EMBARRASSING QUESTIONS and SCIENTIFIC PRETENSIONS – David Berlinski
EMBARRASSING QUESTIONS 2 – William Lane Craig
EMBARRASSING QUESTIONS 3 – William Lane Craig

EMBARRASSING QUESTIONS

 

A secular Jew, DAVID BERLINSKI nonetheless delivers a biting DEFENSE of RELIGIOUS THOUGHT.

This author has spent his career writing about mathematics and the sciences.  

David Berlinski turns the scientific community’s cherished SKEPTICISM back on itself, DARING to ASK and ANSWER some rather:

EMBARRASSING QUESTIONS:

 

Has anyone provided a PROOF of GOD’s INEXISTENCE? Not even close.

 

Has quantum cosmology EXPLAINED the EMERGENCE of the UNIVERSE or  WHY  IT IS HERE? Not even close.

 

 Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be FINE-TUNED to ALLOW for the existence of life? Not even close.

 

 Are physicists and biologists willing to BELIEVE in ANYTHING so long as it is NOT religious thought?  Close enough.

 

 

Has RATIONALISM in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is GOOD, what is RIGHT, and what is MORAL? Not close enough.

 

 Has SECULARISM in the TERRIBLE twentieth century been a FORCE FOR GOOD?  Not even close to being close.

 

 

 Is there a narrow and OPPRESSIVE ORTHODOXY of thought and opinion  WITHIN the SCIENCES? Close enough.

 

 Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that RELIGIOUS BELIEF is IR-RATIONAL? Not even ballpark.

 

Is SCIENTIFIC ATHEISM a FRIVOLOUS EXERCISE in INTELLECTUAL CONTEMPT? Dead on.

 

 

P.S.

“CREATION” or “EVOLUTION”?

 

Clarence Darrow, a famous Chicago lawyer, and William Jennings Bryan, defender of Fundamentalism, have a friendly chat in a courtroom during the Scopes evolution trial. Darrow defended John T. Scopes, a biology teacher, who decided to test the new Tenessee law banning the teaching of evolution. Bryan took the stand for the prosecution as a bible expert. The trial in 1925 ended in conviction of Scopes. ca. 1925 Dayton, Tennessee, USA

 

WHAT EXACTLY DOES the “EVIDENCE” EXPLAIN?

 

The “EMPIRICAL” (observable)  and PHILOSOPHIC (opinion) –

“SCIENCE” vs “SCIENTISM”

 

 

 

 

“The OFFSPRING THAT LEAVE THE MOST OFFSPRING SURVIVE” DOES NOT EXPLAIN ANYTHING” – it is a TAUTOLOGY  (circular reasoning)

 

 

 

The STATEMENT that HUMANITY ‘EVOLVED” from FISH IS NOT IMPRESSIVE UNLESS YOU SHOW HOW, IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED

 

 

“TELL ME ANYTHING YOU KNOW ABOUT ‘EVOLUTION'”

 

 

RANDOM ACCIDENT VS “INTELLIGENT DESIGN”

QUESTIONS – SKEPTICISM – “FUNDAMENTALISM” ???

 

Phillip E. Johnson: “IF WE ARE ALL HONEST, the ORIGIN and VARIETY of LIFE is STILL an ‘UNSOLVED MYSTERY”!