Says Jesus was executed because the Romans believed he was claiming to be King of the Jews

Yale Open Course: New Testament 11

The eleventh lecture is on the Gospel of John.

• Synoptics say Jesus' ministry is 1 year long, and occurred after John the Baptist's ministry was over
• John says Jesus' ministry is 3 years long, and overlaps John the Baptist's ministry
• The prof says he goes to a church w/ priests (Catholic? Episcopalian?) 
• Jesus in synoptics is almost silent during his trial, in John he has philosophical discussions
• anachronisms- calling certain people "the Jews" (all were jews), excommunication for belief in Jesus as messiah (this was not an issue early on because many were claiming to be messiah)
• Jesus claimed to be the "I AM" in the book of Exodus

Yale Open Course: New Testament 9 & 10

The 9th and 10th lectures are about the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, respectively.

• Luke and Acts were written by the same anonymous person
• Unlike Mark, Luke doesn't mention the "abomination of desolation" in context with the destruction of the temple
• Author is not an eye-witness to events in the Gospels
• Prof says this Gospel was written after 70 CE because the it says things that happened to Jerusalem that Mark does not say, e.g. "surrounded by armies," "will fall by the sword," "will be led captive into all nations," and "will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles."
• The theme of Jesus' death is that "prophets are killed by their own people," instead of it being an atonement.
• Prof says that unlike Luke, Mark has Jesus change the Law, e.g. in Mark 7:19 about Jesus declaring all foods clean.  (I emailed the prof about this phrase not being in the Greek)

Yale Open Course: New Testament 8

The eighth lecture is about the Gospel of Thomas.

• Tradition says that Thomas brought Christianity to India.
• Most scholars think it was written in the early second century
• Some sayings within it might be earlier than the same sayings in the synoptic gospels
• Proto-Orthodox means the type of early beliefs that eventually became Christian orthodoxy

Yale Open Course: New Testament 7

In lecture seven, the prof talks about the Gospel of Matthew.

• Matthew is the most Jewish, yet has been used as motivation for much anti-semetism
• Redaction criticism is used to compare the passages that occur in multiple gospels
• Prof says that Matthew was written after 70 CE.  I'm not sure why.  He said Mark was written before 70 CE.  Perhaps the difference is because Matthew emphasizes more than Mark the need to "watch" and remain faithful through the hard times, even though Jesus hadn't come back yet.
• Says that author of Matthew thinks gentiles should keep Torah

Yale Open Course: New Testament 6

In the sixth lecture, the prof talks about the Gospel of Mark.  He emphasizes that he will only be using the historical critical method to analyze the text.  Thus, he will not try to harmonize this gospel with other NT texts.

• The "Messianic Secret" is a big problem if this gospel, as is the problem of misunderstanding, which is that of Jesus' teachings by his very own disciples.  
• Scholars have said this gospel is a passion narrative with an extended introduction.
• Author of the gospel is unknown
• Probably written just before, or right around, 70 CE because it doesn't mention the destruction of the Temple (I didn't understand this point, because it actually does mention it in the form of a prophecy)
• There's controversy over whether or not Mark ends at v. 8 of chapter 16, however most scholars believe it does. Therefore, this gospel includes only rumors of the resurrection

Yale Open Course: New Testament 5

In the fifth lecture, the prof talks about the NT as reliable history.  He basically says it is not.

The lecture is focused on the differences in the stories of Paul in both Acts and Galatians.  In Acts, it says that Paul was introduced by Barnabas to the other disciples a short time after Paul's experience in Damascus.  The prof counts 5 times that Paul was in Jerusalem before the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15.  In Galatians, it says that Paul visited Jerusalem perhaps once or twice before the Jerusalem Council, and then only to see Peter and James.  The prof says that these stories are probably contradictory, even though some devout believers have tried to harmonize them.

The prof thinks the account in Galatians is probably more accurate because Paul was being so forceful about something that the readers of his letter could have verified.  However, he admits that his main point is just that the texts must be sifted in order to arrive at historical truth, rather than taken at face-value.

Yale Open Course: New Testament 4

In the fourth lecture, the prof talks about 1st century Judaism.

The prof gives an intriguing explanation of why modern scholars consider the date of the authorship of the book of Daniel to be about 165 BCE.  The explanation is that the author of Daniel accurately predicts the events of history up until 164 BCE, at which point he starts to get things wrong.  Therefore, scholars conclude that Daniel was written after the date of the accurate history and before the date of the inaccurate history.

• Most notable places in the Eastern Mediterranean were Hellenized.
• A great quote, "The Jews had an ideology of empire and world domination embedded in their scripture.  And yet their social and political situation was just the opposite.  And it's in that maelstrom of Jewish ideology not fitting reality that Jesus was born."

Yale Open Course: New Testament 3

I listened to the third lecture, and it's about the Greco-Roman world.

• The prof says that Judaism is a Greco-Roman religion or cult. 
• Alexander the Great wanted to create a one world empire, and he Hellenized much of the Eastern Mediterranean
•  Ekklesia was the common term for the town assembly (and eventually the term adopted by believers for referring to themselves, translated into English as "church")
• Early christian churches were modeled after the pattern of the Roman household.
• The Romans were very tolerant of other religious beliefs, unless a particular group was rebellious or caused political problems
• The one-world, Greco-Roman society of the 1st century allowed for Christianity to spread rapidly

Yale Open Course: New Testament 2

In the second lecture, the prof talks about canon.

He says that the motto of the class is "Doubt Everything."

The canon was formed over time by consensus opinion of church leaders and lay people.  Several different canons were in circulation, and that is the case today, as well.

Interesting bits:

• Paul did not write Ephesians
• Peter did not write Second Peter
• Marcion the Heretic only included in his canon 10 of the 13 letters attributed to Paul
• Earliest known list of canon that includes the 27-books of of today's NT is from 367 CE
• Some Eastern/Middle Eastern churches still don't accept the Revelation of John in their bibles

Yale Open Course: New Testament

I listened to the first lecture of Yale's free Intro to the New Testament course.

The prof comes out right away saying that the class will approach the New Testament using methods of historical inquiry and verification.  It will not, on the other hand, approach it using methods of faith or theology.  It will not approach it as if it's scripture.

Martyr E. Coli

I've been listening to the archived episodes of the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe podcast.  They had an interesting episode with an interview of a scientist from UC - Boulder, and in it he mentioned that certain E. coli will explode themselves in order to save the rest of their colony from attacks by other colonies.

I think this is an interesting example of a "moral act" exemplified by non-humans in the natural world.

It is clear that such behaviors can cause greater well-being for a greater number of individuals, and that the absence of such behaviors can cause less well-being for a greater number of individuals.

In short, this is a natural example of the benefits of utilitarian ethics.

Free Yale Bible Course

The information in this course is mainstream, much like the information in The Blackwell Companion to the Hebrew Bible.  Not much of it really surprised me:  the Torah has multiple authors, Israel's history before the monarchic period is basically not known or non-existent, biblical theology is not monolithic, etc.

Mp3s of each lecture are available.  The professor is a secular (I think) Talmud scholar, so she's got some intellectual chops.

EDIT:  There are many more classes to choose from, including Principles of Evolution, Ecology and Behavior, Introduction to New Testament History and Literature, and Capitalism: Success, Crisis, and Reform.  I'd like to listen to each of these.

Book Blog: The Blackwell Companion to the Hebrew Bible

Lately, I have been reading the Blackwell Companion to the Hebrew Bible.  I'm reading it because I want to know more about what is and what is not true about the God of the Bible.  I will probably read only 10 or 12 chapters in this book, because I'm not interested in everything in it.

Topics of the chapters I'm interested in are Early Israel, the Rise of the Monarchy, Monarchic Period, Exile and Restoration, Archaeology and Israelite History, Canaan, the Solomonic Temple, Schools and Literacy in Ancient Israel, Community, Old Testament Ethics, Narrative Texts, Wisdom Lit., and Apocalyptic Lit.

An Argument for Sinai

Recently, I heard an argument given by Rabbi Gottlieb for the historicity of the biblical events of the book of Exodus, i.e. the Exodus from Egypt, the Revelation at Mt. Sinai, etc.  I listened to this argument because I have been trying to complete a goal that I have, namely to figure out if we can know anything about God other than that God exists (and created the known universe, perhaps).

Anyway, I have some thoughts on the argument.

Argument about the Resurrection

I have been involved in quite an interesting discussion about the resurrection of Jesus.    Check it out!

Updated God Goal

As noted previously, I want to find out if I can know anything else about God apart from His existence.  Although I am not completely convinced that there is a God, I am willing, for now, to grant that God exists so that I can tackle the aforementioned question.

My God Goal, Revisited

I've written about how it is an important goal of mine to know whether or not there is a God.  As I've been tackling this goal, I've had some significant thoughts about it.  They are the following:

An important idea to keep in mind during any significant undertaking is to focus on the type of tasks that will yield the most "return on investment," or ROI.  In the case of investigating God's existence, there are certain tasks and pieces of knowledge that could yield a higher ROI than others.  What, though, is a high ROI in the context of the question of whether or not God exists?  Well, knowing beyond reasonable doubt whether or not God exists!  That's about it... huh.

Does God Exist? The Kalam Cosmological Argument

The Kalam Cosmological Argument, or KCA, is an old argument for the existence God, i.e. the first cause of the universe.  I have some thoughts on it.

Here is the argument in syllogistic form:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.
4. That cause was God.

Points 1-3 formulate a valid deductive argument, which means that if premises 1 and 2 are true, then the conclusion, i.e. point 3, is necessarily true.  However, I'm not sure that this is a sound argument, which means that premises 1 and 2 are, in fact, true.

Point 4 may or may not logically follow from the preceding 3 points.  More on that below.

Documentary: The Bible Unearthed

This is an interesting video.  I wonder how much of it is true.

I've heard that Professor Finkelstein is somewhat of a "lightening rod" for controversy.  Some call him a biblical minimalist.  However, he denies that he is one.

I appreciated the ending of the documentary.  After painting a picture of early Israelite history that is vastly different than the one painted in the Torah, it ends on a hopeful note.  

By the way, I'd like to stay more updated on the current status of biblical archeology.  It would be nice to find some solid RSS feeds of quality, relevant information.

On Goals, cont.

Lately, I've been attempting to write down my goals.

I need to break down the goals I wrote in the last post, preferably into doable tasks.

On Goals

It has often been recommended to me that I write down my goals.  This is probably because it's an important thing to do.

A Little Nervous

It makes me a little bit nervous to think about my specific goals.  It's easy to think about my general goals, e.g. learn truth, live my life for the highest priorities, help people, do good, etc.  But, when I try to define those things more, I get a bit nervous because it is difficult to do and I don't want to be wrong.

Points on Productivity

Luke, at the Less Wrong community, wrote an interesting post about several things, one of which was productivity.

The points I found interesting were the following:

Addicted to Audio

I've been listening to a lot of mp3s lately.

My job allows me to listen to several hours of audio almost every day while I work.  It's pretty awesome.

Here are some of the podcasts that I've been listening to:

Book Blog 2: There is a God

Arguments

One of the arguments the contributed to Flew's change of mind about God was the cosmological argument.  It goes something like the following:

1. Everything that exists had a cause.
2. The universe exists.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.
4. That cause was God.


Now, this argument is very old, and Flew surely knew about it in his days as an atheist.  But, due to the advances in science, e.g. the big bang theory, certain premises of the cosmological argument began to receive scientific support.  For example, the big bang theory states that there once was a beginning of time.  This is a crucial discovery because previously, the prevailing theory was that the universe was eternal (and therefore had no cause.  This used to be the main objection to the cosmological argument).   Therefore, the big bang theory is cited as scientific support for points 1-3, above.

Limits 
(I'm always pleased when the limits of an argument are openly acknowledged)

Point 4 above is controversial because it doesn't necessarily follow from the previous points. The cause of the universe could be something other than God.  For example, it might have been an alien from another universe.  The argument doesn't necessarily say anything about the nature of the cause.  Ultimately, in order to establish that God was the cause of the universe, one would need more corroborating evidence.

Another objection is that point 1 is true for causes and effects within this universe.  Therefore, it's not necessarily true for causes and effects outside of this universe.  So, some say that it doesn't necessarily follow to conclude that there was a cause of the universe that came from outside the universe, e.g. God.

Book Blog 1: There is a God

One of the most influential atheist philosophers of the twentieth century was a man called Antony Flew.  While a young grad student, he wrote a wildly popular paper called Theology and Falsification.  Not long after that, Flew became the leading defender of atheism in the philosophical world.

Conversion

In an interesting turn of events in 2004, after 50 years of defending atheism, Flew changed his mind about God and became a deist.  This conversion was not without controversy.  Some, including Richard Dawkins, alleged that Flew had become senile.  I don't know if this is true.  But, in an interview about his conversion, Flew seemed a bit absent-minded, and I thought he was a little off-base with a few of his comments.

In 2007, Flew wrote a book with Roy Abraham Varghese called There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed his Mind.  It lays out the general case for the existence of God that Flew believes in.  Being a deist, he has much less to say about the specific characteristics of God than proponents of specific religions, such as Christianity.  This somewhat minimalist approach to describing God was fascinating and refreshing to me.

Ideas

Flew is known for popularizing the presumption of atheism.  This is an idea that says that one should approach the question of the existence of God from the position of a lack of belief in God.  In other words, the proper starting point should be one with no prior belief in God.  Then, upon analyzing the arguments and evidence for and against God's existence, one should alter one's beliefs according to the strength of the evidence.

This method of following the evidence wherever it leads is what led Flew to believe in a God.

Book Blog 3: Darwin's Black Box

It has been recommended to me that I read the book called Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.  I plan to do just that, and blog through it until I'm finished.

The book was written by Michael J. Behe, a professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University.  He is an Intelligent Design Theory advocate, and has popularized an argument for this theory from irreducible complexity. 

He is not a young-earth creationist.  Instead, he believes the earth and universe are billions of years old, and also that all biological life share a common ancestor.

--------------------------

Positive Argument 

Behe's positive (inductive) argument for intelligent design goes something like the following:

1. Certain molecular processes exist that are irreducibly complex.

2. Certain mechanical devices (e.g. mousetrap) exist that are irreducibly complex.
3. Those mechanical devices are a product of intelligent design.
4. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that certain complex molecular processes that are irreducibly complex are a product of intelligent design.


The bulk of Behe's book was spent on supporting point 1 because it is the crux of his argument.  Points 2 and 3 are probably undisputed by proponents of Darwinism, but I'm sure point 1 is disputed.  So, if Behe can succeed in supporting point 1, then point 4 potentially is a reasonable conclusion.

My Conclusions


I was pleasantly surprised by this book.  Granted, I'm not an expert in the field of biochemistry, so much of Behe's critique of Darwinism at the molecular level could be unfounded.  But, as far as I could tell his claims are supported enough to be scientifically considered.

Speaking of scientific, I was very pleased to hear that his claims were scientific, rather than of faith.  In fact, issues of faith were only mentioned toward the end of the book when Behe was listing some potential implications of intelligent design theory.

If...

If Behe's argument succeeds, then there is established scientific evidence for intelligence that designed some molecular processes.  This conclusion, I think, is one that Behe could agree with.

What one might notice are the limits of the conclusion.  That there was intelligence behind the design of some molecular processes doesn't say much about the nature of that intelligence.  Therefore, many questions are left for us.  Is the intelligence supernatural or natural?  Omniscient? Omnipotent? Loving? Just? Eternal?

I don't know.  Let's continue to search.

Book Blog 2: Darwin's Black Box

It has been recommended to me that I read the book called Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.  I plan to do just that, and blog through it until I'm finished.

The book was written by Michael J. Behe, a professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University.  He is an Intelligent Design Theory advocate, and has popularized an argument for this theory from irreducible complexity. 

He is not a young-earth creationist.  Instead, he believes the earth and universe are billions of years old, and also that all biological life shares a common ancestor.

---

Evidence

In chapter 8, Behe shows the results of his examination of the scientific literature that deals specifically with the processes of molecular evolution.

Though there are some journals and textbooks that have attempted to explain the details of molecular evolution, Behe's conclusion is that there is little, if any, published scientific evidence that Darwinian evolution has produced molecular processes.

I imagine that saying this has gotten him a lot of flack. 

Falsification

Perhaps contrary to Darwin's statement about the falsification of his own theory, Behe says that,

"there is no magic point of irreducible complexity at which Darwinism is logically impossible."

This idea reminds me of an accusation I heard by an ID proponent against a Darwinist, i.e. that whenever there is some genuine scientific ignorance about a specific evolutionary process a Darwinist can always give their fall-back explanation, Darwinism.  This has been called the "Darwinism of the Gaps" argument, which is meant to bring to mind the fallacious argument called the "God of the Gaps."

Defense

To close out the book, Behe gives a defense of the theory of Intelligent Design against specific arguments against it.

In my opinion, what was crucial in this part of the book was that it came after Behe had actually made a positive argument for design, rather than only a negative argument against Darwinism.  As I've said before, this is necessary in order to convince people of a theory.  It is not enough to only argue against competing theories.

Therefore, I commend Dr. Behe for putting forth a positive argument rather than expecting that negative arguments against Darwinism should count as positive evidence for his own theory.

Book Blog: Darwin's Black Box

It has been recommended to me that I read the book called Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.  I plan to do just that, and blog through it until I'm finished.

The book was written by Michael J. Behe, a professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University.  He is an Intelligent Design Theory advocate, and has popularized an argument for this theory from irreducible complexity.  


He is not a young-earth creationist.  Instead, he believes the earth and universe are billions of years old, and also that all biological life shares a common ancestor.

--------------------------

Defining Terms

In the preface, Behe defines the word evolution as he uses it in the book:

"a process whereby life arose from non-living matter and subsequently developed entirely by natural means."

The first half of his definition, i.e. "a process whereby life arose from non-living matter," probably has caused some disagreement, because some would call that abiogenesis.  I would guess that a more agreeable definition of evolution would be only the second half of Behe's definition, i.e. "[a process whereby life] developed entirely by natural means."  The difference is that, according to some, evolution assumes life, whereas abiogenesis does not.

Behe defines a black box as,

"a device that does something, but whose inner workings are mysterious." 

He says that the cell is biology's black box.

Irreducible complexity is defined by Behe as the characteristic of a

"single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

He claims that such systems cannot come into existence by gradual, slight, successive modifications to a precursor system.  This (controversial) idea is foundational to his positive argument for intelligent design.

Book's Outline

Behe outlines his book in the following way:

Part I: Background Information - non-technical.
Part II: Example Chapters - technical.
Part III: Implications - non-technical.

Falsification

Behe realizes the importance that a scientific theory has the characteristic of falsification.  Therefore, he quotes Darwin saying,

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." (emphasis mine)

One problem with this quote is that to "prove a negative" is either extremely difficult or impossible (I haven't decided yet...).  Therefore, I'm confident that it has caused, and will cause, a good deal of controversy.

He claims that biochemistry, via the tools of electron microscopy and crystallography, has pushed the theory of evolution to the limits because, he says, there's little to no evidence in the scientific journals and publications for how evolution produces complex molecules and processes, e.g. cilia, flagella, blood clotting.

Conversations with JW's: Genealogical Discrepancies

Every week or two I have been chatting with various Jehovah's Witnesses.  They bring me some of their literature to read, and the following week we discuss what I read.

It's usually a very intellectually stimulating time because new ideas are being communicated, different beliefs are colliding, and we are trying to be polite and articulate.

-------------------

Like other faithful Christians, the Jehovah's Witnesses told me that the Bible is completely true.

I responded by saying that I haven't seen the evidence to support such an extraordinary claim. Then, I showed them a potential contradiction in the Bible, i.e. the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew 1 and Luke 3.

A week later, they brought to me a researched explanation of why the apparently discrepant genealogies are not in contradiction. I appreciated their effort, read their explanation, and formulated a response. It was the following:

The genealogies in Matthew and Luke refer to two different men as the father of Joseph, husband of Mary, the father of Jesus.

Here is a summary of your argument for reconciling this apparent contradiction:

1. If Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli (instead of his son), and
2. If Luke wrote that Joseph was the son of Heli using a Hebrew custom of referring to a son-in-law as a son,
3. Then, Luke's genealogy doesn't contradict Matthew's genealogy when they refer to two different men as the father of Joseph.

If points 1 and 2 are true, then I would agree that 3 is true, as well. Unfortunately, I don't know of any evidence for points 1 and 2. In fact, I know of an orthodox Jewish man who says that there was no custom like the one mentioned in 2, and he knows of not one example of this custom being used in the Old Testament.

Conclusion

Therefore, I cannot say that 1 and 2 are true, and thus, I cannot say that 3 is true. The Bible is apparently in contradiction with itself. Due to this reason, I disagree with the claim of my Jehovah's Witnesses friends that the Bible is completely true.

If anyone, Jehovah's Witness or not, can show me how they know that 1 and 2 are true, please let me know.

JW's Intelligent Design Magazine

Every week or two I have been chatting with various Jehovah's Witnesses.  They bring me some of their literature to read, and the following week we discuss what I read.

It's usually a very intellectually stimulating time because new ideas are being communicated, different beliefs are colliding, and we are trying to be polite and articulate.

-------------------

The last piece of their literature that I read is called The Origin of Life: Five Questions Worth Asking.  This magazine spends most of its pages describing the immense amount of complexity within biological systems, especially within the cell.  This I expected.  

What I did not expect was just how little it would make positive arguments for design.  This suggests that perhaps they've mistakenly presented a false dilemma, which is that if evolution hasn't been shown to have been able to produce the amount of biological complexity we have observed, then therefore something must have intelligently designed it.  This is not a good argument because it is a non-sequitur.

To criticize an opposing theory rarely counts as evidence for one's own theory.  In the debate between evolution and intelligent design, it does not.  Therefore, in order for the theory of intelligent design to be considered true, one needs to make strong arguments for it.  Therefore, the magazine should have spent more of its pages developing the argument for why and how biological complexity is evidence for intelligent design.

For example, the magazine could've attempted to develop the following inductive argument:


Certain biological systems can be observed in the world.
Certain mechanical systems, which have been intelligently designed, can be observed in the world.
These two types of systems are fundamentally similar.
Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that certain biological systems have been intelligently designed.

Contrary to the magazine's authors, biological complexity does not have the luxury of "speaking for itself."  To argue for a certain theory, it's not enough to point out biological complexity and the areas where Darwinian theory falls short.

Rather, one's theory needs to be argued for, and strongly, just as the author has demanded of the proponents of Darwinian evolution.

Book Blog 6: 50 Years from Today

I've finished the book called 50 Years from Today.  

I am surprised by the amount of emphasis that each author put on the issue of climate change.  This could have happened due to an agenda that the author had, but even if that was true, many intelligent authors explicitly mentioned the significance of this issue.

I am excited by the emphasis that the authors put on the issue of technological advancement.  There was a range of opinion, with some stating that technology will continue to make our lives better, to some stating that technological advancement will put us on a roller-coaster of dramatic life change over the next century and beyond.

Another exciting emphasis of the book was the great potential for medical science to treat, if not cure, many of the terrible diseases that plague us today.  These authors are definitely pro-vaccine, pro-genetic engineering, and pro-evidence-based medicine.  There were not many mentions at all of the need to come out against these things in favor of homeopathic methods, organic farming, or faith-based approaches.  Again, this could be an agenda of the editor, but many authors did explicitly mention the importance of being in favor of these issues.

Conclusions:

This book has excited me for the future.  It has increased my hope in the potential of humanity to continue to progress against causes of suffering in the world.  I hope we use this potential for good, and learn to seek together for that which is true while the ecological and social environment in which we find ourselves continues along its path of potentially drastic change.

I'm left with the question, "What is the most important thing I can do in order to bring about the most significant positive change?"

Book Blog 5: 50 Years from Today

I've been slowly reading the book called 50 Years from Today. It is an interesting collection of short writings by 60 influential people in the world in 2008.

I like the book because it shows a glimpse into the minds of intellectual people when they think about what life in the near future might be like.

Many of the writers predict that technology will play a huge part in transforming many different areas of life including healthcare, transportation, international relations, and commerce.

----------------------

In chapter 58, John C. Mather predicts that we will discover other earth-like planets elsewhere in the galaxy.  He also warns us that we may lose our way, as the people of ancient Alexandria, Egypt lost their way when their great library was burned, and the progress of knowledge was significantly slowed.  He admits that it would be much more difficult for us to lose our accumulated scientific knowledge today because of the internet.

In chapter 59, Ahmed Zewail reminds us that predictions of the future have often failed.  For example, Thomas Watson, the founder of IBM, predicted in 1943 that the world had a market for about five computers.  Due to progress in nanotechnology, Zewail predicts that we may have recreated a biological cell with all its intricacies in the form of a nano-machine.  Also, Zewail warns us that cheap and powerful technology will be accessible to more and more of the impoverished people of the world.  This may result, he says, in violent conflicts of a type that we have not seen before.  Lastly, Zewail highlights the importance of faith as a significant source of meaning of life.  This point of his was an uncommon one in this book. 

In chapter 60, Ross Gelbspan mentions that three prominent environmental scientists have said that humanity is either close to or beyond the point of no return in terms of staving off major climate impacts.  He fears that we will deal with these impacts by resorting to totalitarianism.  He hopes that these impacts will cause us to reform the energy sector of the world economy, thus bringing about a realization of our outdated and toxic nationalism that we have long outgrown.  He rounds out the last chapter of the book with a call to balance ourselves between the extremes of totalitarianism and laissez faire capitalism. 

Book Blog 4: 50 Years from Today

I've been slowly reading the book called 50 Years from Today. It is an interesting collection of short writings by 60 influential people in the world in 2008.

I like the book because it shows a glimpse into the minds of intellectual people when they think about what life in the near future might be like.

Many of the writers predict that technology will play a huge part in transforming many different areas of life including healthcare, transportation, international relations, and commerce.

----------------------

In chapter 54, Peter Marra predicts that in 50 years we will have lost 10% of the current bird population to global warming.

In chapter 55, Nsedu Obot-Witherspoon predicts that childhood diseases will become more prevalent due to warmer global climates.

William H. Meadows predicts in chapter 56 that humanity will rediscover the importance of preserving, instead of destroying and exploiting, the wilderness areas of the world.  

In chapter 57, Lawrence Krauss (who recently debated popular Christian apologist William Lane Craig) points out that in order for all of humanity to have available to it the amount of energy that is available to those in the West a Gigawatt power plant would need to come online every day for over forty years!  This will not happen.  Therefore, he says that our energy sources and/or consumption will need to be greatly altered in order to achieve the goal of having the energy that is available to the West available to all of humanity.  

In addition, Krauss predicts that scientists will create life in the laboratory, and that scientists will largely understand the origins of life within 50 years.  He also predicts that human intelligence could be surpassed by machine intelligence.  He's not as optimistic as Ray Kurzweil, who says that machine intelligence may surpass human intelligence in 30 years.  Krauss predicts that virtual reality will become a more significant part of life.  He points out that it already is a significant part of the lives of some people due to online communities such as Second Life, a virtual world where people meet, buy virtual land, have virtual employment, and basically live virtual lives.

Krauss ends by stating his hope that religious fundamentalism will not play as active a force against scientific progress as it played over the last thousand years. 

Pascal's Biased Wager

Catholic philosopher Blaise Pascal is credited for popularizing an argument for believing in God known as Pascal's Wager.  It's a logical argument, but I don't think it's a persuasive argument.

One form of the argument reads like this:

1. If God exists, then I have everything to gain by believing in him.
2. If God does not exist, then I have nothing to lose by believing in him.
3. Either God does exist or God does not exist.
4. Therefore, I have everything to gain or nothing to lose by believing in God.



When it's broken down into logic book-style, it looks like this:

1. If P, then Q. 
2. If R, then S.
3. Either P or R.
4. Therefore, Q or S.


The first three lines are premises. The last line is the conclusion.

Objection

One way to disagree with a logical argument such as Pascal's Wager is to object to at least one of the premises. For example, one could object to the first line, premise one. Or, one could object to the second line, premise two. One could not object to the third line of Pascal's Wager, premise three, because it is necessarily true.

Pascal's Wager is not persuasive because premise one is weak, and premise two is false.

Premise one is weak because "God" is ambiguous. Which God is it referring to? Zeus? Allah? Jesus?  All of them? Pascal's Wager is biased because the "God" he believes in is the God of Catholicism.  But, if one picks a specific God, then the premise needs evidence to support it.  For example, if one picks the God of Catholicism, then one needs to provide a lot of evidence in order to show that the premise is true about the God of Catholicism.  One would need a lot of evidence, rather than a little, because the claim of the premise is extraordinary. What evidence is there that I would gain everything by believing in the God of Catholicism?

Premise two is just false. If God does not exist, then one does have something to lose by believing in Him. What does one have to lose? Believing in truth! If one believes in a God that does not exist, then one has lost believing in the truth. This is a real and significant loss. Therefore, premise two is false.

That is why I think Pascal's Wager is a bad argument.

Limits of Intelligent Design

I listened to a podcast interview of Dr. Bill Dembski in which he stated what he considers to be the proper scope of intelligent design theory.

At roughly the 20:55 and 26:50 minute marks, he says that one cannot necessarily infer from intelligent design theory that there is an omnipotent, omniscient, all-good, or all-loving Creator God.  That would be going too far, he says.  Instead, intelligent design theory points only to some yet unknown intelligence behind the evidence of design in biological life.

I really like to hear this type of honesty and strict logic when people discuss matters that often get muddled by emotion, faith, and alleged personal revelation.  Thanks Dr. Dembski.

Book Blog 3: 50 Years from Today

I've been slowly reading the book called 50 Years from Today. It is an interesting collection of short writings by 60 influential people in the world in 2008.

I like the book because it shows a glimpse into the minds of intellectual people when they think about what life in the near future might be like.

Many of the writers predict that technology will play a huge part in transforming many different areas of life including healthcare, transportation, international relations, and commerce.

----------------------

Chapter 50 is Doug Osherhoff's.  He brings up the need to develop alternative energy sources.  Oil, he says is being used faster than new sources of it are found, and coal is dirty and harmful in the long-term.  He is concerned about global warming, and how the United States has not taken a leadership role in dealing with that issue.  Also, he is concerned with religious objections to promising scientific fields like stem-cell research.

In chapter 51, Lyman Page talks about the recent explosion of interest in cosmology.  In the past 15 years, he says, scientists have pinned down the age of the universe to 13.7 billion years old (with an error margin of 200 million years or so).  In the next 50 years, he predicts that we will have much more powerful telescopes that will enable us to better observe the trillions of other galaxies in the universe.

In chapter 52, Carol M. Browner, former administrator of the EPA, not surprisingly highlights the severity of the problem of climate change, and predicts we will have learned to respect the environment more.

Popular atheist writer and biologist Richard Dawkins says in chapter 53 that we will have killed the soul.  Humans will be known to be only material beings.  The idea that humans have a soul which is separate from the body is an idea, he says, that will have been disproved.  

Book Blog 2: 50 Years from Today

I've been slowly reading the book called 50 Years from Today. It is an interesting collection of short writings by 60 influential people in the world in 2008.

I like the book because it shows a glimpse into the minds of intellectual people when they think about what life in the near future might be like.

Many of the writers predict that technology will play a huge part in transforming many different areas of life including healthcare, transportation, international relations, and commerce.

----------------------

In chapter 47, Earl G. Brown talks about the continuing "arms race" between humans and microbes.  As humans continue to fight against microbial disease, microbes continue to evolve.   Due to the genetic variations of microbes that survive our attacks, microbial diseases become more and more resistant to our prevailing methods of attacking them.  Therefore, says Brown, we need to learn how to fight microbial disease without creating a super microbial disease in the process.  

In chapter 48, Carol Bellamy predicts that humans will increasingly view themselves as citizens of the world.  We will look more and more to meet the needs of people who are outside of our "tribe," whether it be the family, religious group, or geographical area we live in.

In chapter 49, James Canton, a self-proclaimed futurist, says that population growth, IT, nanotechnology (the redesign of matter at the atomic level), neurotechnology, healthcare, and genetics will become increasingly important issues.  He predicts that most people will have had their genomes professionally mapped and analyzed in order to get an in-depth understanding of one's personal health concerns and potential health trends.  He also has a minority view in the book I think, which is that free markets are key to global prosperity.

Book Blog 1: 50 Years from Today

I've been slowly reading the book called 50 Years from Today. It is an interesting collection of short writings by 60 influential people in the world in 2008.

I like the book because it shows a glimpse into the minds of intellectual people when they think about what life in the near future might be like.

Many of the writers predict that technology will play a huge part in transforming many different areas of life including healthcare, transportation, international relations, and commerce.

----------------------

In chapter 45, Keith B. Richburg predicts that Chinese will be widely spoken, an AIDS vaccine will have been discovered, three-quarters of the world's population will live in one of a dozen or so of the world's "megacities," GMO varieties of rice will be feed the world and grow in practically every environmental condition, and virtual reality will become common entertainment.

In chapter 46, Greg Poland predicts that cancer, diabetes, dental caries, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, obesity, and multiple sclerosis will be thought of as vaccine-preventable.  Currently highly-invasive medical procedures will become non-invasive and require little to no recovery time due to the precision of treatment and lack of undesirable side effects.  He says exercise will become more important due to the rise of global affluence and love of leisure.