From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: FAQ critique
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 14:18:38 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

Jeffrey D Koperski <jkopersk@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> writes:
> Quoting from the FAq:
> "What about all the famous scientists and philosophers who have
> concluded that God exists?" 
[...]
>         The point of appealing to theistic philosophers is that 
>         philosophers are the "experts in the field" when it comes
>         to arguments and evidence for the existence of God.

Philosophers are certainly experts when it comes to spotting fallacies in an
argument, or telling you what so-and-so's argument actually is, but their
opinion that some unspecified argument proves that God exists is worthless
unless substantiated by reproducing the argument in question.

After all, if I said "Famous scientists like Fred Hoyle have concluded that
the universe is in a steady state and has been for all time", would you think
that convincing?  No, you'd want to know what Hoyle's evidence was which led
him to that conclusion.

>                    Well-respected theistic philosophers show that 
>         belief in the existence of God is a rational one.

That it can be rational is not in doubt.  Even stupid and incorrect decisions
can be rational.

>         many rational beliefs are false (consider the bulk of 
>         beliefs held by all physicists in the last century), but 
>         they are nonetheless rational until shown to be false or 
>         until the putative justification is removed.

They are rational *even if* shown to be false.  "Rational" means that a
process of reasoning was used; not that the right answer was arrived at.  For
instance, you may have begun your rational deduction from false premises.

>         When theists point to famous theistic scientists, they 
>         might be doing one of two things.  First, they might be 
>         making a fallacious appeal to authority, since, as you 
>         have pointed out, scientists are not the experts in the 
>         field when it comes to God.  Second, they might 
>         rightfully be showing that science has no intrinsic 
>         conflict with religion.

The second is a valid point, but I don't think it's one that any atheist
would disagree with, so why would theists feel the need to make it?  About
once a week on talk.origins people have to explain that you *can* be a
scientist and believe in God.  Often it's atheists who explain this.  They
have to explain because the *religious* Creationists somehow feel that
science threatens their religious beliefs.

>                                     That science does somehow 
>         disconfirm or contradict theism is an argument I have 
>         seen many times offered up by atheists.

Science certainly contradicts much that is said in the Bible.  That doesn't
make science contradict religion in general.  Just a peculiarly literalist
interpretation of one particular religion.

>                                                If this were so, 
>         then theistic scientists (i.e., experts in the field of 
>         science) should be able to detect such conflicts and 
>         therefore must recant on one side or the other.

Not really.  The human mind is excellent at handling cognitive dissonance. 
The impression I get is that most people have conflicting beliefs; some are
easier to pin down on this than others, though.

>         I'm not sure how "theists view their religious leaders"
>         or in what way this differs from atheistic scientists and
>         philosophers.

Well, when the Pope says it's OK to hang criminals and sinful to not pay your
taxes, people actually pay him some attention.  When CofE leaders in the UK
talk about poverty and homelessness, they often get drawn into serious debate
with politicians.  Religious leaders are given a much more general sense of
authority than scientists.

Scientists are often not taken seriously even within other scientific fields,
let alone in general debate.

> Much information appears in the Ecclesiastical History of 
> Eusebius (about 320 C.E.).  It is worthless as historical 
> material because of the deliberate falsification of the wily 
> Eusebius who is generally acknowledged as 'the first thoroughly 
> dishonest historian of antiquity.' It is Eusebius who is 
> generally given the title of authorship for this material. 
> 
>         As a philosopher, I am not competent to judge Eusebius's 
>         work, but it clear this is far too harsh.  As I scan the 
>         few history books I have at hand that cover the first and 
>         second century, all cite Eusebius.  The fact of the 
>         matter (if not the FAQ on the matter) is that, far from 
>         considering this work "worthless," historians use
>         Eusebius as a key source.

Ah, but you fail to say what those historians are studying.  I wouldn't
expect a Holocaust Revisionist to write an accurate history of World War II,
but I see no reason why such a person (*) shouldn't write accurately about
the agricultural revolution.

>         Even if we might (rightfully) do away with Eusebius's own 
>         faulty interpretations, his ready use of earlier author's
>         material is quite valuable.  Writing him off as 
>         "worthless" is typical of this debate, however.  Theists 
>         and atheists alike are much too quick to jump on the 
>         obvious weaknesses on the other side and very seldom 
>         concede when a good point has been made.  Every 
>         philosophical position has problems and (almost) every 
>         one has some good points.    

I seem to remember there is more stuff about Eusebius in the
soc.religion.christian FAQ file, but it doesn't seem to be in news.answers.


mathew
[ (*) I use the term loosely. ]
-- 
Lung cancer and arteriosclerosis.
For people who like to smoke.