Re: [asa] Lawrence Krauss Defends New Atheism

This is very helpful, Mike, thank you for point us to it. I had suspected
that there was more to this exchange than Krauss was saying. It's hard to
develop/defend the "mystery" response in a forum like that, without being
given the luxury of (say) 5 to 10 minutes of uninterrupted time, and that
could have been a factor as well. I'm still not overly impressed with the
kinds of things that Miller and many others say, relative to larger
questions about science and religion, but if he said what is reported here
I'm more in sympathy with his answer than I was simply from reading Krauss.
(No surprise there.)

Here is an excerpt on the miracle issue from Polkinghorne's newest book,
"Theology in the Context of Science," which I'm reviewing for "First
Things." It gets at part of what Miller is getting at, according to the
quoted paragraph below.

Concerning the evidence for the resurrection, P quite rightly says (p.
141), "I believe that all truth-seeking people should be willing to consider
this evidence seriously. I do not pretend that in the end all will turn out
to weigh that evidence in the same way that I do. There are many less
focused considerations that will influence judgement about so significant
and counterintuitive a matter. Those with an unrevisable commitment to the
sufficiency of a reductionist naturalism will follow David Hume and simply
refuse to countenance the possibility of the miraculous, whatever the
alleged evidence. Those of us who are Christians will be influenced in our
conclusions by what we affirm to be our contemporary experience of the
hidden but real presence of the risen Christ, encountered in sacramental
worship. What I do claim is that Christian theology can be open and willing
to accept the challenge to offer motivations for its beliefs, in the spirit
that is so natural when that theology is being done in the context of
science. In that context, detailed historical analysis of the kind that N.
T. Wright gives in *The Resurrection of the Son of God* is much to be
welcomed."

In short, P and Miller both confess that reason has its limits; they would
also say (no doubt) that reasonable people can believe things that reason
cannot demonstrate. This is true (IMO), but atheists like Krauss don't
accept the second part, and often project an attitude and tone that also
seems to reject even the first part (about the limits of reason). What is
needed here, culturally, is more genuine tolerance for that difference of
opinion. Religious people are obviously capable of plenty of intolerance --
often (ironically) directed toward equally religious people who differ on
some of the details -- but in this particular case I do think it is the
irreligious people who carry the lion's share of the blame. Philosophers as
smart as David Hume and scientists as smart as Richard Dawkins differ with
Hume and Dawkins about matters such as this, and it's incumbent upon
fair-minded unbelievers not only to admit this but also to accept this.

At the same time, it's incumbent on some of the brighter religious folk
(I'm thinking of those who write books and articles attacking aspects of
mainstream science) to see the value of a via media such as that offered by
Polkinghorne and others -- i.e., to see the value of religious thinkers who
do not believe that atheists are necessarily wicked (in the sense of being
any more wicked than religious people) or stupid or obstinate (for not
seeing or for refusing to see evidence for design), but who do believe that
theism is a more persuasive metaphysical framework for science than atheism.
 Miller is probably in this category, and Collins also. John Lennox (an
Oxford mathematician who is now involved with debating atheists) certainly
is.

A very large number of religious believers, in my experience, find such an
open-minded approach inadequate -- either inadequate for their own faith
(they want more certainty than it is capable of providing) or inadequate for
apologetics (since it can't be used to beat atheists over the head in
cultural warfare). However, quite a few highly educated believers (such as
academics or pastors or attorneys and other professionals) do seem attracted
to such an attitude. I don't think it's a case of "mushy accommodationism,"
as some seem to think; rather, I think it reflects the way the world
actually looks to them, from where they sit both intellectually and
socially. Certainly there isn't anything "mushy" about such a view --
people like P, Lennox, Keith Ward, or Bob Russell are as smart as any of
their critics. Nor do I find it "accommodationist" in a negative sense of
that word, simply to see the difficulty of bringing closure to debates about
metaphysics: it reflects a reality about ultimate beliefs and those who are
willing to discuss them.

Ted

>>> "Nucacids" <nucacids@wowway.com> 7/1/2009 5:01 PM >>> wrote:

A helpful update about Miller. Someone wrote:

"Incidentally, I was at the panel where Krauss confronted his fellow
panelists about the virgin birth, and Miller had an interesting answer.
Miller said he could just say it's a mystery, in which case he'd be open to
attack for not being scientific. Alternately, he could discuss the prospects
for parthenogenesis in mammals, in which case, Krauss could turn and say
"see, you don't think it's a miracle."

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jul 2 11:06:46 2009