A debate on ST’s wall following a public debate between Prof Lawrence Krauss and Dr
William Lane Craig entitled “Is it reasonable to believe there is a God?”,
which I was unfortunately unable to attend myself.
My friends said that Krauss was skilled in ridicule and rebuttal, arguing that science is the “only way to new knowledge” and challenging theists to give “a single example of a contribution to human knowledge that theology has provided in the last 500 years.”
Wei Hong: A major problem with public debates is that rhetoric stymies dialectic; winning the crowd rather than winning the intellectual argument.
Questions concerning any “way to new knowledge” and “reasonable to believe” are inherently those of epistemology, a field which demonstrably encompasses far beyond the hypothetico-deductive model alone.
Krauss' challenge to give "a single example of a contribution to human [scientific] knowledge that theology has provided in the last 500 years" is a glib but ultimately meaningless one, for it presupposes science and religion as dichotomous paradigms acting over an identical magisterium.
In 1927, Georges Lemaître, priest and physics professor, building upon Einstein's theory of general relativity, proposed a cosmological model he described as “the Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of the creation.” This idea was met with ridicule by the scientific community, some of whom found its religious overtones unsettling. Today it is known by the perjorative name coined by its opponents, the “big bang theory.”
An atheist friend argued that science and religion are indeed dichotomous, based on his assumption that religion is uncritical acceptance of dogma that does not allow questioning.
Wei Hong: An argument, no matter how seemingly flawless, nevertheless rests upon its presuppositions. Also, one cannot hope to mount a meaningful polemic against a complex idea with only pop-culture assumptions and non-expert opinions. Contrary to popular preconception, the Bible actually advises people to not blindly believe everything they are told, but to test the truth of every word, including via empirical observation.
The atheist friend acknowledged that the Bible teaches us to “not take things for granted” and to “constantly question,” yet nevertheless added that religion requires unquestionable belief, and that “any religious people who believe otherwise” he would not consider to be “religious” but rather “agnostic.”
Wei Hong: It seems that you therefore do not consider the Biblical Christianity to be "religious." While I am not one to put much emphasis on labels, I will say that many Christians gladly share this sentiment of yours.
My friends said that Krauss was skilled in ridicule and rebuttal, arguing that science is the “only way to new knowledge” and challenging theists to give “a single example of a contribution to human knowledge that theology has provided in the last 500 years.”
Wei Hong: A major problem with public debates is that rhetoric stymies dialectic; winning the crowd rather than winning the intellectual argument.
Questions concerning any “way to new knowledge” and “reasonable to believe” are inherently those of epistemology, a field which demonstrably encompasses far beyond the hypothetico-deductive model alone.
Krauss' challenge to give "a single example of a contribution to human [scientific] knowledge that theology has provided in the last 500 years" is a glib but ultimately meaningless one, for it presupposes science and religion as dichotomous paradigms acting over an identical magisterium.
In 1927, Georges Lemaître, priest and physics professor, building upon Einstein's theory of general relativity, proposed a cosmological model he described as “the Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of the creation.” This idea was met with ridicule by the scientific community, some of whom found its religious overtones unsettling. Today it is known by the perjorative name coined by its opponents, the “big bang theory.”
An atheist friend argued that science and religion are indeed dichotomous, based on his assumption that religion is uncritical acceptance of dogma that does not allow questioning.
Wei Hong: An argument, no matter how seemingly flawless, nevertheless rests upon its presuppositions. Also, one cannot hope to mount a meaningful polemic against a complex idea with only pop-culture assumptions and non-expert opinions. Contrary to popular preconception, the Bible actually advises people to not blindly believe everything they are told, but to test the truth of every word, including via empirical observation.
The atheist friend acknowledged that the Bible teaches us to “not take things for granted” and to “constantly question,” yet nevertheless added that religion requires unquestionable belief, and that “any religious people who believe otherwise” he would not consider to be “religious” but rather “agnostic.”
Wei Hong: It seems that you therefore do not consider the Biblical Christianity to be "religious." While I am not one to put much emphasis on labels, I will say that many Christians gladly share this sentiment of yours.
No comments:
Post a Comment