![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Just Blowing Off Some Academic Steam, While I Change My Major to Math
this last semester at Biola taught me something very important. That most Biolans (including very many Torrey Students) are idiots. Please be aware that this is not a "i'm so much smarter than them" speech because i'm not God's gift to anything, but there are some serious problems in the contemporary christian thought that are just moronic. there are three people that i have in mind that are on the forefront of an effort to end the "stupid christian" motif and who are failing miserably. i agree with them that the main pull for christian academia is going to come from math and science.
The world has moved towards paradigm in which empiricism reigns. we can trace this back to the Modern era; the conintental rationalists, the British empiricists, the crisis in authority, the church, God, science BAM it's the close of the year 2007 and Science has become the iconic road block to belief in Christ. Three professors at Biola recognize this and are attempting to shift the sway, and for this i respect them. But Dr. John Mark Reynolds, Dr. J.P. Moreland, and Dr. William Lane Craig, distinguished though they are, seem laughable to secualr scholars. Their Degree speciallites are in Plato, Philosophy of Religion, and Philosophy of Religion respectively. Reynolds and Craig have absolutely no scientific background and at all. Moreland has a B.S. in Chemistry. The major thrusts of his arguments is simply this, "intelligent design is science". I'm sorry Dr. Moreland "Magic Man done it" is not science. I believe that the universe has an intelligent (a large understatement) designer. But i'm not so foolish as to claim it's science. when i look out on something beautiful and think "gee, that looks hard to make" it's still not science.
More than once i've heard Christians claim that Contemporary academia is moving away from the evolutionary standpoint because it becomes increasingly untennable, but this is simply a lie. with the publication of Stephen J. Gould's Structure of Evolutionary Theory the theory of evolution will be sustained for at least the next 50 years. These same christians believe that Reynolds, Moreland, and Craig are on the cutting edge of paradigm shifting.
Not only has Reynolds contributed nothing to the scientific paradigm (asside from his book Three Views on Creation and Evoltion co-written with Moreland which is hardly a contribution and is rather a restatement of a religiously driven agenda) he can't. His training makes him a Plato scholar (and a damn good one mind you), he's just not a scientist. He feels that he is capable of contributing to a conversation about science, but can't do the math problems that support the theories he's against. He makes the claim that, "Christianity provides a necessary catalyst to the development of science" and the modern science has its roots in the Christian west. Ask an academission with a background in math or science if that claim is true and see if they don't start wheezing from laughter. Reynolds also claims that, "Progress in Religion is precisely what produces progress in science" One need only look at the last 150 years of scientific progress to see that that's not true either. Religious progress has hit some of it's all time lows in the last 150 years. Yes, there were many more converts, many more martyrs, and genuine revivals but one can hardly observe the causality that he claims exists. there have been times of great religious progress in the Medeivel ages, but very little scientific work being done, at least not by the christian west. To Reynolds, "Ultimately religion isn't only necessary to science, but is the only way to do science." i'm not sure how i feel about this. i'm inclined to agree but probably not in the same way.
One of Reynolds main points is to show that (as is popularly thought) there exists a hostility between religiocity and the scientific method. I can think of very few people, either christian or not, who would agree with his premise. But he seems to think that this is an operating assumption in the secularization thesis (i.e. that as religious knowledge increases, scientific knowledge decreases and vice versa) and that this "myth" needs to be done away with. but the assumption Reynolds has explicated is not why the ST has weight. there is not hostility between religiocity and the scientific method at all. there is however, a hostility between religiocity and the operating assumptions of science in general. Stephen Hawking admits that, "the basic assumption of science is scientific determinism" that the events in the universe happen one way and one way only and that they could not have happened any other way given the laws that govern the our universe. so if God exists he created the laws and has no power to undue them or tweek them in any way thus limiting his freedom and thus he ceases to be God. it's not that the scientific paradigm rejects God. Good scientists know that science can't speak to the existence of God and they don't claim that it does. To many scientists, the existence of God seems unreasonable or unlikely but this is not what Reynolds understands to be the problem. He is a platonist, where his Scientific authority comes in is ambiguous to me (if not non-existent). to my knowledge he has not done one day's course study in non-linear mathematics, astrophysics, advanced biology. Please note i'm not claiming to have this knowledge either, i'm only trying show that there seems to be a problem when philosophers try to talk to the scietific paradigm. philosophers find intuitive problems and reject them when the math, whose intutitions are so basic as 1+1 shows the philosopher's conculsions to be false. Reynolds is at least a mild rationalist and holds human reason to be a type of grandiose broad stroke to which the rest of the topics of academia should adhere. He says that that is not what he is doing but with statements like, "I would rather be reasonable than religious". It's hard to see the coherence.
One note on Moreland: i don't know that much about him accept he claims to be a philosopher of science advocating intelligent design. he also also has that undergrad chemistry degree. maybe he has more meaningful things to say than other intelligent design advocates but that "i-think-i-can" B.S. doesn't appear very intimidating on a C.V.
Similarly with Craig. The man has no training in math or science yet is cited as a "Philosopher of Science" in young-earth-agenda'd DVD sereies "A priveleged Planet". Craig's B.A. was in communications from Wheaton. and he has two Ph.D.'s. one from the University of Birmingham in England (philosophy) and on from the University of Munich in Germany (religion). similarly to Reynolds, i am not aware of any official course work done in the topics he attempts to speak to. Consider this quote, "If the universe never had a beginning [as is the assumption of the scientific paradigm], then that means that the number of past events is infinite. But mathematicians recognize that the idea of an actually infinite number of things leads to self-contradictions. For example, what is infinity minus infinity? Well, mathematically, you get self- contradictory answers. This shows that infinity is just an idea in your mind, not something that actually exists in reality." the mathematician he is citing is David Hilbert whose famous thought project called "Hilbert's Hotel". the object of this example was to show that, what has been called, an "actual infinite" (i.e. a physical example of something that is infinite) is absurd. Craig conveniently leaves out that Hilbert recanted that position after Benoît B. Mandelbrot demonstrated that the coastline of Great Britain is an actual infinite. The empirical evidence suggests a rule which, if extrapolated, shows that the measured length of Britain's coast increases without limit as the measurement scale decreases towards zero. Cantor also showed in his work on the non-denumerability of the continuum that infinities come in sizes. There are denermerable and non-denumerable sets of infinites. The cardinal number of any given set defines the "size" of its infinite. all this to say that infinity minues infinite does not lead to self contradictory answers. mathematicians have at very least been aware of this since Cantor died in 1918. Craig is either lying or is too uninformed on a topic that is not in his field to be speaking on the subject. maybe this is why he has almost never debated major figure in the field of science or math in his entire career. He constantly debates a bunch of nobody's from mediocre universities. He has also not returned to few serious univiersites that he has debated at because he (i) plays semantics games, (ii) asks more questions than are capable of being answered in the time frame and then claims that his oppoonents avoid his question. One question to you Dr. Craig (from my friend Jim), if infinite doesn't exist in "reality" then what is God? and actual finite?
Final Note: I don't genuinely dislike any of the above mention persons, only their tactics for defending the Christian Faith. Reynolds, Moreland, and Craig are all very interesting and intelligent fellows if i ever met any. I hope to worship with them one day in heaven when none of this matters any more.
The world has moved towards paradigm in which empiricism reigns. we can trace this back to the Modern era; the conintental rationalists, the British empiricists, the crisis in authority, the church, God, science BAM it's the close of the year 2007 and Science has become the iconic road block to belief in Christ. Three professors at Biola recognize this and are attempting to shift the sway, and for this i respect them. But Dr. John Mark Reynolds, Dr. J.P. Moreland, and Dr. William Lane Craig, distinguished though they are, seem laughable to secualr scholars. Their Degree speciallites are in Plato, Philosophy of Religion, and Philosophy of Religion respectively. Reynolds and Craig have absolutely no scientific background and at all. Moreland has a B.S. in Chemistry. The major thrusts of his arguments is simply this, "intelligent design is science". I'm sorry Dr. Moreland "Magic Man done it" is not science. I believe that the universe has an intelligent (a large understatement) designer. But i'm not so foolish as to claim it's science. when i look out on something beautiful and think "gee, that looks hard to make" it's still not science.
More than once i've heard Christians claim that Contemporary academia is moving away from the evolutionary standpoint because it becomes increasingly untennable, but this is simply a lie. with the publication of Stephen J. Gould's Structure of Evolutionary Theory the theory of evolution will be sustained for at least the next 50 years. These same christians believe that Reynolds, Moreland, and Craig are on the cutting edge of paradigm shifting.
Not only has Reynolds contributed nothing to the scientific paradigm (asside from his book Three Views on Creation and Evoltion co-written with Moreland which is hardly a contribution and is rather a restatement of a religiously driven agenda) he can't. His training makes him a Plato scholar (and a damn good one mind you), he's just not a scientist. He feels that he is capable of contributing to a conversation about science, but can't do the math problems that support the theories he's against. He makes the claim that, "Christianity provides a necessary catalyst to the development of science" and the modern science has its roots in the Christian west. Ask an academission with a background in math or science if that claim is true and see if they don't start wheezing from laughter. Reynolds also claims that, "Progress in Religion is precisely what produces progress in science" One need only look at the last 150 years of scientific progress to see that that's not true either. Religious progress has hit some of it's all time lows in the last 150 years. Yes, there were many more converts, many more martyrs, and genuine revivals but one can hardly observe the causality that he claims exists. there have been times of great religious progress in the Medeivel ages, but very little scientific work being done, at least not by the christian west. To Reynolds, "Ultimately religion isn't only necessary to science, but is the only way to do science." i'm not sure how i feel about this. i'm inclined to agree but probably not in the same way.
One of Reynolds main points is to show that (as is popularly thought) there exists a hostility between religiocity and the scientific method. I can think of very few people, either christian or not, who would agree with his premise. But he seems to think that this is an operating assumption in the secularization thesis (i.e. that as religious knowledge increases, scientific knowledge decreases and vice versa) and that this "myth" needs to be done away with. but the assumption Reynolds has explicated is not why the ST has weight. there is not hostility between religiocity and the scientific method at all. there is however, a hostility between religiocity and the operating assumptions of science in general. Stephen Hawking admits that, "the basic assumption of science is scientific determinism" that the events in the universe happen one way and one way only and that they could not have happened any other way given the laws that govern the our universe. so if God exists he created the laws and has no power to undue them or tweek them in any way thus limiting his freedom and thus he ceases to be God. it's not that the scientific paradigm rejects God. Good scientists know that science can't speak to the existence of God and they don't claim that it does. To many scientists, the existence of God seems unreasonable or unlikely but this is not what Reynolds understands to be the problem. He is a platonist, where his Scientific authority comes in is ambiguous to me (if not non-existent). to my knowledge he has not done one day's course study in non-linear mathematics, astrophysics, advanced biology. Please note i'm not claiming to have this knowledge either, i'm only trying show that there seems to be a problem when philosophers try to talk to the scietific paradigm. philosophers find intuitive problems and reject them when the math, whose intutitions are so basic as 1+1 shows the philosopher's conculsions to be false. Reynolds is at least a mild rationalist and holds human reason to be a type of grandiose broad stroke to which the rest of the topics of academia should adhere. He says that that is not what he is doing but with statements like, "I would rather be reasonable than religious". It's hard to see the coherence.
One note on Moreland: i don't know that much about him accept he claims to be a philosopher of science advocating intelligent design. he also also has that undergrad chemistry degree. maybe he has more meaningful things to say than other intelligent design advocates but that "i-think-i-can" B.S. doesn't appear very intimidating on a C.V.
Similarly with Craig. The man has no training in math or science yet is cited as a "Philosopher of Science" in young-earth-agenda'd DVD sereies "A priveleged Planet". Craig's B.A. was in communications from Wheaton. and he has two Ph.D.'s. one from the University of Birmingham in England (philosophy) and on from the University of Munich in Germany (religion). similarly to Reynolds, i am not aware of any official course work done in the topics he attempts to speak to. Consider this quote, "If the universe never had a beginning [as is the assumption of the scientific paradigm], then that means that the number of past events is infinite. But mathematicians recognize that the idea of an actually infinite number of things leads to self-contradictions. For example, what is infinity minus infinity? Well, mathematically, you get self- contradictory answers. This shows that infinity is just an idea in your mind, not something that actually exists in reality." the mathematician he is citing is David Hilbert whose famous thought project called "Hilbert's Hotel". the object of this example was to show that, what has been called, an "actual infinite" (i.e. a physical example of something that is infinite) is absurd. Craig conveniently leaves out that Hilbert recanted that position after Benoît B. Mandelbrot demonstrated that the coastline of Great Britain is an actual infinite. The empirical evidence suggests a rule which, if extrapolated, shows that the measured length of Britain's coast increases without limit as the measurement scale decreases towards zero. Cantor also showed in his work on the non-denumerability of the continuum that infinities come in sizes. There are denermerable and non-denumerable sets of infinites. The cardinal number of any given set defines the "size" of its infinite. all this to say that infinity minues infinite does not lead to self contradictory answers. mathematicians have at very least been aware of this since Cantor died in 1918. Craig is either lying or is too uninformed on a topic that is not in his field to be speaking on the subject. maybe this is why he has almost never debated major figure in the field of science or math in his entire career. He constantly debates a bunch of nobody's from mediocre universities. He has also not returned to few serious univiersites that he has debated at because he (i) plays semantics games, (ii) asks more questions than are capable of being answered in the time frame and then claims that his oppoonents avoid his question. One question to you Dr. Craig (from my friend Jim), if infinite doesn't exist in "reality" then what is God? and actual finite?
Final Note: I don't genuinely dislike any of the above mention persons, only their tactics for defending the Christian Faith. Reynolds, Moreland, and Craig are all very interesting and intelligent fellows if i ever met any. I hope to worship with them one day in heaven when none of this matters any more.