50 Famous Academics & Scientists Talk About God

[_MrStakhanovite]

With that, I'm going to recommend strongly that Stak read it so he can see Geisler's take on Hume and Kant. It's epic.

Not sure if I'm walking into a trap.........

[_EAllusion]

With that, I'm going to recommend strongly that Stak read it so he can see Geisler's take on Hume and Kant. It's epic.

Not sure if I'm walking into a trap.........

They rely on brilliant men like Ravi Zacharias to refute "Eastern logic" by pointing out that buses will hurt no matter what part of the world you are in when they hit you. Take that, China.

The sections on Kant and Hume are flat awesome. You'll learn how both their philosophical views fail because they trivially violate the law of non-contradiction (more precisely, they are trivially and easily shown to be self-refuting.) When he uses unnamed student to say it can't be that easy, he triumphantly quotes his favorite source, Reader's Digest, and says that's what happens when a beautiful theory means a brutal gang of facts.

I'd quote it off googlebooks, but you have a copy on your person, so get readin'. Instead, I'll leave you with a teaser quote on Kant:

"Whew! Why is it that the average person on the street doesn't doubt what he sees with his own two eyes, but supposedly brilliant philosophers do?"

[_mentalgymnast]

I've read It Don't have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. Without hyperbole, it's one of the worst works of apologetics I've read and plays a role in setting the standard for what I think of as bad apologetics. It's fundamentalist boilerplate similar to what you'd find from likeminded sources - with a standard focus on design arguments and anti-evolution material, resurrection arguments, etc. - , but exceptionally poor in its execution. If I recall, at one point Geisler argues something to the effect of "If there is no God, then why is there something rather than nothing? Either someone created something or no one did. If you believe something exists, then you don't have enough faith to be an atheist."

With that, I'm going to recommend strongly that Stak read it so he can see Geisler's take on Hume and Kant. It's epic.

Well, I haven't read it yet. Like I said, it looked like a good read. I'm finding out now that I have the book that Geisler has written anti-mormon material along with his 60+ books.

In the late 20th Century, Geisler entered the anti-Mormon arena. In 1997 he co-authored When Cultists Ask: A Popular Handbook on Cultic Misinterpretation, with Ron Rhodes. Forty-seven of the articles listed in the index, regarded Mormonism. In 1998, he helped put together a book entitled The Counterfeit Gospel of Mormonism, published by Harvest House publishers in Eugene, Oregon.

From what I've read online to this point, it looks like he is one of the premier writers for the Christian Evangelical movement in regards to being a defender of the faith. Anyway, I'm going to read the book and see what goes. There may be some things to glean from their apologetics. After all, we believe:

We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true Mormons. Joseph Smith

"I want to say to my friends that we believe in all good. If you can find a truth in heaven, earth or hell, it belongs to our doctrine. We believe it; it is ours; we claim it." Brigham Young

...the most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter Day Saints and sectarians was, that the latter were all circumscribed by some peculiar creed, which deprived it's members of the priveledge of believing anything not contained therein, whereas the Latter Day Saints have no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time. Joseph Smith

One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to recieve truth. Let it come from where it may. Joseph Smith

But back to Schmo's OP. I think that there some great thinkers/scientists in the Mormon tradition that would be of interest to some of these atheists if they were to have an opportunity to read some of their publications. Some of Widstoe's, Eyring's, Merrill's, and Talmage's early musings/writings on science/religion/Mormonism and man's place in the cosmos would read a bit different than some of the traditional Christian apologetic fundamentalist pablum they've cast to the wayside with possibly good reason.

My guess is, however, that the writings of these LDS scientists who have written extensively on science and Mormonism are not on the radar of most of these guys who bore their atheistic testimony in the video Schmo referred to.

Regards,
MG

[_MrStakhanovite]

So I hit up the index on Kant and here is what I read on page 60:

Kant commits the same error as Hume--he violates the Law of Noncontradiction. He contradicts his own premise by saying that no one can know the real world while he claims to know something about it, namely that the real world is unknowable!

emphasis in the orginal.

EA may not be anonymous but he sure does deliver.

[_mikwut]

Thanks Schmoe,

I really enjoyed that. I always like something interesting in my day. My take is whenever the fancy names are shown to be real people whether Christian, theist, atheist or agnostic - that humanness makes me question everyone and everything. I found myself saying why would a world renowned physicist, chemist, economist, philosopher, ethnologist, mathematician, anthropologist etc.. be anymore qualified to state whether there is or isn't an afterlife, a God or not? It made me think isn't the herd mentality that believers are often criticized with just as valid for non-believers? I mean I didn't hear any knock down arguments - pretty basic stuff when it came to why they don't believe. Subjectivity is just as important to non-belief as to belief. And that isn't to say they are superficial and nonsensical I don't think that. It just makes me question, that something more is missing. Attitude is often misunderstood as actual evidence for pov from both sides.

For example, when that same video production could be done from the other side of belief, for example the likes of Charles Hard Townes, Nobel Prize winning Physicist, Ian Barber, World Renowned Physicist, Freeman Dyson, Professor of Physics, Princeton University, Keith Ward, Philosopher Univ. of Oxford, Mario Beauregard, Professor of Neuroscience Univ. Montreal, Malcolm Jeeves, Professor of Psychology at the University of St. Andrews former Pres. Of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, John Polkinghorne, Particle Physics Professor Univ. of Cambridge, Stephen Barr, Professor of Particle Physics Bartol Research Institute, DE, Michael Polanyi, World Renowned Chemist and Philsopher Oxford University, James H. Austin, Professor of Neurology, University of Colorado, Jennifer Wiseman, Chief of the Laboratory, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Francis Collins, Led Human Genone Project, Sir Arthur Eddington, George Ellis, Professor of Mathematics Univ. of Cape Town, John Lennox Oxford Mathematics Professor, Holmes Rolston, Professor of Philosophy, Colorado State University, Arthur Peacocke, Professor of biochemistry Oxford University, Simon Conway Morris, Cambrdige Paleontologist Biologist, Ronald Hoffmann, Nobel Prize winnng Chemist, Prof. Cornell University, Denis Alexander, Cambridge Professor of Human Evolution, Director of the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Professor of Philosophy Yale University, David Ritz, Finkelstein, Physics Professor author Quantum Relativity, Martinez Joseph Hewlett, Professor Molecular Cellular Biology Univ. Arizona, John Hedley Brooke – Professor of Science and Religion University of Oxford, Richard Swinburne, Oxford Philosopher, Brian Leftow Philosphy Professor Oxford University, John Leslie, World Renowned Philosopher, Thomas Patrick Flint, Professor of Philosophy Notre Dame, Owen Gingerich, Professor Astronomy Harvard University etc.. how would us without those credentials be able to decide if the credentials mean anything? And I know you didn't present it as an authoritative argument and I don't mean it that way either.

I am left with something in the brain beyond us is going on, but and then the question becomes are we able to legitimately transcend what the amygdala forces on us because of evolutionary purposes?

I would say the only parties I disagree with completely on the video are for example Quentin Skinner when he says he doesn't find any interest in the question - I am simply fascinated by it! But I suppose that is a what kind of ice cream disagreement.

Anyway, thanks for the link hope your well.

my regards, mikwut

[_mentalgymnast]

For example, when that same video production could be done from the other side of belief, for example the likes...John Polkinghorne, Particle Physics Professor Univ. of Cambridge...

You may enjoy this:

http://being.publicradio.org/programs/quarks/

I really enjoyed it a few years ago when it first was made available.

Regards,
MG

[_Some Schmo]

I didn't know you could talk about religion at the Toastmasters.

It's been my experience (as an officer of our club) they let us do what we want. Most of the rules have to do with fees and taxes. The rest are guidelines.

If that's a rule, I'm not aware of it and neither is our group. I'm not aware of any topic restrictions, come to think of it. Just about everyone in our charter has mentioned his/her relationship to god/church in a speech at one point or another. That's pretty much what prompted my speech topic.

[_MrStakhanovite]

I didn't know you could talk about religion at the Toastmasters.

It's been my experience (as an officer of our club) they let us do what we want. Most of the rules have to do with fees and taxes. The rest are guidelines.

If that's a rule, I'm not aware of it and neither is our group. I'm not aware of any topic restrictions, come to think of it. Just about everyone in our charter has mentioned his/her relationship to god/church in a speech at one point or another. That's pretty much what prompted my speech topic.

Cool, I thought it was one of those topics that was avoided, like politics and sex.

[_mentalgymnast]

I've read It Don't have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. Without hyperbole, it's one of the worst works of apologetics I've read and plays a role in setting the standard for what I think of as bad apologetics. It's fundamentalist boilerplate similar to what you'd find from likeminded sources - with a standard focus on design arguments and anti-evolution material, resurrection arguments, etc. - , but exceptionally poor in its execution. If I recall, at one point Geisler argues something to the effect of "If there is no God, then why is there something rather than nothing? Either someone created something or no one did. If you believe something exists, then you don't have enough faith to be an atheist."

So far I'd have to agree with you. I've read up through pg. 46 so far and feel like I'm reading a training manual for evangelical door to door messengers. Circular reasoning, appeal to authority, and a number of other logical fallacies in play so far.

Oh well. I paid for the book, I guess I'll keep reading it to see what I can get out of it. So far I'm not overly impressed.

Regards,
MG

[_MrStakhanovite]

So far I'd have to agree with you. I've read up through pg. 46 so far and feel like I'm reading a training manual for evangelical door to door messengers. Circular reasoning, appeal to authority, and a number of other logical fallacies in play so far.

Oh well. I paid for the book, I guess I'll keep reading it to see what I can get out of it. So far I'm not overly impressed.

Regards,
MG

I bought it too, but I still gain a lot from these types of books. This is the kinda stuff people who work in apologetic ministries read and apply to their evangelization.