A theological fallacy in the Intelligent Design argument

Stephen Myer, and much of the intelligent design movement, generally approach their arguments for God by pointing to signs of teleology, such as “biological information” or genetic “coding” or complex organic systems; they then argue that the standard Neo-Darwinian model of random mutation with natural selection cannot account for the origin and rich diversity of those phenomenon; they then posit that this phenomena must come from an intelligent designer, often appealing to our intuition and experience, namely with regard to artifacts (computers, machines, a clock, etc. etc.).

Plutarch on supernatural accounts

In the history of the historiographical study of the bible, there has always been the question of how to approach supernatural phenomena. Some, following Bultmann’s demythologizing method, move to essentially rid historical reconstruction of anything magical or miraculous, others, for example an NT Wright, or other apologetic minded historians, tend to defend the historicity of supernatural events and give a theological grounding. Others take a more middle road, for example Maurice Casey, who was an atheist and a new testament scholar, allowed for things like healings and the like, if the historical evidence was strong enough, noting that one could give a naturalistic account of such events (psycho-somatic or the like) if one so pleases, yet others take a more agnostic approach, such as Dale Alison, who allows for supernatural events, if the historical evidence is strong enough, noting that the world is much stranger than any dogmatic naturalistic or theological system can make sense of.

Apologetics and Theology in Pannenberg’s Introduction to Systematic Theology

Wolfhart Pannenberg’s systematic theology begins with a slim volume, an introduction; which, in my mind situates how theology needs to be done today. One important aspect of the volume is its focus on the necessity to demonstrate the truth of the Christian claims in order to do any theology whatsoever, he writes:

A Simple Ontological Argument for God

The following is a simple ontological argument, based loosely on Anselm’s,

Joshua Rasmussen’s argument from contingency

Some comments on Joshua Rasmussen’s argument from contingency.

In general, I think that many of the classical cosmological arguments (including contingency arguments), taken with some adjustments and tweaking over the centuries, are persuasive. Some of my favorites of these arguments would be John Duns Scotus’s God as first principle, and the cosmological argument of Samuel Clark, the various versions of the Kalam cosmological argument, and especially the Hegelian argument from the finite to the infinite.

Rasmussen’s argument from contingency is an admirable piece of natural theology, and it seems to be a genuinely new and well thought out cosmological argument. Nevertheless, I want to point out some issues that I have with the argument, these may have been addressed already elsewhere, or they may be vapid concerns, but they are thoughts I had reading the article.

An argument for God from the coherence of moral claims

The argument I will present here depends on one claim: moral statements make coherent sense; they are real claims that can be true or false and that have content that can be intelligible on the claim’s own terms. The argument does not depend on any specific moral truth, or whether one can know any moral truth. It is not interested in the origins of moral knowledge or moral opinion; it merely depends on the claim that a moral statement is, in fact, possible and is not mere nonsense. An example of a claim with no coherent sense might be the claim “the current king of France is bald,” or “every angle on a circle is acute.” These claims are neither true nor false, they are nonsense. One reason for this is that each claim assumes a falsehood, the existence of angles on circles, and the existence of a current king of France.

A Great Blog to Follow

The writer of the foreword to my first book All Things in Common: The Economic Practices of the early Christians, and my spiritual brother, Edgar Foster keeps a blog of his theological reflections. It’s a very learned and interesting blog covering everything from textual criticism to early Christian history, to Hebrew Bible exegesis to medieval philosophy and theology, always scholarly and a great resource, I highly recommend it.

Love and Solidarity in the Light of Death and Eternity

Originally published by Macrina Magazine, May 9, 2020

Gregory of Nyssa’s True Being

In my view the definition of truth is this: not to have a mistaken apprehension of Being. Falsehood is a kind of impression which arises in the understanding about nonbeing: as though what does not exist does, in fact, exist. But truth is the sure apprehension of real Being.

. . .

It seems to me that at the time the great Moses was instructed in the theophany he came to know that none of those things which are apprehended by sense perception and contemplated by the understanding really subsists, but that the transcendent essence and cause of the universe, on which everything depends, alone subsists.

For even if the understanding looks upon any other existing things, reason observes in absolutely none of them the self-sufficiency by which they could exist without participating in true Being. On the other hand, that which is always the same, neither increasing nor diminishing, immutable to all change whether to better or to worse (for it is far removed from the inferior and it has no superior), standing in need of nothing else, alone desirable, participated in by all but not lessened by their participation—this is truly real Being. And the apprehension of it is the knowledge of truth.[1]

Carrier’s Cheap Apologetics

Richard Carrier is mostly known as a Jesus mythicist, using Beysian probability along with very dubious historical methodology, to construct an argument that the historical Jesus doesn’t exist. This argument has not been taken seriously by almost any one in historical Jesus/Christian origins scholarship or historiography in general, and it shouldn’t be, since the whole methodology is flawed and constructed in order to lead to the conclusion Carrier wants (some reviews can be found here, here, and here).

However, Richard Carrier has (relatively recently) decided to take a swipe at philosophical theology, attempting to attack Edward Feser’s Five Proofs of the Existence of God. I don’t know what I was expecting when I decided to take a read through it, but here are some highlights.