ID.Plus

Cambridge Union Debate: 'This house believes God is not a delusion''

2012-01-18T12:01:00.062Z

This debate, on the motion 'This house believes God is not a delusion', took place on Thursday 20th October 2011 at a packed Cambridge Union Society. The motion was carried by 14 votes (cf. the end of this video and also here).

Here are Craig's post-debate thoughts in interview with Frank Beckwith:

Here's my own post-debate analysis...

Defining the issue

It seemed clear to Bill and myself that the proposition before the house was not 'Does God Exist?' or 'Is the belief that God exists true?' Rather, the motion was 'This house believes belief in God is not a delusion' - i.e. that the opposition would have to argue, a la Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion (Bantam, 2006), that belief in God was a delusion, not merely false or mistaken. All we would needed to argue, by contrast, was that whether or not belief in God was correct, it isn't a delusion. Of course, one way to argue this is to argue that God actually exists, since if belief in God is true then by definition it cannot be a delusion. While 'delusion' can mean simply 'a false belief', given the context of the motion before the house and what we would explicitly state that we were arguing for, it would clearly not be enough for the opposition to merely argue that belief in God was false; rather, they would need to argue that belief in God was a delusion in the stronger sense of the term. Hence, in my opening speech I gave a standard medical definition of what it is for a belief to be a delusion. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV 2000, p. 765) a delusion is:

‘A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith)…’ (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

It seems to me that it is perfectly legitimate for the house to set the terms of the debate to which the opposition should respond, at least if they avoid using 'squirrel' terms (i.e. non-standard definitions employed to achieve a hollow definitional victory). In defining 'delusion' using a standard medical textbook quoted by a standard encyclopedia of philosophy we certainly avoided using 'squirrel' terms to win a cheap victory. Indeed, since it followed from this medical definition that belief in God is not a delusion, the house had to waive a definitional victory in order to allow the debate to proceed. This was not merely a rhetorical gambit on our part to appear magnanimous! It was, however, only fair to point out that in agreeing to argue against the motion the opposition were accepting the high burden of proof that came with arguing that belief in God is a delusion. If this were not so the motion before the house would surely have taken the more usual form of 'This house believes God exists'.

However, the opposition decided to ignore the interpretation of the motion offered by the house and to treat 'delusion' as a synonym for 'a false impression'. In his opening speech Andrew Copson said:

'On our side of your chamber we have a copy of the Oxford Shorter English Dictionary... from 1993 and our dictionary defines delusion as "a false impression or opinion" and with respect to the assembled medical knowledge cited by the proposition we're going to go with that if that's alright by you. Obviously it's up to you whether or not our definition, or the more involved and impossible to argue against definition advanced by the proposition, is the one you should be making your decision on the basis of this evening.'

Since the house won the motion, the audience apparently took Copson at his word and decided that it was legitimate for the house to interpret 'delusion' as more than a synonym for 'false' in the motion. This was certainly how Bill and I understood the motion, and it seems that on this basis the house was (on balance) willing to endorse the motion.

The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on historical principles, third edition (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984) defines a delusion as: 'a fixed false opinion with regard to objective things, esp. as a form of mental derangement.' (p. 514). The Concise Oxford Dictionary, tenth edition (OUP, 1999) defines a delusion as: 'an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is not in accordance with a generally accepted reality.' (p. 379) So generally accepted a belief as theism, whether true or false, can hardly be called idiosyncratic. The Oxford Dictionary of English, third edition (OUP, 2010) defines a delusion as: 'an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.' (p. 464.) Likewise, the online Oxford Dictionaries provides the following definition of 'delusion':

'Pronunciation: /dɪˈl(j)uːʒ(ə)n/

noun

an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder:

the delusion of being watched

[mass noun] the action of deluding or the state of being deluded:

what a capacity television has for delusion

Phrases

delusions of grandeur

a false impression of one’s own importance.

Derivatives

delusional

adjective

Origin:

late Middle English (in the sense 'act of deluding or of being deluded'): from late Latin delusio(n-), from the verb deludere (seedelude).'

cf. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/delusion?q=delusion

Peter S. Williams (a full audio of my opening speech is available here)

For more on the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument cf. William Lane Craig, 'Why Does Anything At All Exist?'

For more on the Moral Argument cf. Peter S. Williams, 'Meta-Ethics and God'

For more on the Ontological Argument cf. Peter S. Williams, 'The Ontological Argument'

Respectful attention is paid to the cosmological and ontological arguments by atheist Yujinn Nagasawa's The Existence of God: A Philosophical Introduction (Routledge, 2011)

Andrew Copson

Before the debate Andrew Copson unfortunately attempted to smear Craig in the media.

Here's a (somewhat hot under the collar) analysis and response to Copson's smears:

Copson gave three arguments for the opposition's position that God is a delusion:

1) He launched an attack upon all explanations of the natural world framed in terms of intelligent design, on the grounds that these explanations are arguments from ignorance that illegitimately extend our knowledge of intentionality to explain things that lack it. Copson thus straw man's design arguments as arguments from ignorance and begs the question in favour of metaphysically naturalistic explanations of the natural world. The house didn't make a design argument, but had we done so we wouldn't have offered an argument from ignorance!

Moreover, Andrew's contention that since some gods 'originate as ideas to explain what we cannot understand and not because people look around them and draw a reasonable conclusion that God exists...' therefore belief in God is a delusion commits the genetic fallacy (cf. Michael Murray, 'God and Neuro-Science').

It's interesting to note that in response to the first audience question, Copson affirms: 'I am treating God as a similar hypothesis, so, a theory advanced in the same way as a scientific theory.'

2) He argues that God is a delusion because if God existed then He would be very different to us, but reference to the finite gods of Greek polytheism shows that 'gods tend to be suspiciously like us.'

Indeed, whilst everything is necessarily analogous to everything else to some degree, the gods of polytheism are suspiciously like us. However, the infinite theistic God is as unlike us as a deity could be (the maximally great being)! Humans making gods in their own image would indeed invent the likes of Zeus and Apollo; but not the Holy and personally demanding deity of the Bible!

The fact that people tend to project their political beliefs onto their image of God hardly shows that God doesn't exist, still less that God is a delusion. That would be like arguing that the fan who is just certain that a certain pop idol simply must like the same things they like thereby proves the non-existence or deluded status of belief in the existence of the pop star concerned!

Interestingly, Copson admits that Jesus is 'unconventional in some ways', such that if one thinks Jesus is divine one has an image of God that is at least partially unconventional.

3) He recycles the early twentieth century 'history of religions school' of thought, resurrecting long abandoned claims about multiple gods who die and rise from the dead, etc! As Michael Green explains:

'The idea of a copycat religion really arose in Germany at the end of the nineteenth and the start of the twentieth century. It was put forward by the "History of Religions" school. It was popularised by Sir James Frazer in Britain when he published his readable, but unreliable, The Golden Bough in 1906 – the first book in English to compare Christianity to the mystery religions... This seemed an attractive hypothesis for a while, but subsequent scholarship has examined this hypothesis and found it wanting, for a number of reasons. Nowadays it is regarded as a dead issue by almost all scholars.' (Lies, Lies, Lies! Exposing Myths About The Real Jesus, IVP, 2009, p. 59-60.)

Edwin M. Yamauchi (Professor Emeritus of History at Miami University) recounts that ‘by the mid-twentieth century, scholars had established that the sources used in these writings were far from satisfactory and the parallels were much too superficial.’ (Yamauchi in Lee Strobel, The Case for the Real Jesus, Zondervan, 2007, p. 165.) Moreover, Green observes:

'The really special thing [about Jesus] was this: nobody had ever attributed divinity and a virgin birth, resurrection and ascension to a historical person whom lots of people knew. And certainly nobody claimed that the one and only God, the creator and judge of the whole earth, had embodied himself in Apollo, Hercules, Augustus, and the rest... Augustus had temples erected to him as divus Augustus in the East (whilst being more circumspect in the Roman West), but of course neither he nor anybody else imagined that by so doing he laid claim to embody the Godhead... Vesputin, dying in the seventies, quipped ‘Alas, I fear I am becoming a god!’ It is very difficult to see the Christian conviction about Jesus springing from such roots. But no better ones have been put forward. Analogies from the Hermetic literature, the Gnostic Redeemer myth or the Mandean literature are all post-Christian and therefore quite unable to account for the rise of the Christian belief; they may all also be influenced (two of them certainly are) by Christian beliefs.' ( ‘Jesus in the New Testament’, in The Truth of God Incarnate, p. 36-38.)

Alister McGrath comments with respect to Jesus’ resurrection:

'Bultmann was among many scholars who... proceeded to take the logically questionable step of arguing that such parallels discredited the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. Since then, however, scholarship has moved on considerably. The parallels between the pagan myths of dying and rising gods and the New Testament accounts of the resurrection of Jesus are now regarded as remote, to say the least... Furthermore, there are no known instances of the myth being applied to any specific historical figure in pagan literature... It is at this point that the wisdom of C.S. Lewis – who actually knew something about myths – must be acknowledged. Lewis intuitively realized that the New Testament accounts of the resurrection of Jesus bore no relation to ‘real’ mythology... Perhaps most important, however, was the realization that the gnostic redeemer myths – which the New Testament writers allegedly took over and applied to Jesus – were to be dated later than the New Testament. The challenge posed to the historicity of the resurrection by these theories has thus passed into textbooks of the history of ideas.' (‘Resurrection and Incarnation’, Different Gospels: Christian Orthodoxy and Modern Theologies, ed. Andrew Walker, SPCK, 1988, p. 30.)

Michael Licona points out that, unlike anything in the mystery religions, Jesus’ resurrection ‘isn’t repeated, isn’t related to changes in the seasons, and was sincerely believed to be an actual historical event by those who lived in the same generation of the historical Jesus.’ (Licona in Strobel, op cit, p. 161.) Licona notes the nearly universal consensus of modern scholarship that ‘there were no dying and rising gods that preceded Christianity. They all post-dated the first century.’ (ibid, p. 160.) Gary R. Habermas concurs: ‘there is no case of a mythical deity in the mystery religions for which we have both clear and early evidence that a resurrection was taught prior to the late second century A.D. Thus, it is certainly a plausible theory that the mystery religions borrowed this aspect from Christianity, not the reverse.’ (The Verdict of History, p. 39.) Swedish scholar T.N.D. Mettinger takes what he admits is the minority position that there are three to five myths about dying and rising gods that do predate Christianity, but he nevertheless concludes that none of these serve as parallels to Jesus, let alone as causal factors in the Christian understanding of Jesus: ‘There is, as far as I am aware, no prima facie evidence that the death and resurrection of Jesus is a mythological construct... The death and resurrection of Jesus retains its unique character in the history of religions.’ (The Riddle of Resurrection, Almqvist & Wicksell, 2001, p. 221.) Lee Strobel summarises the case against the ‘history of religions’ school:

'First, "copycat" proponents often illogically assume that just because two things exist side by side, one of them must have caused the other. Second, many alleged similarities are exaggerated or fabricated. Writers frequently use language borrowed from Christianity to describe pagan rituals, then marvel at the ‘parallels’ they’ve discovered. Third, the chronology is wrong. Writers cite beliefs and practices that postdate the first century in an attempt to argue that they influenced the first-century formation of Christianity. Just because a cult had a belief or practice in the third or fourth century AD doesn’t mean it had the same belief or practice in the first century. Fourth, Paul would never have consciously borrowed from pagan religions; in fact, he warned against this very thing. Fifth, early Christianity was exclusivistic; any hint of syncretism in the New Testament would have caused immediate controversy. Sixth, unlike the mystery religions, Christianity is grounded in actual historical events. And seventh, what few parallels remain could reflect a Christian influence on pagan beliefs and practices. Pagan attempts to counter the influence of Christianity by imitating it are clearly apparent.' (The Case for the Real Jesus, Zondervan, 2007, p. 186.)

Ronald H. Nash reports: ‘The tide of scholarly opinion has turned dramatically against attempts to make early Christianity dependent on the so-called dying and rising gods of Hellenestic paganism.’ (The Gospel and the Greeks, second edition, Phillipsburg, 2003, p. 162.) As Craig observes, today’s quest for the historical Jesus is firmly grounded in the realisation that ‘pagan mythology is simply the wrong interpretative context for understanding Jesus of Nazareth... Jesus and his disciples were first-century Palestinian Jews, and it is against that background that they must be understood.’ (Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, Crossway, 2008, p. 391.)

Of course 'Judaism influences Christianity', since Christianity claims to be the fulfillment of Judaism. Copson simply begs the question against the truth of the Christian revelation claim here. Likewise with Islam!

Copson is magnanimus enough to affirm that 'If it can be demonstrated that there is evidence and good reason to believe that a god or gods exist, we should not have your support this evening.' However, of the arguments given by the house (besides a snide remark about the ontological argument), Copson only engaged with the moral argument, stating: 'The problem I'll have here, with the moral argument, is this idea, this claim that objective moral values exist.' Copson affirms that 'morality is not subjective in the sense that it is something that every individual human being makes up arbitrarily for their individual self', and he incorrectly intimates that the moral argument relies upon the false dilemma that either this type of subjectivism is true or else moral values must come 'from some source outside of human beings collectively.' This is, of course, a straw man of the moral argument I presented.

The rest of Copson's discussion consists of a collection of red herrings (e.g. the 'genocide' of the Cainnanites, the existence of differing moral opinions, an appeal to socio-biological explanations of moral behaviour).

Points and questions from the floor

1) A point (that should have been in favour of abstention) that incorrectly complained about a lack of definition given to the term 'God'. My opening speech gave a definition of God in the process of giving the ontological argument. God is the maximally great being.

2) An attempted 'charicature' objection to the ontological argument that focused upon the possibility of a maximally stupid being - but as I pointed out in response (cf. clip), 'stupidity' clearly isn't a 'great-making property'.

3) A complaint about the opposition not addressing the monotheistic concept of God.

4) A good point against Copsons' argument about God being like us. In response Copson seems to misunderstand this objection as an attempted argument for theism.

5) A question about the burden of proof using Russell's notorious 'teapot' analogy. This is a bad analogy (cf. William Lane Craig on Russell's Teapot & William Lane Craig, 'Santa Clause, Tooth Fairies and God'). However, the house gave three arguments for theism, so even if the house did have a burden of proof, we would have met it!

Bill Craig got his first word in here (cf. clip) and was also drawn into responding to a subsiduary question from the floor. The point about Copson's frequent references to the gods of polytheism (as point 3 noted) is that as finite beings these gods are far more analogous to humans than is the monotheistic deity the debate is clearly about.

6) A question from someone who thinks that the house is mistaken concerning the burden of proof because while the questioner thinks that God exists, they think that their belief in God might possibly be a delusion and that it is impossible to convince a delusional person that they are delusional. It is of course possible for the atheist and the agnostic, no less than the theist, to say that they have their particular belief on the God question but that they might possible be delusional, etc. Indeed, one could say this of any belief! This 'sceptical threat' argument is obviously unsound.

7) A science student who offers some anecdotal evidence for a miracle and a tacit appeal to the design argument (although contra this student, it matters a great deal whether or not we designate events as an instance of randomness or as a miracle/instance of design).

Arif Ahmed's response is itself both confused and ungenerous. Ahmed dismisses the argument from miracles as confusing temporal order and causation (i.e moving from the data of visiting a shrine before getting better to the conclusion that the visit caused the cure), but the significance of a healing occurring after a prayer for healing is that the prayer specifies the unlikely (i.e. complex) event of the cure. The student's argument is thus more charitably interpreted as a design inference from specified complexity; likewise her design argument. Ahmed's response is like arguing that one can't infer from the fact that an arrow has hit the center of a target that it was shot by someone who is good at archery because that is to argue from the fact that the arrow was shot before it hit the target to the conclusion that the mere fact of shooting the arrow explains why it hit the target!

Ahmed is of course correct to point out that the evidence supports the claim that in general 'going to shrines on the whole doesn't stop you dying of diseases', but this is besides the point when it comes to assessing the merits of a particular healing claim. After all, miracles are by definition rare events!

Dr Ahmed brings up Intelligent Design theory and responds with an appeal to authority.

8) 'If God created everything (that is, the space-time continuum) then what created God?'

As I pointed out (cf. clip), this question only follows from a straw man of the cosmological argument - besides which, God is both argued to be and is by definition an un-caused being. It makes no conceptual sense to ask what caused the un-caused being!

cf. Peter S. Williams, 'Who Made God?'

9) An objection to the motion on the grounds that it has no pragmatic value. However, everyone has to act one way or another with respect to the question of how they are going to relate to God if there is a God. Hence the motion is intensely practical.

Dr William Lane Craig

Craig's speech was concerned with: a) The correct interpretation of the motion and b) the consequent correct burden of proof in the debate; c) the arguments given against the existence of God by Andrew Copson (Craig responded to Copson's first two arguments, but either missed the 'Jesus is just another dying and rising god' argument or else ignored it as irrelevant to the question of monotheism per se) and d) defending the three arguments for theism given in my opening speech (on the grounds that if God exists then belief in God is not a delusion).

There's a good discussion here of moral objectivism in response to a student question. Craig also rebuts a student's objection to the ontological argument that mistakenly assumes the argument holds that 'existence' per se is a predicate.

Dr Arif Ahmed

(William Lane Craig & Arif Ahmed debated the rationality of belief in God in 2009, cf. here.)

Dr Ahmed accused Dr Craig of 'flip flipping' on whether the question at issue was about the truth or the alleged delusional nature of belief in God. However, if belief in God is true then (by definition) it cannot be a delusion; hence one cannot critique belief in God as a delusion whilst ignoring the question of the belief's truth without thereby begging the question.

On the issue of brain scanning raised by a student from the floor and picked up by Ahmed in his address, one cannot simply make an (un-referenced) appeal to a scientific study that supposedly showed that the brain scans of theists matched the brain scans of people holding known delusions, as if this warrants the conclusion that belief in God is a delusion:

1) Examined cases of A (belief in a delusion) exhibit (brain-pattern) B

2) Examined cases of C (belief in God) exhibit (brain-pattern) B

3) Therefore all cases of C (belief in God) are cases of A (belief in a delusion)

This argument is unsound even if its premises were both true (i.e. it is logically invalid). cf. Warren S. Brown, 'Neuroscience of Religion' & Michael Murray, 'God and Neuro-Science'

Ahmed says that, as in the 2006 debate between William Lane Craig and Bill Cook ('Is God A Delusion?'), and like the Oxford Shorter English Dictionary, he (Ahmed) is simply going to take the motion to mean that belief in God is not 'a false belief'. Of course, this ignores any privilage one might think the proposers of a motion might have to set the terms of the debate and the context of discussion set by Richard Dawkins' God Delusion.

Ahmed turns to the three theistic arguments given by the house:

1) Ahmed agrees with Copson's rejection of objective moral values, and he specifically rejects the existence of epistemic moral duties. This commits him to affirming that one has no moral responsibility to even try to be rational - which undermines the entire process of having a rational debate!

Having falsely stated that the issue of rational oughts was the only argument given by the house in defence of premise two, he contradicts himself by dismissing out of hand the appeal to properly basic moral intuitons (as given by fellow atheist Peter Cave), ignoring the principle of credulity.

Ahmed suggests that if one believes in objective moral values then one could simply believe in the existence of objective moral reasons as either brute or supervienent facts that have nothing to do with the existence of God. A couple of points are made from the floor at this point about consequentialism and about it's not being enough for an account of moral value be internally coherent to believe that it is true. Ahmed's appeal to consequentialism buys him the objectivism that 'the effects of an act are the effects of an act, whatever anyone else believes', but at the expense of being about the objective effects of acts rather than about objective moral values! Whether or not the objective effects of a certain act are objectively good or bad is a further question left unaddressed here!

Ahmed's (surely supernaturalistic) concession to the moral objectivist also completely fails to address the arguments made by the house about the need to explain the ideal/prescriptive/obligatory nature of moral values on such an account.

Ahmed conceeds that theism can combine morality and prudence in a way that naturalism cannot.

2) Responding to premise 1 of the cosmological argument (the principle of sufficient reason), Ahmad denigrates the illustration of the glass ball (which he's amusingly misheard as 'glass bowl', and which actually comes from philosopher Richard Taylor, cf. 'The Cosmological Argument: A Defence') as 'naive', before jumping into a red herring discussion of quantum mechanics.

Even given an indeterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics, one has to have a space-time reality governed by the laws of quantum mechanics before one can have anything coming into existence from a vacuum fluctuation. As Craig observes:

'While the mathematical core of quantum theory has been confirmed to a fantastic degree of precision, there at at least ten different physuical interpretations of the mathematics, and no one knows which of these, if any, is correct, since they are all empirically equivalent. Only some of these, principally the so-called Copenhagen Interpretation, are causally indeteministic. Others are fully deterministic… Moreover, even in the Copehagen Interpretation things don’t come into being without a cause. It’s true that in this interpretation so-called virtual particles can arise spontaneously out of the quantum vacuum. But… the quantum vacuum is not nothing; rather it’s a sea of fluctuating energy that serves as the indeterministic cause of such virtual particles… Thus, even in the disputed Copenhagen Interpretation, the quantum vacuum is a physical cause of the entities it is alleged to spawn.' (God? A Debate Between A Christian And An Atheist, Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 56-57.)

Ahmed suggests the universe might have come into existence though 'a random event without any cause at all', which is either a self-contradictory suggestion (in that it posits the existence of something able to undergo or produce a random event) or else the rejection of the time-honored metaphysical principle that 'from nothing, nothing comes'!

On premise 4, Ahmed attacks a straw man, offering a very confused attempted reconstruction of the argument given by the house for this premise - which, contrary to what Ahmed states, was actually that the cause of the universe could not be an abstract objected, and which didn't hinge upon anything to do with God's relationship to time (on which there is a complex range of options). He also assumes that in a causal explanation the cause must be temporally prior to the effect. However, a cause can be logically prior to an effect without being temporally prior. For example, when my hand moves a pen it is the cause of the pen's movement even though it moves at the same time as the pen. Besides, I'm not personally attached to the idea that God is timeless without creation and the argument given made no assumptions or deductions on this issue.

3) Ahmed accuses our (standard, indeed, introductory textbook) presentation of the ontological argument of being 'confusing' and 'almost incomprehensible', and he then confuses 'being possible' with 'being necessary', which leads him to say that a necessary being is an impossibility (something that would commit him to an actually infinite regress of contingent realities in the world)!

He then rejects the intuitively obvious idea that necessary being is a great-making property by noting that contingent things can have great-making properties besides necessary existence (of course they can) and that it would be stupid to say that a contingent thing (such as a piece of music by Mozart) that had great-making properties besides necessary existence would be greater than it was if it also possessed the great-making property of necessary existence. This sounds an odd thing to say because a necessarily existent piece of music couldn't also be something composed by Mozart. This thought experiment asks one to imagine a piece of music that both is and is not the product of a contingent process of composition by a specific contingent person, which is of course an incoherent notion.

Moreover, like the notorious objection concerning the idea of a 'greatest possible Island', it's worth pointing out that 'the greatest possible piece of music' is likewise an incoherent notion (the island could always have a few more lovely coconuts, and the music could always have a few more fantastic bars or another melody). None of this goes to show that necessary existence is not a great-making property, or that this property couldn't be possessed by anything (i.e. that it couldn't be a property of the maximally great being). Necessity is a great-making property for any reality that could coherently have it.

Turning to arguments against God's existence Ahmed argues:

1) God is defined as a necessary being

2) Necessary beings cannot exist

3) Therefore God cannot exist

Ahmed actually rejects premise 1 of this argument, but I'd reject premise 2. Note that the Leibnizian cosmological argument argues for the contrary of Ahmed's second premise.

Although Andrew Copson seemed concerned to argue against any and all kinds of deity, rather than against the monotheistic God in particular, Ahmed made much of the false claim that no reason has been given in the debate for the existence of one God as opposed to many. However, the ontological argument clearly argues for the existence of the greatest possible being. Besides, Occam's razor limits the number of deities one posits to explain the evidence offered to the house.

Ahmed ends by stating: 'when I told a colleague of mine that I was going to enter this debate, he said "Well, you don't want to debate with the Christians because they're all mad and impervious to reason" and of course my being here shows that I deny that, of course that's not only false, it's plainly false.'

In other words, belief in God is not a delusion!

More from Kepler: First Earth-Ish Sized Planets Discovered

2011-12-21T12:13:00.006Z

Exoplanets are in the news recently, often being massively over-hyped in the popular press as 'new earth-like planets' that could harbour life. However:

According to The Telegraph: 'Astronomers have found a pair of Earth-sized planets orbiting a star similar to the Sun, though neither are believed to be suitable for life... Kepler-22b has the right temperature, but it is too big. (The planets) we're announcing today are just the right size, but too hot," astronomer David Charbonneau with Harvard University, told reporters...' (my italics)

Space.com explains: 'The two Earth-size planets are among five alien worlds orbiting a star called Kepler-20 that is of the same class (G-type) as our sun, and is slightly cooler. Two of the star system's planets, Kepler-20e and Kepler-20f, are 0.87 times and 1.03 times the width of Earth, respectively, making them the smallest exoplanets yet known. They also appear to be rocky, and have masses less than 1.7 and 3 times Earth's mass, respectively. Scientists think that they are composed mainly of silicates and iron, much like the Earth, [so far so good, several habitability criteria are probably met by these planets] though they lack our planet's atmsophere [whoops]. Kepler-20e makes a circle around its star once every 6.1 days at a distance of 4.7 million miles (7.6 million kilometers) — almost 20 times closer than Earth, which orbits the sun at around 93 million miles (150 million km). The planet's sibling, Kepler-20f, makes a full orbit every 19.6 days, at a distance of 10.3 million miles (16.6 million km). Both planets circle closer to their star than Mercury does to the sun. These snuggly orbits around their star give the newfound planets steamy temperatures of about 1,400 degrees Fahrenheit (760 degrees Celsius) and 800 degrees Fahrenheit (430 degrees Celsius) — way too warm to support liquid water, and probably life, researchers said [double whoops]. Fressin said the chance of life on either of these planets is "negligible," though the researchers can't exclude the possibility that they used to be habitable in the past, when they might have been farther from their star. There is also a slim chance that there are habitable regions on the planets in spots between their day and night sides (the planets orbit with one half constantly facing their star and the other half always in dark). But astronomers aren't holding out hope. "The chances of liquid water and life as we know it on Kepler-20e and f are zero," Laughlin said.' (my italics)

Boston Globe Reports: 'A team led by Harvard astronomers announced yesterday a major milestone in the long-running hunt for worlds capable of supporting life elsewhere in the cosmos: the detection of a planet the size of Earth. The rocky planet, and another they found that is a bit smaller than Earth, are the smallest ever discovered orbiting another star. They provide the powerful proof astronomers have been waiting for that it is possible - using a space-based telescope - to detect planets that fit the profile that has successfully spawned life in our own solar system. Astronomers are still far from the ultimate dream of finding an inhabited world; these so-called exoplanets sit scorchingly close to their sun and would be too hot for life, at least as we know it. But just weeks ago, scientists reported the discovery of a planet that is bigger than Earth, but otherwise just right - sitting squarely in the “Goldilocks zone’’ that is not too hot and not too cold for liquid water. Together, the discoveries signal that that their search techniques are ready to pinpoint the right planets - if they are out there to be found.' (my italics)

These two planets, which are probably 2-3 times the mass of Earth respectively (cf. www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/20/could-there-be-life-on-new-earth-size-kepler-planets/) are tidally locked (i.e they always keep one face towards their sun). Moreover, this solar system has rocky planets and gas planets interspersed with each other, unlike our own solar system which has gas giants on the outside providing a 'gravitationoal shield' that attracts dangerous space debris: 'In our solar system, small, rocky worlds orbit close to the sun and large, gaseous worlds orbit farther out. In comparison, the planets of Kepler-20 are organized in alternating size: large, small, large, small and large.' - www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/kepler/news/kepler-20-system.html

The BBC notes: 'Both planets are now thought to be too hot to be capable of supporting life. But according to Dr Fressin, the planets were once further from their star and cool enough for liquid water to exist on their surface, which is a necessary condition for life.' (my italics)

But a necessary condition is not a sufficient condition; and even that is dependent upon whether or not there is H2O there, what atmosphere it once had, whether or not it has a magnetic field to shield itself from solar rays, etc. As Discovery News reports: 'The first two Earth-like worlds orbiting another star have been detected, although neither are believed to be suitable for life. But if the planets had water in the past, there's a good chance they could have hung on to it long enough for life to take hold, Linda Elkins-Tanton, with the Carnegie Institution in Washington DC, told reporters on a conference call Tuesday.' (my italics) Those 'if's', guestimated 'chances' and 'could's' are important conditional statements!

Recommended Resources

On the question of the sufficient conditions for the origin of life on a planet capable of sustaining its existence cf:

Stephen C. Meyer, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (Harper One, 2010) - cf. Stephen C. Meyer's website

David Klinghoffer (ed.), Signature of a Controversy: Response to Critics of Signature in the Cell (Discovery Institute, 2011)

Stuart W. Pullen, Intelligent Design or Evolution: Why the Origin of Life and the Evolution of Molecular Knowledge Imply Design (ID Books, 2005)

Fazale Rana & Hugh Ross, Origins of Life (NavPress, 2004)

Paul Davies, The Origin of Life (Penguin, 2006)

Dean L. Overman, A Case against Accident and Self-Organization (Rowman & Littlefield, 2001)

Charles Thaxton et al, The Mystery of Life's Origins: Reassessing Current Theories (Ashgate, 1987) - on-line here

On the criteria for a planet able to sustain life cf:

Guillermo Gonzalez & Jay Richards, The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery (Regnery, 2004)

Peter D. Ward & Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe (Springer, 2004)

Here's some podcasts from Old Earth Creationist organization Reasons to Believe on SETI and the Kepler discoveries:

'Will SETI Find Alien Life?' Play Episode Download Episode

'Another Super-Earth in the habitable zone?' Play Episode Download Episode

'Habitable Zone Planet Discovered' Play Episode Download Episode

'Scientists Discover Two Earth-Sized Planets Orbiting a Distant Star' Play Episode Download Episode

New Apologetics315 Interview on 'Understanding Jesus'

2011-12-19T09:49:00.001Z

Apologist Interview: Peter S. Williams

Today's interview is with Peter S. Williams (blog here). He talks about his recent projects, including his debate alongside William Lane Craig at Cambridge, and his recent book: Understanding Jesus: Five Ways to Spiritual Enlightenment. He discusses a cumulative case approach, the Gospels as testimony and the role of testimony, the historical sources for Jesus, Jesus' self-centered teaching, the trilemma argument, Jesus' miracles, non-Christian miracle claims, the argument from prophecy and common objections, religious experiences, Jesus' spirituality, and more. More resources by Peter S. Williams here.

Full Interview MP3 Audio here. (52 min)

Find Peter S. Williams' new book here and here.
Previous interview with Peter here.
Enjoy.
Subscribe to the Apologetics 315 Interviews podcast here or in iTunes.

William Lane Craig Debates Peter Millican on the Existence of God

2011-12-19T09:48:00.001Z

Is Kepler 22-b a "New Earth"?! A New Neptune, Maybe...

2011-12-06T08:03:00.004Z

First the data on the recently discovered planet 'Kepler 22-b':

"To date, its mass and surface composition remain unknown. If it has an Earth-like density (5.515 g/cm³) then it would mass 13.8 (2.4³) Earths while its surface gravity would be 2.4 times Earth's. If it has water like density (1 g/cm³) then it would mass 2.5 (13.8/5.5) Earths and have a surface gravity of 0.43 (2.5/2.4²) Earth's. The distance from Kepler-22b to its star is about 15% less than the distance from Earth to the Sun. Its orbit is about 85% as large as Earth's orbit. One orbital revolution around its star takes 289.9 days. The light output of Kepler-22b's star is about 25% less than that of the Sun. The combination of a shorter distance from the star and a lower light output are consistent with a moderate surface temperature. Scientists estimate that in the absence of atmosphere, the equilibrium temperature would be approximately -11°C. If the greenhouse effect caused by the atmosphere is Earthlike, this corresponds to approximately 22 °C (72°F) average surface temperature." - Wikipedia (my italics)

""This is a major milestone on the road to finding Earth's twin," said Douglas Hudgins, Kepler program scientist at Nasa headquarters in Washington." - www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/dec/05/exoplanet-kepler-22-b-nasa-earth (my italics)

So, not Earth's twin then, as one might think from the media hype.

"In another step towards finding Earth-like planets that may hold life, NASA said on Monday that the Kepler space telescope had confirmed its first-ever planet in a habitable zone outside our solar system... Kepler-22b is 2.4 times the size of the Earth, putting it in a class known as "super-Earths", and orbits its sun-like star every 290 days. Its near-surface temperature is presumed to be about 22 degrees Celsius. Scientists do not know, however, whether the planet is rocky, gaseous or liquid." - www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/nasa-confirms-superearth-that-could-hold-life-20111206-1ofx3.html (my italics)

"The planet itself is 2.4 times the size of Earth, but that’s about all that is known about Kepler-22b. Its mass/composition is unclear at this point, meaning it could be a “global ocean” or entirely rocky." - www.dailytech.com

So, its not an Earth-like planet that may hold life, but a step on the way to finding such. We do not know if it is a chunk of rock, or a ball of gas or a liquid ocean.

"The only trouble is the planet’s a bit big for life to exist on the surface. The planet is about 2.4 times the size of Earth. It could be more like the gas-and-liquid Neptune with only a rocky core and mostly ocean... Because its size implies that it’s closer to Neptune in composition than Earth, “I would bet my telescope that there is no hard, rocky surface to walk on”..." - www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-new-earth-nasa-finds-planet-outside-solar-system-at-comfy-72-degrees-with-sunlike-star/2011/12/05/gIQA3Z0fWO_story.html?tid=pm_pop (my italics)

‘Kepler's scientists said they've confirmed the existence of their first exoplanet solidly within the habitable zone of its solar system, where water could exist in liquid form at a pleasant 72 degrees Fahrenheit (22 degrees Celsius). That certainly sounds livable, but Mendez told me that the planet, known as Kepler-22b, doesn't quite fit into the sweet spot for habitability because it's closer in size to Neptune than to Earth. "I confirmed its radius, and Kepler-22b is a low-end Warm Neptunian, very close to a Superterran," Mendez said in a Twitter back-and-forth from NASA's Ames Research Center in California, where he was presenting his research at the Kepler Science Conference. Neptunians are likely to have a gaseous rather than a rocky composition, which might make it tough for life as we know it on Kepler-22b.’ – ‘Alien Planets get Pidgeonholed’, Alan Boyle http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/05/9233790-alien-planets-get-pigeonholed (my italics)

In sum: Kepler 22-b is 'a bit big for life to exist on the surface', if it even has a solid surface! Moreover, we don't know whether or not Kepler 22-b has water, although if it does have water then it would be liquid (because it's in the goldilocks zone around its star). However, even if there is water on Kepler 22-b, water is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for life. Kepler 22-b is probably more like Neptune than Earth. Neptune isn't well known for its wildlife.

Understanding Jesus: Five Way's to Spiritual Enlightenment - Now Published!

2011-12-01T09:46:00.007Z

My book Understanding Jesus: Five Ways to Spiritual Enlightenment (Paternoster, 2011) has now been published (I actually held a copy in my hand today), although it may take a little while to become available outside the UK.

The book carries a couple of nice endorsements:

'Peter Williams gives five powerful reasons for thinking that God revealed himself in Jesus Christ... If you think there just might be something in Christianity, you need to read this book.' - Angus J.L. Menuge, Professor of Philosophy, Concordia University

'Williams gathers diverse strands of apologetic argument to present them afresh in contemporary context. With an eye to the alternatives, he drives his cumulative case home with intellectual verve. This book is a challenge to disbelief, and encourages renewed confidence in understanding the reality of Jesus today.' - Anna Robbins, Vice Principle and Senior Lecturer in Theology and Contemporary Culture, London School of Theology.

(Audio) An Overview of the Five Ways

Read Chapter One of Understanding Jesus

cf. Page 26 of the July-December Authentic Media Catalogue

cf. Authentic Media

It would, of course, make an excellent Christmas present! Order On-Line:

Order On-Line from Tesco

Order On-Line from Waterstones

Order On-Line from Amazon.co.uk

Order On-Line from Eden.co.uk

Order On-Line from Paddyfield.com

Order On-Line from Barnes & Noble

Order On-Line from Christianbook.com

Order On-Line from Amazon.com

Order On-Line from Norli

Order On-Line from Bokklubben (Norway)

William Lane Craig on Stephen Hawking

2011-12-01T09:44:00.000Z

Frank Turek and Bobby Conway interview William Lane Craig about his recent UK tour

2011-11-11T16:44:00.002Z

William Lane Craig: Is God a Delusion? Sheldonian Theatre, Oxford October 2011

2011-11-08T10:20:00.000Z

On the twelfth excuse of Dawkins for not debating Craig...

2011-10-24T14:53:00.000+01:00

Where's Dawkins? Probably not debating Bill Craig

2011-10-16T09:19:00.003+01:00

Oxford Bus Poster - There's Probably No Dawkins...

2011-10-14T11:02:00.001+01:00

Who Will Dawkins Debate?!

2011-10-07T14:31:00.001+01:00

The Reasonable Faith Tour - October 2011

2011-09-25T08:04:00.001+01:00

British Humanists (Toynbee, Dawkins, Grayling) Run from William Lane Craig

2011-09-03T09:38:00.000+01:00

Stephen Law Discusses Alvin Plantinga's Objection to Richard Dawkins' Central Argument in The God Delusion

2011-08-01T13:26:00.003+01:00

Note that Law agrees with Dawkins' rejection of NOMA and endorses the proposition that God is, at least in principle, empirically detectable.

Richard Dawkins gets Propositioned in an Elevator

2011-07-25T22:46:00.000+01:00

William Lane Craig, Richard Dawkins and the Empty Chair

2011-06-10T18:16:00.001+01:00

Richard Dawkins Refuses Calls to Debate William Lane Craig

2011-05-16T21:57:00.004+01:00

Professor Richard Dawkins has previously given less than cogent reasons for declining to debate Professor William Lane Craig:

Now Dawkins has turned down four different invitations that went out recently (from Premier Radio, Oxford University Christian Union, Cambridge University Debating Society and the British Humanist Association) in expectation of Craig's October 2011 visit to the UK...

This from the Daily Telegraph's Tim Ross, Religious Affairs Editor, 9:58AM BST 14 May 2011:

Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God

Richard Dawkins has made his name as the scourge of organised religion who branded the Roman Catholic Church “evil” and once called the Pope “a leering old villain in a frock”. But he now stands accused of “cowardice” after refusing four invitations to debate the existence of God with a renowned Christian philosopher.

A war of words has broken out between the best selling author of The God Delusion, and his critics, who see his refusal to take on the American academic, William Lane Craig, as a “glaring” failure and a sign that he may be losing his nerve.

Prof Dawkins maintains that Prof Craig is not a figure worthy of his attention and has reportedly said that such a contest would “look good” on his opponent’s CV but not on his own.

An emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, Prof Dawkins last year supported a plan to charge Pope Benedict XVI with crimes against humanity for his alleged involvement in the cover-up of sex abuse by Catholic priests.

Prof Craig is a research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, in California, and the author of 30 books and hundreds of scholarly articles on Christianity. He has debated with leading thinkers including Daniel Dennett, A.C.Grayling, Christopher Hitchens, Lewis Wolpert and Sam Harris.

Prof Craig is due to visit Britain in October this year. Four invitations to take part in public debates were sent to Prof Dawkins from The British Humanist Association, The Cambridge Debating Union, the Oxford Christian Union and Premier Radio. Prof Dawkins declined them all. He told The Daily Telegraph that he had recently debated Prof Craig, in a boxing ring, in Mexico, and claimed he was not impressed by his opponent. His critics say this event was a six-person discussion, not a rigorous debate, but Prof Dawkins disagrees. “I have no intention of assisting Craig in his relentless drive for self-promotion,” he said.

Some of Prof Dawkins’s contemporaries are not impressed. Dr Daniel Came, a philosophy lecturer and fellow atheist, from Worcester College, Oxford, wrote to him urging him to reconsider his refusal to debate the existence of God with Prof Craig. In a letter to Prof Dawkins, Dr Came said:

“The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part. I notice that, by contrast, you are happy to discuss theological matters with television and radio presenters and other intellectual heavyweights like Pastor Ted Haggard of the National Association of Evangelicals and Pastor Keenan Roberts of the Colorado Hell House.”

Prof Craig, however, remains willing to debate with Prof Dawkins. “I am keeping the opportunity open for him to change his mind and debate with me in the Sheldonian Theatre in Oxford” in October, he said.

Prof Craig will be using his UK tour to analyse The God Delusion and to present his own “strong rational grounds” for belief in God. His tour will include a London conference on the defence of Christianity and a debate in Manchester with the atheist, Peter Atkins, Professor of Chemistry at Oxford University, on the existence of God.

Prof Dawkins made his name as an evolutionary biologist with his 1976 book, The Selfish Gene. He has gained world-wide attention for his outspoken criticism of organised religion, and argued that the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States showed that a harder line must be taken with believers.

Dr Came did not actually accuse Dawkins of being a coward as the Telegraph states in the headline - rather, he suggested that his refusals to debate Craig might be interpreted thus.

This news story has provoked many (over 2000 and counting) on-line comments (mainly off topic, frequently heated) and has sent ripples through the blogosphere, eg. the theistic 'Wintery Knight' blog here; the atheist 'Subversive Thinking' blog here; 'Cranmer' blog here

William Lane Craig comments on the Telegraph story here

You can book tickets for Craig's tour over at Premier Christian Radio

Pre-Order 'Understanding Jesus: Five Ways to Spiritual Enlightenment (Paternoster, 2011)'

2011-05-03T14:53:00.010+01:00

Understanding Jesus: Five Ways to Spiritual Enlightenment(Paternoster, 2011) - is now available for pre-ordering on-line. cf. Page 26 of the new July-December Authentic Media Catalogue

http://www.authenticmedia.co.uk/search/product/view.jhtml?code=9781842277393

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Understanding-Jesus-Peter-S-Williams/dp/1842277391/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1304430752&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Jesus-Peter-S-Williams/dp/1842277391/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1304430960&sr=1-1

http://www.eden.co.uk/shop/understanding-jesus-3971939.html

Unbelievable? The Conference

2011-04-20T09:10:00.004+01:00

Conference Overview

Premier Christian Radio presents an apologetics day conference for anyone who wants help in thinking through and responding to the tough questions on faith from atheists, Muslims and those of other world views. Building on Premier's popular faith discussion show and podcast 'Unbelievable?', the conference will focus on a number of questions commonly asked by sceptics and those of other faiths.

Conference Host

Justin Brierley is the presenter of Premier Christian Radio's faith discussion programme and podcast 'Unbelievable?'. He regularly hosts debates between leading Christian thinkers, atheists and those of other world views.

Speaker Biographies

John Lennox is Professor of Mathematics and Philosophy of Science at Oxford University. He is a lecturer for the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics. He has debated Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and other well-known atheists around-the-world. He is much in demand as a speaker and author.

David Robertson is minister of St. Peter's Free Church, Dundee where he recently established the Solas Centre for Public Christianity. He is author of "The Dawkins Letters" and regularly speaks to sceptical audiences of atheists and agnostics.

Jay Smith is a Biblical Scholar specialising in Islam. He has spent much of his adult life in evangelistic ministry to Muslims in the UK. He regularly engages in Islam debates, from the chambers of the Oxford Union to his regular debates at Speakers Corner in Hyde Park.

David Instone-Brewer is Senior Research Fellow in Rabbinics and the New Testament at Tyndale House Cambridge. He regularly speaks on issues of scriptural reliability and interpretation and writes a regular column on Biblical issues for Christianity Magazine.

Mark Roques is the director of RealityBites which provides training and resources for schools and youtworkers. Mark is a story-teller who asks "subversive questions" about common atheist and religious worldviews.

Seminars:

Apologetics Track
Seminar A - Has Science Buried God?
Responding to Dawkins, Hawking and the New Atheism - John Lennox
Seminar B - How do I respond to Islam?
Three questions on God, Jesus and the Trinity that Muslims ask - Jay Smith
Seminar C - How do I make the case for faith?
How to use apologetics and evangelism in a sceptical world - David Robertson

Bible Track
Seminar A - Can I trust the Bible?
Answering common objections to the reliability of the New Testament -David Instone-Brewer
Seminar B - Is God a moral monster?
How to understand Old Testament stories of killing in the Name of Yahweh - David Instone-Brewer
Seminar C - Is there evidence for the resurrection?
Why we can trust the Gospel accounts of Jesus rising from death - Jay Smith

Big Questions Track
Seminar A - Is Jesus the only way?
Responding to other worldviews in an age of Pluralism - Mark Roques
Seminar B - Is there evidence for God?
Arguments for God's existence that you need to know - John Lennox / David Robertson
Seminar C - What about suffering?
Why God is still good in a world of suffering - Mark Roques

All seminars will include time for Q&As

Date:

Saturday, 14 May 2011

Time:

9:30am to 5pm

Venue:

Bloomsbury Baptist Church

235 Shaftesbury Avenue

London

WC2H 8EP

Ticket Prices:

£20 each

Agenda

09:30am

Registration

10:00am

Welcome

Opening Address: "What are we apologising for?"

Seminars A (Details as below in Seminar Table)

Coffee Break & Resource Stalls

Seminars B

1:00pm

LUNCH

2:00pm

Welcome

Seminars C

Coffee Break & Resource Stalls

Speakers Panel Discussion and Audience Q&A "Is the Church ready to give an answer - and is anyone listening?"

5:00pm

End

Doctor Who Podcast Interview

2011-03-25T14:10:00.003Z

The somewhat mis-named 'Minute Doctor Who Podcast' recently recorded this interview with myself and collegue Tony Watkins on our book Back In Time: A Thinking Fan's Guide to Doctor Who (Damaris, 2005)

cf. the You Tube trailer for the interview!

Harvard Astrophysicist Supports Rare Earth Hypothesis

2011-01-24T15:27:00.003Z

Some comments supporting the Rare Earth Hypothesis, made by Dr Howard Smith (a senior astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics) have been widely circulated by the press this week. For example the Telegraph reported:

'Smith... made the claim that we are alone in the universe after an analysis of the 500 planets discovered so far showed all were hostile to life. Smith said the extreme conditions found so far on planets discovered outside out Solar System are likely to be the norm, and that the hospitable conditions on Earth could be unique.'

Likewise, according to the Mail Online:

'A leading astronomer has concluded there probably aren’t any aliens out there – meaning we are entirely alone in the universe. Even though there may be tens of thousands of other distant planets similar in size to Earth, the conditions on them are likely to be too hostile to support life-forms such as ET.'

The Deccan Herald quotes Smith:

"We have found that most other planets and solar systems are wildly different from our own. They are very hostile to life as we know it. The new information we are getting suggests we could effectively be alone in the universe. There are very few solar systems or planets like ours. It means it is highly unlikely there are any planets with intelligent life close enough for us to make contact."

Peter S. Williams on '5 Flaws In The Thinking Of The New Atheists'

2011-01-12T09:54:00.004Z

Thanks to Highfields Church Cardiff for publishing this video of me critiquing the 'new atheism':

On You Tube:

Also available on Vimeo.

This video expands upon my recent paper Peter S. Williams, 'The Emperor's New Clothes: Pointing the Finger at Dawkins' Atheism' THINK, Spring 2010

See also my book A Sceptic's Guide to Atheism (Paternoster, 2009)

20 Peer Reviewed Scientific Papers that Support Intelligent Design Theory

2010-12-18T11:51:00.007Z

Here are 20 scientific papers published since 2000 that support intelligent design theory:

Michael J. Behe, ‘Experimental Evolution, Loss-Of-Function Mutations and “The First Rule Of Adaptive Evolution”’, The Quarterly Review Of Biology, Volume 85, No. 4, December 2010

William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, ‘The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search,’ Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Vol.14, No.5, 2010, pp. 475-486

Winston Ewert, George Montañez, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II, ‘Efficient Per Query Information Extraction from a Hamming Oracle,’ Proceedings of the 42nd Meeting of the Southeastern Symposium on System Theory, IEEE, University of Texas at Tyler, March 7-9, 2010, pp.290-297

Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, 'Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some Further Research on Dollo’s Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation,' Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology Vol. 4 (Special Issue 1): 1-21 (December 2010)

A.C. McIntosh, ‘Information and Entropy -- Top-Down or Bottom-Up Development in Living Systems?,’ International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(4):351-385 (2009)

D. Halsmer, J. Asper, N. Roman, T. Todd, 'The Coherence of an Engineered World ', International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(1):47-65 (2009)

William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, ‘Bernoulli's Principle of Insufficient Reason and Conservation of Information in Computer Search’, Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, San Antonio, Texas (October 2009): 2647–2652

William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, ‘Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success,’ IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, Systems & Humans, Vol. 39 (5):1051-1061 (September, 2009)

Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, ‘Evolutionary Synthesis of Nand Logic: Dissecting a Digital Organism,’ Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. San Antonio, TX, USA - October 2009, pp. 3047-3053

Montañez G, Ewert W, Dembski WA, Marks II RJ (2010), ‘A vivisection of the ev computer organism: Identifying sources of active information’, BIO-Complexity 2010(3):1-6. doi:10.5048/BIO-C.2010.3

Ø. A. Voie, ‘Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent,’ Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004

Abel, D.L.; Trevors, J.T. ‘Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information’, Theoretical Biology and Medical Modeling 2005, 2

Trevors, J.T.; Abel, D.L. 'Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life' Cell Biology International 2004, 28, 729-739

Jonathan Wells, ‘Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?,’ Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62

Lönnig, W.E, ‘Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity’, Dynamical Genetics, p. 101-119 in Dynamical Genetics by V. Parisi, V. de Fonzo & F. Aluffi-Pentini, eds. (Research Signpost, 2004)

S.C. Meyer, ‘The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,’ Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) (2004): 213-239

M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, ‘Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,’ Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664

D. A. Axe, ‘Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,’ Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295-1315

D. A. Axe, ‘Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,’ Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301 (2000): 585-595

Granville Sewell, ‘A Mathematician's View of Evolution,’ The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol 22 (4) (2000)

For more, go to Discovery Institute’s CSC list of peer reviewed ID papers

Some Recently Completed Projects

2010-12-16T10:19:00.004Z

An eight episode version of a long-running debate I had with American atheist Carl Stecher, edited by Carl in 2002, is now published in full here at www.bethinking.org - with thanks to both Carl and bethinking editor Chris Knight.

Also now completed, the 2010 Reasonable Faith? course at Highfield Church Southampton. Our website contains audio recordings of (most of) the talks here.

A Debate of Significance: Does the Universe Have A Purpose?

2010-11-29T14:19:00.003Z

A fascinating debate of significance took place recently in Mexico between a team of atheists (Matt Ridley, Michael Shermer and Richard Dawkins) and a team of theists (Christian philosophers William Lane Craig and Douglas Geivett together with Rabbi David Wolpe) as part of the third annual International Festival of Great Minds.

The Significance of the Debate

The debate was about significance, in that the formal topic was 'Does the Universe have a Purpose'; but it was also a highly significant debate, principally because it saw Richard Dawkins (stepping into a vacancy left by Michio Kaku) enter into debate with William Lane Craig for the first time, despite Dawkins' prior refusals so to do (cf. here & here). For example, invited to debate Craig in 2007 Dawkins replied:

'I've never heard of William Craig. A debate with him might look good on his resume, but it wouldn't look good on mine!'

Now that Dawkins has heard of Craig, and has participated in debate with him (despite the perceived damage to his CV!), it will be interesting to see how he responds to future invitations to debate with Craig.Craig describes meeting Dawkins:

'I am currently in Mexico to participate in a conference called Ciudad de las Ideas, which is a conference modeled on the TED conference in the US. It features lots of high tech people, sociologists, psychologists, economists, scientists, etc. As part of the conference they´re having a panel of six of us debate on the question “Does the Universe Have a Purpose?” Well, to my surprise, I just found out that one of the three persons on the other side is Richard Dawkins! It´s true! I met him the other night. When he came my way, I stuck out my hand and introduced myself and said, "I’m surprised to see that you´re on the panel." He replied, "And why not?" I said, “Well, you've always refused to debate me." His tone suddenly became icy cold. "I don't consider this to be a debate with you. The Mexicans invited me to participate, and I accepted.” At that, he turned away. “Well, I hope we have a good discussion,” I said. “I very much doubt it,” he said and walked off. So it was a pretty chilly reception!'

Watch/Listen to the Debate

The video is available in two versions: English version (but no translation of the introductions) & Spanish version (introductions in Spanish and then a Spanish translation over the top of the English speakers) You can also listen to the debate audio sans translation here (the introduction is in Spanish, but the speeches are all in English)

Commentary on the Debate

You can read Douglas Geivett's post-debate commentary here - concerning Dawkins and Craig appearing in the same boxing ring (literally!), Geivett issues his own invitation:

'There has been considerable commentary about the “Craig vs. Dawkins debate” as a result of this event. Prior to this debate, Richard Dawkins had refused all invitations to debate Bill Craig. It’s for this reason that Bill was surprised to learn that Dawkins had agreed to participate in this debate. This, clearly, was the safest venue for Dawkins to appear in debate with Craig, since it was a three-on-three debate with unusually brief allocations of time for each speaker. But Dawkins was not debating Bill Craig only. He was in debate with three theists, in partnership with two fellow atheists. There was nothing the least bit threatening or intimidating about Dawkins on this occasion. I would happily debate him in a one-on-one situation. So if he prefers not to debate Bill Craig, for whatever reason, he’s welcome to debate with me.'

The debate's format of very short speeches (Craig describes it as 'pithy, brisk, and focused') meant there was little room for anyone's arguments to be developed at any great length, which opened the door to some unfortunate accusations about 'arguments from ignorance'. Nevertheless, the theistic side clearly put forward the most arguments (at least ten!) relevant to the contentions they wanted to defend, whereas the atheist team spent most of their time addressing red herrings (repeatedly confusing subjective purposes, values etc. with objective ones) and attacking straw men.

Moreover, the atheists contrived to advocate the incoherent position that 'why' questions are meaningless 'silly questions' and that the answer to the 'why' question posed about the universe was that it had no objective purpose! On the one hand, if 'No' was a sensible answer to the debate question, then the question cannot have been a silly one. On the other hand, if the debate question was a 'silly' question, then 'No' cannot have been a sensible answer.

Michael Behe at Charles Darwin House

2010-11-26T10:42:00.003Z

I was privileged to be in the invited audience for a discussion between molecular biologist and design theorist Prof Michael Behe and theistic evolutionist Prof Michael Reiss at Charles Darwin House, London, on Monday 22nd November.

I took extensive notes during the meeting. Here's my outline of their presentations and discussion (direct quotes are in quotation marks), along with some commentary [within square brackets]:

1) Behe's Presentation

Should ID be taught as science? Yes, if any other theory purporting to explain the same data is taught.

Science is not co-extensive with rationality, and rationality includes the ability to discern other minds through their physical effects; so there are problems with rules excluding this form of reasoning from science, in that they create a strain between science and rationality.

We spot the activity of other minds through noticing 'the purposeful arrangement of parts' (and Richard Dawkins agrees with this). [I agree, but as Behe himself admitted, his design detection criteria here is rather sketchy.]

2) Reiss' Presentation

Science 'Makes no mention of God' - it proceeds without presuming anything, either positively or negatively, about God [thus opening up the possibility of a mismatch between the scientific explanation and the true explanation of something]

There is 'nothing disreputable' about appealing to God to explain what science cannot explain, but doing so may be premature (i.e. science might explain it later [and it may not!]).

'My prediction' is that ID examples (e.g. bacterial flagellum) will eventually be explained by conventional scientific means [i.e. he issued a 'promissory note'].

Behe is not necessarily saying that God 'interfered' within the universe to cause the flagellum to come together.

Nothing serves as a proof of God's existence - but if one already has faith in God then one can draw certain inferences about God from the data of nature.

Education about ID is best done in RE rather than in science because of the expertise of the teachers, but 'I'm all in favour of student's critically examining' arguments 'for and against' evolution.

Discussion (led by Justin Brierly of Premier Christian Radio)

JB) Has the irreducible complexity of the flagellum been disproved?

B) Criticisms are not rigorous, only comparing protein sequences etc., but even if those results were true they don't solve the problem.

R) Both ID and standard evolutionary theory lack a complete explanation for these systems, my prediction, which 'may be a mistaken prediction', is that evolutionary theory is the correct explanation; but the available data is sketchy (e.g. there are no fossils for this), whereas ID is a 'scientific council of despair'.

B) Was Big Bang theory a scientific council of despair? Big Bang was thought to be a 'science stopper' at the time it was first proposed. I bet £10 that we will not have solved these problems within the standard paradigm in ten year's time. Our understanding of life is getting more complicated not less complicated [waving scientific article entitled 'Life is Complicated'].

JB) Is a design inference not allowed within science?

R) The problem is not with an inference to design, but whether such an inference is 'within science or outside of it'. ID 'sits without' science by definition. Mainstream science did at least consider the Big Bang theory, it rejects ID.

JB) Can ID ever become the dominant paradigm?

B) Yes. Anti-Darwinism is currently more wide-spread then ID though. The cut off is over invoking intelligence as an explanation; but the question should be 'is this explanation true or false'? What if ID is true but outside science by definition? What do you define science as and what do you teach in science class then?

R) I do not want children taught that science can explain everything. e.g. Maths is more fundamental than science. Moral philosophy is another example.

B) [Waving article from 'Cell']: We do not understand evolution of new traits.

JB) The Dover Court Case - is ID religious?

R) ID can make no reference to religion. However, most supporters are religious, e.g. Christians with a creationist ancestry. Still, one can conceive of ID without a deity.

B) It doesn't matter who suggests and idea, but rather whether or not it is true. The Dover school board were Creationists, but 'I present myself' as a counter example to this ID stereotype.

JB) Does ID raise theological problems?

R) Not a theological problem, ID has a long history. I 'prefer' the idea that God gave nature self-sufficient capacities to evolve itself [interesting a priori judgement here].

B) Maybe evolution is more theologically elegant, I don't know, but scientists are meant to follow the evidence, not a priori notions from theology! There doesn't have to be any 'interference' (a loaded word) by God to achieve the design implementation; that can 'unfold'.

R) Is Behe saying 'no miracles'? [I think he is invoking divine middle knowledge]

B) Lenski experiments [on generations of evolving bacteria, which showed only \improvements' based on ditching and breaking genetic information]

R) Polyploidy given as an example of an increase, indeed by a factor of two, in information caused by evolutionary mechanisms [but this is a bad example, as it involves duplicating information not creating new information - photocopying a book doesn't increase the amount of information one has]

B) Biological textbooks say we do know what happened and Darwinism does explain it - but professional biologists know that this is not true.

R) I'd love to see improved quality in UK textbooks.

Commentary

I thought this was an excellent discussion that built upon some common ground and highlighted some key areas of debate. Reiss did not attack a 'straw man' of ID, as so many do. He was clear, for example, that ID is distinct from Creationism, that it doesn't mention God and that it needn't invoke divine intervention. It also struck me that Reiss agreed with Behe's claim that standard evolutionary biology does not have the ability to explain a great deal at the moment, including things that scientific textbooks say are explained by evolutionary theory. Finally, it stuck me very clearly that while Reiss was content to issue promissory notes on the basis of an a priori theological preference and an a priori definition of 'science', it was Behe who was constantly citing scientific evidence, waving peer reviewed scientific articles around, and calling for science to follow the evidence wherever it led.

During the Q&A time I asked Michael Reiss how he would handle the dilemma posed to his position that ID wasn't science if (as he explicitly admitted it might be) ID were true? Would he simply redefine what he meant by 'science' (to include ID), or would he shunt money from the university science department to the philosophy/theology department to better understand the reality of nature? Which fork of this dilemma would he pick?

In response, Reiss said that if ID were true then this wouldn't merely require a tweaking of our definition of 'science', but would be a really big paradigm shift. It wasn't clear to me that his reply answered the question, unless he was picking the re-definition fork and saying that this would be a big change - but, as I say, it wasn't entirely clear to me if this was what he meant.

The event is due to be broadcast on Justin's Unbelievable show on Premier Radio in the near future.

Apologetics Weekend at Highfield Church, Cardiff

2010-11-08T10:28:00.003Z

This weekend, 13-14th November, I will be at Highfield Church in Cardiff presenting several events during a weekend on apologetics:

'Apologetics in 3D' Seminar (Highfields Church, from Nov 13, 2010 09:30 AM to Nov 13, 2010 01:00 PM) - This seminar is aimed at Christians who want to be better equipped to defend the Christian faith and answer difficult questions. It includes a time for Q&A.

'Apologetics in 3D' Lunch (Highfields Church, from Nov 13, 2010 01:00 PM to Nov 13, 2010 02:00 PM) - Lunch to round off the Apologetics in 3D seminar. Please register in advance by emailing office@highfieldschurch.org.uk or calling 029 2065 0740

The End of Atheism? (Highfields Church, from Nov 13, 2010 07:30 PM to Nov 13, 2010 09:30 PM) - An evening for the believer and sceptic alike – an ideal opportunity to bring a friend who is asking searching questions about God. Includes an open Q&A.

The Real Jesus (Highfields Church, from Nov 14, 2010 09:30 AM to Nov 14, 2010 10:45 AM)
14 Nov - Morning Service - 09:30am - Peter S Williams

The Real Jesus (Highfields Church, from Nov 14, 2010 11:15 AM to Nov 14, 2010 12:30 PM)
14 Nov - Morning Service - 11:15am - Peter S Williams

Church Lunch with Q & A (Highfields Church, from Nov 14, 2010 01:00 PM to Nov 14, 2010 02:30 PM) - After the morning services, there's another opportunity to put your questions to Prof. Williams after sharing lunch together.

New Book Carousels

2010-10-30T13:12:00.001+01:00

Check out the new amazon book carousels recommending books by subject area at the bottom of this blog :-)

Glise 581g - first 'earth-like' exoplanet?

2010-10-14T15:12:00.002+01:00

Original Blog Post

Nasa scientist and Nobel laureate in physics John Mather's recent comment about 'Earth-like' planets was rather timely. Mather said: 'We know there are earth-like planets out there, but what we don't know is whether any of them are capable of supporting life.' Well, Nasa have announced that: "If confirmed, [Gliese 581g] would be the most Earth-like exoplanet yet discovered and the first strong case for a potentially habitable one."

Thus far we have an unconfirmed report that Gliese 581g might be rocky (since it may be too small to be a gas giant - although the mass given is a minimum figure) and that it seems to be in the right 'goldilocks' temperature zone for liquid water - that's if there is any water there and if the atmosphere is of the right composition!

Of course, the phrase 'Earth-like' is being used with some lattitude here: the gravity on Gliese 581g is higher than on earth (because its about three to four times the size of Earth). Moreover, the planet is 'tidally locked', meaning it doesn't rotate (i.e. no seasons). This probably means that there's only a narrow 'twilight zone' of the planet that's even potentially habitable; assuming, of course, that the atmosphere (if it even has one) hasn't frozen out over time to the night side of the planet!

At most (it's hard to extrapolate here), this discovery may indicate that rocky planets in the habitable zone of stars aren't all that rare; but consider this interesting passage from The Hiffington Post article on the discovery:

'Vogt and Butler ran some calculations, with giant fudge factors built in, and figured that as much as one out of five to 10 stars in the universe have planets that are Earth-sized and in the habitable zone. With an estimated 200 billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy, that means maybe 40 billion planets that have the potential for life, Vogt said. However, Ohio State University's Scott Gaudi cautioned that is too speculative about how common these planets are.'

There's more to habitability - let alone the origin of life - than a chunk of rock at the right temperature!

Scientists have expressed caution about the overblown claim made by Steven S. Vogt that "the chances of life on this planet are 100 percent”:

"'Until we know more about this planet and the origin of life itself, any claim of certain habitation is idiotic and does not serve science,' said Dr. Stuart Clark, author and astronomy journalist... 'As cool as it is, please realize that right now all we really know about it is its orbit and estimated mass. That’s it.' said Lee Billings, editor at Seed Magazine. 'In other words, barring observational evidence that may still be a generation away, Gliese 581g is "Earth-like" only in terms of mass/orbit.'” - Universe Today

"nobody really knows what is going on on Gliese 581g, said Sara Seager, a planetary astronomer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “If it was all carbon dioxide, like Venus, it would be pretty hot,” she said, adding that she would give the planet a 90 percent chance of holding water. That, she pointed out, is faint praise in scientific circles. “Sounds high, but would you fly on a plane that only had an 8 or 9 chance out of 10 of making it?” she asked. “Everyone is so primed to say here’s the next place we’re going to find life,” Dr. Seager said, “but this isn’t a good planet for follow-up.” - New York Times

Update (Oct 14th)

According to a New Scientist report, 'First life-friendly exoplanet may not exist'!

A second research group using more data than the first have failed to find any trace of Glise581g (although they do confirm the existence of the other planets in the system that were previously known about):

'We easily recover the four previously announced planets, "b", "c", "d", and "e". However, we do not see any evidence for a fifth planet in an orbit of 37 days," says Francesco Pepe of the Geneva Observatory in Switzerland... The discrepancy has raised some questions about the discovery. "The Geneva team's report at this meeting has certainly raised doubts," says astronomer Ray Jayawardhana at the University of Toronto in Canada...' - New Scientist

Peter S. Williams - Updated Speaker's Page

2010-10-06T15:31:00.003+01:00

My newly updated Damaris Trust speaker's page is now live,
giving info about me, my publications and suggested topics for talks, etc.

Centre for Intelligent Design

2010-09-27T09:32:00.002+01:00

The long awaited UK Centre for Intelligent Design (CID) website is now live.

Hawking, God and Philosophy

2010-09-13T13:54:00.005+01:00

As a philosopher I am personally convinced, to borrow the title of the ‘last will and testament’[1] by recently deceased philosopher Antony Flew (1923-2010), that There is a God. Flew, ‘a legendary British philosopher and atheist [who was] an icon and champion for unbelievers for decades’[2], publically renounced atheism in 2004 after coming to the conclusion that ‘the case for an Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also intelligence, is now much stronger than it ever was before.’[3] Interestingly, Flew stated that ‘the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries . . .’[4]

Flew’s conclusion is at odds with the recent headline-grabbing but philosophically naïve assertion by physicist Stephen Hawking that ‘Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing’[5], and hence that ‘God did not create [the] Universe.’[6]

Hawking opines that while fundamental questions about the nature of reality and the need for a creator have traditionally been questions for philosophers, ‘philosophy is dead’ because ‘Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.’[7]

Of course, it was precisely keeping up with modern science that Flew testified led to his change of mind on the question of God! Moreover, as Professor George Ellis, President of the International Society for Science and Religion argues: ‘Philosophy is not dead. Every point of view is imbued with philosophy. Why is science worth doing? The answer is philosophical... Science can’t answer that question about itself.’[8] Professor Chris Isham, a philosopher and theoretical physicist at Imperial College London, is similarly unimpressed: ‘I groaned when I read this. Stephen’s always saying this sort of thing... but I suspect he’s never read a philosophy book in his life.’[9]

On the one hand, one needn’t know anything about cosmology to see that it’s logically impossible for anything to literally ‘create itself from nothing’ since things can only have causal effects if they exist and ‘nothing’ is by definition the absence of anything capable of doing anything whatsoever. As theologian and Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams dryly observed in response to Hawking: ‘Physical laws... are about the regular relations between actual realities. I cannot see how they explain the bare fact that there is any reality at all.’[10]

On the other hand, for many contemporary scientists and scientifically informed philosophers (contra Hawking, they do exist!) the discoveries of modern science have actually served to strengthen the case for theism.[11]

A collection of responses to Hawking's pronouncements can be found here.

[1] Antony Flew, ‘Exclusive Flew Interview’ www.tothesource.org/10_30_2007/10_30_2007.htm
[2] Craig J. Hazen, ‘My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism: An Exclusive Interview with Former British Atheist Professor Antony Flew’ www.biola.edu/antonyflew/flew-interview.pdf
[3] Flew, ibid.
[4] ibid.
[5] Stephen Hawking, ‘The Grand Design’ in Eureka/The Times, September 2010, p. 25.
[6] The Times, Thursday September 2nd, 2010, Front Page Headline.
[7] Hawking, ‘The Grand Design’, op cit, p. 18.
[8] George Ellis, The Times, Friday September 3rd, 2010, p. 8.
[9] Chris Isham, ibid.
[10] Rowan Williams, ibid, p. 9. cf. Craig, William Lane, ‘Why Does Anything At All Exist?’ http://rfmedia.org/av/video/why-does-anything-at-all-exist-wake-forest/
[11] cf. William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, third edition (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2008); William Lane Craig & J.P. Moreland, ed. The Blackwell Companion To Natural Theology (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009); Dean L. Overman, A Case for the Existence of God (Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009); Robert J. Spitzer, New Proofs For The Existence Of God: Contributions Of Contemporary Physics And Philosophy (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2010).

On the meaning of the phrase 'Earth-like planets'.

2010-09-13T09:35:00.003+01:00

In this week's Sunday Times, Nasa scientist and Nobel laureate in physics John Mather, made the following comment whilst discussing Nasa's Kepler probe:

'We know there are earth-like planets out there, but what we don't know is whether any of them are capable of supporting life.' (p. 13)

It may be useful to know, next time one reads a report about scientist's discovering an 'Earth-like planet' somewhere out there, that 'Earth-like' can mean 'uninhabitable'...

David Bently Hart on Freedom and Goodness

2010-08-02T16:41:00.000+01:00

Ethics and the good life from CPX on Vimeo.

Peter S. Williams - European Leadership Forum Podcasts

2010-06-24T13:09:00.005+01:00

Talks delivered at the Eurpean Leadership Forum conference in Eger, Hungry, May 2010

A Sceptic’s Guide to the New Atheism - 67:00 Download

How Atheists Defend Intelligent Design Theory - 83:52 Download

Apologetics and The Search for Truth (with Ian Morris) - 74:35 Download

The Christian Worldview in Apologetic Perspective - Apologetics Course based on William Lane Craig's textbook Reasonable Faith:

Introduction to Apologetics - 30:23 Download

Faith and Reason - 63:58 Download

The Meaninglessness of Life Without God - 31:24 Download

Arguments for Theism 101:54 Download

Peter S. Williams vs. Peter Cave Debate - 'Is Belief In God Reasonable?'

2010-06-16T11:28:00.003+01:00

'Is Belief in God Reasonable?'

My recent debate with Dr Peter Cave (of the British Humanist Association and the Open University) held in the Huxley Building, Imperial College, London on June 4th 2010.

Reflections

2010-06-07T09:31:00.000+01:00

View the film at www.globalstudentforum.org/reflection - where you can also see what others have to say about it

Support the film's Facebook page www.facebook.com/gsfreflection

Tell others about the film and join with us all in making a difference to the 9 million children who die each year from preventable causes.

Is Belief In God Reasonable? The Debate between Peter S. Williams and Peter Cave

2010-06-01T13:31:00.003+01:00

On the evening of Friday 4th June, at the Clore Lecture Theatre, Huxley building, Imperial College, London, I will be debating Peter Cave of the Open University and the British Humanist Association, under the title 'Is Belief in God Reasonable?'

'Apologetics 315' Podcast Interview with Peter S. Williams

2010-03-10T14:27:00.004Z

The wonderful Apologetics 315 apologetics website run by Brian Auten recently published this interview with yours truly in his 'apologist's interview' series of podcasts.

'God: New Evidence' - Documentary on the Fine Tuning Argument - featuring Peter S. Williams

2010-03-04T12:26:00.006Z

Last July I spent a few hours filming in front of a green-screen in Southampton for this new documentary (produced by David Couchman) on cosmic fine tuning and the argument for theism based thereon - cf. God: new evidence

I'm featured along-side British scientists, Dr's John Polkinghorne, David Wilkinson, Rodney Holder and Graham Swinerd.

You can buy the DVD here, although the series of videos are available free through both the official website and via YouTube.

This DVD is projected to be the first of a series.

Introduction from David Couchman

The God: New Evidence Documentry

The Emperor's Incoherent New Clothes - Pointing the Finger at Dawkins' Atheism

2010-02-27T11:51:00.002Z

My paper 'The Emperor's Incoherent new Clothes - Pointing the Finger at Dawkins' Atheism' has just been published in the latest edition of Think (Number 24, Volume 9, Spring 2010).

Think is a Journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy, edited by atheist philosopher Stephen Law and published by Cambridge University Press.

I argue that Richard Dawkins' 'new atheism' proffers self-contradictory ideas about moral value, knowledge and responsibility.

Expelled the Movie with discussion event

2010-02-11T11:03:00.002Z

Premier Christian Radio invites you to "Expelled" the Movie.

Due to popular demand an additional screening of the controversial Intelligent Design film "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" and a debate to follow will take place on Saturday 27th February 6.30pm at Imperial College London, South Kensington.

The event will be hosted by Justin Brierley of Premier Chrisitan Radio's faith discussion programme "Unbelievable?"

For details and booking for this significant event visit http://www.premier.org.uk/expelled

The post screening debate and Q&A time will include:

Dr. Alastair Noble (Former Inspector of Schools) and Dr. Vij Sodera (Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons) who advocate intelligent design and Prof. Keith Fox (Biology, Southampt University) and Prof. Thomas Dixon (History of Science, Queen Mary London University) who advocate Darwinian Evolution.

Alvin Plantinga Interview

2010-01-18T15:17:00.003Z

I'd like to draw attention to this interesting CPX interview with Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga, recorded at Notre Dame University:

Part I: Reasons for God

Plantinga explains why he believes there is a God, and gives us a summary of his argument that says naturalism cannot be rationally believed.

Part II: Where Richard Dawkins goes wrong

Plantinga suggests that Richard Dawkins is not only weak in argumentation, but that his conception of human nature is unlovely and dispiriting.

Part III: Sure Faith Without Proof

Why faith makes sense even though we can't 'prove' its worth and truth.

Part IV: Is God Good?

In the final part of the interview, Plantinga responds to the criticism that the God of Old Testament is a moral monster. He also goes on to describe the hardest aspects of being a believer and the ways he has experienced God in his life.

Angels are not just for Christmas

2009-12-20T14:24:00.009Z

Christmas is the official birthday of Jesus, and it brings to mind a veritable heavenly host of philosophical subjects (such as the logical coherence of the incarnation and the believability of miracles). One such subject that receives less consideration than perhaps it should is belief in the existence of angels. One cannot attend an advent service at church without being reminded that the Christmas story is a biblical cluster of angelic appearances. Unlike the mythical donkey and inn-keeper the events of Gabriel's annunciation to Mary, Joseph's angelic dream and the massed visitation to the shepherds are just as much a part of the biblical narrative as the magi-drawing star and the slaughter of the innocents.

As the author of The Case for Angels (Paternoster, 2002) I've made angelology one of my sub-specialisms, and I was recently interviewed on the subject at Gimlekollen School of Journalism & Communication in Norway for a staff advent event:

Angels at Advent - Peter S. Williams is interviewed by Dr Lars Dahle, Principal of Gimlekollen School of Journalism & Communication in Norway. 11th Dec 09 (21:06)

In 2008 I participated in a UCB radio show on the topic of angels: Angels - all about them! - 15th Jul 08 (45:09)

More Audio on Angels

Another interesting radio discussion about angels is this episode of Unbelievable from June 7th 2008 with Lorna Byrne, Faith Forster and John Woolmer.

Peter Kreeft, ‘Aquinas and the Angels'

Michael Williams, ‘Angels’

On-Line Writings re Angels (and Demons) by Peter S. Williams

Peter S. Williams vs. Steven Carr, ‘Do Angels such as Gabriel, Michael and Satan exist?’

Peter S. Williams, ‘Demons, Levitation and a priori Scepticism’

Peter S. Williams, ‘Angelology & Biblical Scepticism’

Peter S. Williams, ‘New Testament Criticism and Jesus the Exorcist’

Books on Angels

Besides my own, there are few books of a philosophically serious nature written on angels, but I would recommend the following:

Mortimer J. Adler, Angels and Us (Simon & Schuster, 1993) - written by a then-agnostic philosopher

Kenneth D. Boa & Robert M. Bowman, Sense and Nonsense about Angels and Demons (Zondervan, 2007) - good introductory book from apologists Boa & Bowman

Emma Heathcote-Jones, Seeing Angels (Blake, 2002) - PhD study by an agnostic

Peter Kreeft, Angels and Demons (Ignatius, 1995) - Catholic Philosopher answers student's questions

Phillip H. Wiebe, God and Other Spirits: Intimations of Transcendence In Christian Experience, (Oxford University Press, 2004) - phenomenological case for angels

John Woolmer, Angels of Glory and Darkness (Monarch, 2006) - by mathematician turned vicar and exorcist John Woolmer

A Very Happy Christmas to all readers of the ID.Plus Blog!

Meta-Apologetics

2009-11-24T14:31:00.003Z

Of late I've been putting a lot of my research efforts into meta-apologetics, that is, to thinking about the nature of apologetics, and I've been doing this in the context of on-going research into the nature of Christian Spirituality, Classical Rhetoric, and the Transcendental values of Truth, Goodness and Beauty; all of which has, I think, proven quite fruitful. I've given three talks on different aspects of this research which I'd like to highlight by presenting them here:

‘The Damaris Approach - How Paul in Athens Provides a Biblical Basis for Engaging with Popular Culture through Classical Rhetoric’ (43:00) 1st Sept 09

'Apologetics in 3D' (55:00) 24th Sep 09

'1 Peter 3:15 - Apologetics: What, Where, When, Who, How & Why?' (31:00) 23rd Nov 09

Recommended Resources on Apologetics

(Video) Frank Turek, ‘Do we need proof, or is faith enough?’
(Video) Gregory Koukl, ‘Apologetic Tactics’ Pt 1, Pt 2, Pt 3
(Video) John Lennox, ‘What is Apologetics?’
(Video) John Lennox, ‘Apologetics: An Intellectual Game?’
(Video) John Lennox, ‘Prepare to Defend Christianity’
(Video) John Lennox, ‘The Christian Use of the Mind’
(Video) Lee Strobel, ‘The Adventure of Apologetics’ Part One & Part Two

(Audio) William Lane Craig, ‘Advice to Christian Apologists’
(Audio) Lars Dahle, ‘Biblical Foundations and Models for Contemporary Apologetics’
(Audio) Peter May, ‘The Centrality of Persuasion in Authentic Evangelism’
(Audio) J.P. Moreland, Apologetics Seminar (into by Ronald Larson)
(Audio) Tom Price, ‘Persuasive Evangelism - Apologetics’
(Audio) Francis A. Schaeffer, ‘Apologetics’

(Paper) J. Daryl Charles, ‘Engaging the (Neo)Pagan Mind: Paul’s Encounter with Athenian Culture as a Model for Cultural Apologetics (Acts 17:16–34)’
(Paper) Norman L. Geisler, ‘The Need for Apologetics’
(Paper) Gregory Koukl, ‘Regarding Apologetics, An Apology’
(Paper) Peter May, ‘What is Apologetics?’
(Paper) J.P. Moreland, ‘Philosophical Apologetics, the Church, and Contemporary Culture’
(Papers) Thinking Matter’s Journal, Issue 1, January 2009 – Introducing Apologetics

(Book) Steven B. Cowan (ed.), Five Views on Apologetics (Zondervan, 2000)
(Book) Peter Kreeft & Ronald Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics (IVP, 1994), Chapter 1.
(Book) Alister McGrath, Bridge-Building: Communicating Christianity Effectively (IVP, 1992), Introduction.

William Lane Craig defends the viability of Intelligent Design Theory in Biology

2009-11-08T13:02:00.006Z

Christian philosopher, theologian and apologist William Lane Craig has participated in his first ever public debate on the topic of Intelligent Design Theory (cf. the official debate website here). Craig's noted debating partner was theistic evolutionist Francisco J. Ayala. The topic of debate was: Is Intelligent Design Viable?

You can watch Craig's opening speech on video @ http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/video-of-william-lane-craigs-opening-speech-from-his-debate-on-id-with-ayala/

Listen to the full Ayala/Craig debate and Q&A time on MP3 Audio here

Craig (who endorses big bang cosmology and who says he is genuinely open to evidence for macro-evolution) stated that he is agnostic about the truth of a design inference from biology, but that he thinks such an inference is at least a viable hypothesis that should be given a place at the table, and that the attacks being made on the theory aren't sound.

Craig offers his view of how the debate went here

Interestingly, the debate and Q&A time was moderated by Bradley Monton, an atheist philosopher of science and the author of Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design. In essence, Craig was arguing the same general thesis as Monton (although he is more positive than Monton about biology-based ID arguments), whilst being a theist rather than an atheist.

Monton has blogged on the debate here.

It's well worth reading Monton's book, and listening to his lecture defending ID:
Bradley Monton, 'An Atheist Philosopher Defends Intelligent Design - Lecture'

What does discovery of planet with a 'remarkable resemblance to Earth' mean for Rare Earth hypothesis?

2009-10-06T10:07:00.005+01:00

As reported by the Metro paper (Sept 17, 2009):

'A newly discovered planet that is the smallest yet found outside our solar system bears a remarkable resemblance to Earth...'

How 'remarkable' is this 'resemblance to Earth'? Does this discovery threaten to overturn the Rare Earth hypothesis?

'"Corot-7B is a rocky "super-Earth" with a solid surface and similar density to our terrestrial home.'

So, pretty Earth-like then?

Not a bit of it.

Corot-7B is '80 percent larger and five times heavier' than Earth.

Moreover, the Metro adds: 'don't pack your bags just yet - its much closer to its star than we are to the Sun, meaning the temperature on the surface is up to 1,500 [degrees Celsius] and no known life could survive there.'

And, remember, that's a planet that 'bears a remarkable resemblance to Earth'!

Evangelical Alliance Slipstream Podcast on 'A Sceptic's Guide to Atheism'

2009-09-03T09:31:00.007+01:00

The latest episode of the EA (Evangelical Alliance) Slipstream podcast (aimed at church leaders) features an interview with me about A Sceptic's Guide to Atheism (Paternoster 2009) and the 'new atheism', as well as a glowing review of the book by EA's 'Public Theology Researcher' Susannah Clark (cf. her written review).

Here's a link to the specific podcast page (episode 17), which also includes a link to an excerpt from A Sceptic's Guide to Atheism as well as some other relevant resources.

Thanks to one and all at Slipstream - I suspect I have you to thank for A Sceptic's Guide to Atheism bouncing up the following www.amazon.co.uk best-selling-in-category lists:

#4 in	Books > Mind, Body & Spirit > Other Religious & Spiritual Practices > Agnosticism & Atheism
#6 in	Books > Society, Politics & Philosophy > Philosophy > Topics > Religion
#7 in	Books > Religion & Spirituality > Christianity > Theology > Philosophy

Podcasts from Norway Trip Aug 09

2009-09-02T10:43:00.002+01:00

Podcasts from my recent trip to Gimlekollen in Norway -

You can subscribe to this podcast from iTunes by adding the following URL (Under Advanced Menu): http://www.damaris.org/cm/rss/podcasts/peterswilliams.xml

'Margunn Dahle introduces Peter S. Williams' (08:14) Download
Short Interview.

'The Damaris Approach - How Paul in Athens Provides a Biblical Basis for Engaging with Popular Culture through Classical Rhetoric’ – Lecture given to BA students at Gimlekollen School of Journalism and Communication in Norway (43:30) Download

'The Doctor and The Christ' (82:42) Download
This material was delivered to BA students at Gimlekollen School of Journalism and Communication in Norway on a Christian analysis of Doctor Who, covering both the role of Monsters in Doctor Who and the character of the Doctor.

'Introduction to Arguments for the Christian God' (66:48) Download
Church youth talk on reasons to believe in the Christian God, with Q&A - Norwegian translation by Bjørn Hinderaker.

EA Review of 'A Sceptic's Guide to Atheism'

2009-08-25T10:41:00.004+01:00

Evangelical Alliance 'Public Theology Researcher' Susannah Clark has written a review of A Sceptic's Guide to Atheism (Paternoster, 2009). Some edited highlights:

'If you ever feel unsure of how to answer questions sceptics may have, want to educate yourself or your congregation to be informed about the sorts of debates concerning God prominent in the public square, or find yourself confused by conflicting viewpoints in books and the media, then this book is for you. It is not a particularly light read, covering many different arguments and viewpoints in a short space of time, but it is a very helpful overview and introduction to the themes and ideas each chapter presents...

Williams is impressive in the level of depth and sophistication his arguments go into and the breadth of understanding he demonstrates around the issues...

Given that the questions the book examines are the kinds of questions that are relevant to many people and common questions asked, likely to come up in discussion and evangelism, this book can provide some very thorough grounding to be able to understand and respond to the arguments, and is the sort of book that would likely be useful to refer back to long after it has initially been read. I would thoroughly recommend it as a helpful tool to anyone wishing to educate themselves around these questions. God is back in the public debate – use this book to help you engage in those debates in an informed and well researched way.'

New Paper by Peter S. Williams, 'Atheists Against Darwinism: Johnsons' "Wedge" Breaks Through', published by Evangelical Philosophy Society

2009-08-25T09:54:00.004+01:00

Newly published on the EPS website:

'Atheists Against Darwinism: Johnsons' "Wedge" Breaks Through'

Abstract
Intelligent design theory claims that 1) empirical evidence warrants 2) a scientific design inference using 3) reliable design detection criteria. Philosophia Christi published my paper "The Design Inference from Specified Complexity Defended by Scholars Outside the Intelligent Design Movement: A Critical Review" (Philosophia Christi, Vol 9, Number 2), which defended the third of these claims by reviewing the work atheists and theistic evolutionists. This paper defends the second of these claims, likewise by reviewing work by agnostics and atheists.

This paper therefore rounds off a defence of the philosophical elements of Intelligent Design Theory.

'A Sceptic's Guide to Atheism' at Number 5

2009-08-14T14:06:00.002+01:00

A Sceptic's Guide to Atheism (Paternoster, 2009) is currently at number 5 in the amazon.co.uk rankings for best selling books on Agnosticism & Atheism.

It is also now:

#18 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > Christianity > Theology > Philosophy

#26 in Books > Society, Politics & Philosophy > Philosophy > Topics > Religion

'Creation' trailer

2009-08-03T16:56:00.001+01:00

'A Sceptic's Guide to Atheism' moving up the Amazon rankings

2009-07-31T09:53:00.000+01:00

A Sceptic's Guide to Atheism (Paternoster, 2009) has been moving up the amazon.co.uk sales rankings, and is now in the top twenty books on Agnosticism & Atheism (currently at number 12):

#12 in	Books > Mind, Body & Spirit > Other Religious & Spiritual Practices > Agnosticism & Atheism
#29 in	Books > Religion & Spirituality > Christianity > Theology > Philosophy
#44 in	Books > Religion & Spirituality > Religious Studies > Philosophy

'Philosophy Now' reviews 'A Sceptic's Guide to Atheism'

2009-07-30T14:17:00.005+01:00

Writing in the current edition of Philosophy Now (July/August 2009), Luke Pollard provides a generally positive review to A Sceptic's Guide to Atheism (Paternoster, 2009). Here are the edited highlights:

'Peter S. Williams’ new book A Sceptic’s Guide to Atheism seeks to challenge the popular conception that the New Atheist movement has a monopoly on the rational… In popular culture the philosophical extremists from both religious and anti-religious groups have shouted down the rest. Williams’ book is an attempt to redress this – promoting thinking, and lending logic to the debate. He helps us to see that the question of God can be addressed with care and precision… A Sceptic’s Guide to Atheism acts, first and foremost, as a thorough account of the God debate in contemporary circles… A Sceptic’s Guide to Atheism is a wonderful resource if one’s main aim is to study the history of the New Atheists, or if one wants to save time: the book is a good substitute for reading every popular New Atheist tome – most of their arguments, and best quotes on the God debate are contained within… However, the book’s real attraction is not its history lessons. Instead, it is the logical assessment of the atheist arguments… Evidence and reason is allowed to rule above rhetoric and emotive gut-reactions. Williams doesn’t hammer his point across – you don’t finish reading with the sense that you’ve been intellectually mugged. Instead you feel enriched by a plethora of new information… Williams… interacts with the New Atheist arguments, evaluating them logically, thus giving us a well-thought-out perspective. This is relatively uncommon at the popularist level. And whilst we have plenty of deep books on both sides (which are, unfortunately, rarely the popular ones), it is unusual to have them interacting with the alternative perspective in such a compelling way… Although it is written from a Christian perspective, Williams’ precise, logical style makes it fascinating reading for the rest of us. Thus it is an essential resource, helping the reader to get to grips with every angle of the God debate. As such, it will probably be burned as heretical teaching.'

Read the full review here

Ron Numbers & Paul Nelson in Discussion

2009-07-26T15:38:00.002+01:00

Ronald Numbers is an agnostic Historian of Science who writes a lot about young earth creationism
Paul Nelson is a Christian philosopher of science who is both an intelligent design theorist and a ('left wing') young earth creationist. The conversation takes in a discussion of the ground rules of science, the new atheism, theistic evolution and what should be taught in schools.

Book Worms Review of 'A Sceptic's Guide to Atheism' (Paternoster, 2009)

2009-07-19T12:38:00.002+01:00

This from a brief review of A Sceptic's Guide to Atheism @ 'Book Worms - The Online Magazine for Book Worms Everywhere'

"A Sceptic’s Guide to Atheism is a lively and provocative read. Williams offers a robust response to the anti-religious claims of ‘The New Atheists’."

Recent Videos on the Historical Reliability of the Gospels

2009-07-15T16:02:00.005+01:00

Professor Martin Hengel (Hengel was Professor of New Testament and Early Judaism at Germany's prestigious University of Tübingen from 1972 until, as Professor Emeritus, his death on July 2nd 2009):

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony with Professor Richard Bauckham:

On Infinite Division and Codes in DNA

2009-07-15T15:25:00.004+01:00

Snippets from the June 2009 edition of BBC Focus magazine...

'In 1924, two Polish mathematicians proved that a solid ball can be cut into pieces, which, when rearranged, form not only the original ball, but an exact copy as well. The proof of this amaizing result, called the Banach-Tarski paradox, assumes it's possible to cut things up indefinitely finely, which isn't really possible.' p. 48.

In other words, the assumption that a concrete object is composed of an actually infinite number of discrete parts leads to the conclusion that you can cut up 1 ball and end up with 2 balls identical to the original ball. Since this is plainly ridiculous, this is a reductio of the assumption of infinite divisibility. This would have application as an counter-example to the actual infinity of the past in discussion of the kalam cosmological argument (in addition to the now standard Hilbert's Hotel example).

Also...

'Deinococcus radiodurans, is the most radiation-resistant organism in the world... the fact that its DNA is packed in a tight ring and that the cells contain high levels of manganese seem to be contributing factors... Scientists from the Pacific Northwest national Laboratory in the US have even argued that it could be used to store valuable information in the event of a nuclear catastrophe. To prove it, they encoded the words It's a Small World into its DNA. A hundred bacterial generations later, the words were still there.'

Any post nuclear holocaust scientist who stumbled across this particular organism and discovered that its DNA encoded the sentence It's a Small World in its DNA might be tempted to attribute this fact to intelligent design. But, of course (and note the sarcastic tone here), making such a design inference a) would not be science, b) would explain nothing (because it leaves the origin of the designer unexplained), c) would be unconstitutional in America, d) would mean he was trying to take us back to the dark ages and establish some sort of a theocracy, etc...

'Evangelicals Now' Review of 'A Sceptic's Guide to Atheism'

2009-07-10T11:46:00.003+01:00

My book A Sceptic's Guide to Atheism (Paternoster, 2009) - which is now available from amazon.co.uk and from amazon.com - is reviewed in this month's edition of Evangelicals Now.

Here's the review in full:

A SCEPTIC’S GUIDE TO ATHEISM God is not dead!
By Peter S. Williams Paternoster. 300 pages. £12.99 ISBN 978-1-84227-617-4

In this book the author aims to apply ‘rigorous critical judgment to contemporary popular defences of … atheism, especially the so called “New Atheism”’.

Many readers of EN will be aware of the bestselling titles by some of the most ardent atheists of the modern era. Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), Christopher Hitchins (God is not Great), Sam Harris (Letter to a Christian Nation), A.C. Grayling (Against all Gods) and Daniel Dennett (Breaking the Spell) are the most well known evangelists of this atheology. Williams surveys the claims made by these authors such as: ‘Belief in God causes more harm than good’; ‘Religion is only about blind faith and science is the only way to know things’; ‘Science can explain away religion’; ‘There is not enough evidence for the existence of God and the traditional proofs of natural theology are inadequate’.

The strength of Williams’s book comes in his careful and considered analysis of these views and his convincing demonstration of their intellectual inadequacy. His case is strengthened by the judicious use of equally critical comments by atheist and agnostic reviewers, for example, from Jeremy Stangroom (p.95) and Michael Ruse (pp.212-213). This book does use some technical philosophical terms and, in its presentation of some of the material, readers unfamiliar with philosophical arguments and literature may find comprehension difficult. However, for students and teachers in higher education, together with church leaders and others who may have colleagues at work who have been influenced by these polemical atheists, this book is highly commended.

At the end of each chapter there are numerous recommended articles, books, audio-materials and on-line resources to explore this subject further. £12.99 is a bargain price for this strongly recommended book.

- The Rev. Dr. Brian Talbot, minister, Broughty Ferry Baptist Church, Dundee

Signature in the Cell - new book from Dr Stephen C. Meyer

2009-06-16T15:28:00.006+01:00

Look out for Dr Stephen C. Meyer's new book Signature in the Cell, due out at the end of July 2009. Stephen C. Meyer is director of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (CSC) and a founder both of the intelligent design movement and of the CSC, intelligent design’s primary intellectual and scientific headquarters. Dr. Meyer is a Cambridge University-trained philosopher of science, the author of peer-reviewed publications in technical, scientific, philosophical and other books and journals.

Watch this recent Signature in the Cell book-tour lecture by Meyer:

P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash">

Product Description

'Unlike previous arguments for intelligent design, Signature in the Cell presents a radical and comprehensive new case, revealing the evidence not merely of individual features of biological complexity but rather of a fundamental constituent of the universe: information. That evidence has been mounting exponentially in recent years, known to scientists in specialized fields but largely hidden from public view. A Cambridge University-trained theorist and researcher, director of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, Dr. Meyer is the first to bring the relevant data together into a powerful demonstration of the intelligence that stands outside nature and directs the path life has taken.'

The book carries some impressive endorsements:

'In this engaging narrative, Meyer demonstrates what I as a chemist have long suspected: undirected chemical processes cannot produce the exquisite complexity of the living cell. Meyer also shows something else: there is compelling positive evidence for intelligent design in the digital code stored in the cell’s DNA. A decisive case based upon breathtaking and cutting-edge science.' — Dr. Philip S. Skell, National Academy of Sciences and Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, emeritus

'This is a ‘must read’ for all serious students of the origin-of-life debate. Not only is it a comprehensive defense of the theory of intelligent design, it is a lucid and rigorous exposition of the various dimensions of the scientific method. Students of chemistry and biology at all levels—high school, undergraduate, or postgraduate—will find much to challenge their thinking in this book.' — Alastair Noble, Ph.D. chemistry, former BBC Education Officer and Her Majesty’s Inspector of Schools for Science, Scotland

'The origin of life remains one of the great unsolved mysteries of modern science. Looking beyond the biochemistry of the problem and focusing instead on the origin and information content of the ‘code of life,’ Meyer has written an eminently readable and engaging account of the quest to solve this mystery. Sharing both his personal history and a retelling of the key scientific discoveries of the last half century from this new and intriguing perspective, he has challenged us to consider an alternative to the standard story of abiogenesis and discover new meaning from our existence. I recommend this book to laypeople and accomplished professionals alike.' — Edward Peltzer, Ph.D., Ocean Chemistry, Scripps Institution of Oceanography

'Signature in the Cell is at once a philosophical history of how information has come to be central to cutting-edge research in biology today and one man’s intellectual journey to the conclusion that intelligent design provides the best explanation for that fact. In his own modest and accessible way, Meyer has provided no less than a blueprint for twenty-first-century biological science—one that decisively shifts the discipline’s center of gravity from nineteenth-century Darwinian preoccupations with fossils and field studies to the computerized, lab-based molecular genetics that underwrites the increasingly technological turn in the life sciences. After this book, readers will wonder whether anything more than sentimentality lies behind the continued association of Darwin’s name with "modern biology."’— Dr. Steve Fuller, Professor of Sociology of Science, University of Warwick, and author of Dissent from Descent

'This timely and important book is a landmark in the intelligent design debate and one which draws together all relevant research and information. It is elegantly written in a style that is accessible and laced with interesting historical and personal anecdotes. ‘Signature in the Cell’ will pay rich dividends to everyone who turns its pages.' —Dr. Norman C. Nevin, OBE, BSc, MD, FFPH, FRCPath, FRCP (Edin), FRCPEmeritus Professor in Medical Genetics, Queen’s University, Belfast

'Signature in the Cell delivers a superb overview of the surprising and exciting developments that led to our modern understanding of DNA, and its role in cells. Meyer tells the story in a most engaging way. He retained my interest through many areas that would normally have turned me off. He is careful to credit new ideas and discoveries to their originators, even when he disagrees with the uses to which they have been put. The central idea of the book is that the best explanation of the information coded in DNA is that it resulted from intelligent design. Meyer has marshaled a formidable array of evidence from fields as diverse as biochemistry, philosophy and information theory. He deals fairly and thoroughly with even the most controversial aspects and has made a compelling case for his conclusion. The book is a delightful read which will bring enlightenment and enjoyment to every open minded reader.' —Dr. John C. Walton, School of Chemistry, University of St. Andrews

View Meyer's excellent and engaging 2006 debate on ID with Peter C. Ward:

Plenty of other media clips of Meyer are available here from his new website.

Another complement about 'A Sceptic's Guide to Atheism'

2009-06-16T14:22:00.002+01:00

This from an amazon.com reviewer Deya S (in a review of Edward Fesser's The Last Superstition):

'if you're looking for a philosophical book that specifically, directly and convincingly rebuts and refute all the main SPECIFIC arguments of the New Atheists... I'd strongly recommend you "A Sceptic's Guide to Atheism" by philosopher Peter Williams, a book that you can order from damaris website (http://www.damaris.org/cm/shop/product/60/). Williams' book is probably the best SPECIFIC and DETAILED philosophical response in print to each of the New Atheists (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Harris, Grayling, etc.).'

Angus Menuge Endorses 'A Sceptic's Guide to Atheism'

2009-06-14T18:26:00.003+01:00

This from Dr Angus J. Menuge in a recent post on the EPS blog:

'Finally, on the apologetics front, a definite thumbs-up for Peter Williams' A Sceptic's Guide to Atheism, which contains a lot of helpful material for responding to the new atheists' attempts to dismiss religious belief and experience as an illusion (which helped me considerably in presentations I gave at UCLA and Fort Wayne). See his interview here.'

'A Sceptic's Guide to Atheism' reviewed in 'Baptist Minister's Journal'

2009-05-06T10:19:00.001+01:00

‘a philosophical repost to… the “popular mass media evangelists” of atheism [that] weighs the arguments of the atheist apologists and, unsurprisingly but nonetheless encouragingly, finds them wanting… this is a brave – and scholarly – attempt to fight fire with fire... Williams provides a well researched and thought provoking appendix setting out “the evidence for Jesus”... the value of this book lies in providing useful insights into the classic arguments of both atheism and Christianity – for personal and public use.’ – Bob Little, Baptist Minister’s Journal

Peter S. Williams Podcasts

2009-04-18T12:12:00.000+01:00

It is worth checking out my damaris podcast channel at the moment as plenty of new talks are being posted there due to my current participation in an apologetics course at my local church.

A.N. Wilson - Atheist Writer Turns Back to Christ

2009-04-16T02:28:00.007+01:00

A.N. Wilson (b. 1950-), an Oxford educated English author, journalist and literary editor well known for his iconoclastic biographies of figures including Jesus, Paul and C.S. Lewis, as well as for books like God's Funeral (a study of 19th century doubters and atheists), became an atheist aged 38. However, now, some two decades on, Wilson has publicly announced his return to Christian faith in articles appearing in the New Statesman (2nd April 09) - see also his reply to the question 'Can you love god and Darwin?' - and the Daily Mail (11th April 2009).

This September 2008 interview in Country Life is also worth a peek.

On the subject of Darwinism and Christian faith, Wilson now says:

I think you can love God and agree with the author of The Voyage of the Beagle, the Earth Worm, and most of the Origin of Species. The Descent of Man, with its talk of savages, its belief that black people are more primitive than white people, and much nonsense besides, is an offence to the intelligence - and is obviously incompatible with Christianity. I think the jury is out about whether the theory of Natural selection, as defined by neo-Darwinians is true, and whether serious scientific doubts, as expressed in a new book Why Us by James Lefanu, deserve to be taken seriously. For example, does the discovery of the complex structure of DNA and the growth in knowledge in genetics require a rethink of Darwinian “gradualism”. But these are scientific rather than religious questions. ('Can you love god and Darwin?')

Some other Wilson quotes of interest - first from the New Statesman:

as a born-again atheist... I was at one with my own generation... If I bumped into Richard Dawkins (an old colleague from Oxford days) or had dinner in Washington with Christopher Hitchens... I did not have to feel out on a limb. Hitchens was excited to greet a new convert to his non-creed and put me through a catechism before uncorking some stupendous claret. “So – absolutely no God?” “Nope,” I was able to say with Moonie-zeal. “No future life, nothing ‘out there’?” “No,” I obediently replied. At last! I could join in the creed shared by so many (most?) of my intelligent contemporaries in the western world – that men and women are purely material beings (whatever that is supposed to mean), that “this is all there is” (ditto), that God, Jesus and religion are a load of baloney: and worse than that, the cause of much (no, come on, let yourself go), most (why stint yourself – go for it, man), all the trouble in the world...

My doubting temperament, however, made me a very unconvincing atheist. And unconvinced... Colin Haycraft... used to say, “I do wish Freddie [Ayer] wouldn’t go round calling himself an atheist. It implies he takes religion seriously.”

This creed that religion can be dispatched in a few brisk arguments (outlined in David Hume’s masterly Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion) and then laughed off kept me going for some years. When I found myself wavering, I would return to Hume in order to pull myself together...

But religion, once the glow of conversion had worn off, was not a matter of argument alone. It involves the whole person... I was drawn, over and over again, to the disconcerting recognition that so very many of the people I had most admired and loved, either in life or in books, had been believers... Of course, there are arguments that might make you doubt the love of God. But a life like Gandhi’s, which was focused on God so deeply, reminded me of all the human qualities that have to be denied if you embrace the bleak, muddled creed of a materialist atheist... Attractive and amusing as David Hume was, did he confront the complexities of human existence as deeply as his contemporary Samuel Johnson, and did I really find him as interesting?

Watching a whole cluster of friends, and my own mother, die over quite a short space of time convinced me that purely materialist “explanations” for our mysterious human existence simply won’t do – on an intellectual level. The phenomenon of language alone should give us pause. A materialist Darwinian was having dinner with me a few years ago and we laughingly alluded to how, as years go by, one forgets names... my friend asserted: “It is because when we were simply anthropoid apes, there was no need to distinguish between one another by giving names.” This credal confession struck me as just as superstitious as believing in the historicity of Noah’s Ark. More so, really. Do materialists really think that language just “evolved”, like finches’ beaks, or have they simply never thought about the matter rationally? Where’s the evidence? How could it come about that human beings all agreed that particular grunts carried particular connotations? How could it have come about that groups of anthropoid apes developed the amazing morphological complexity of a single sentence, let alone the whole grammatical mystery which has engaged Chomsky and others in our lifetime and linguists for time out of mind? No, the existence of language is one of the many phenomena – of which love and music are the two strongest – which suggest that human beings are very much more than collections of meat. They convince me that we are spiritual beings, and that the religion of the incarnation, asserting that God made humanity in His image, and continually restores humanity in His image, is simply true. As a working blueprint for life, as a template against which to measure experience, it fits.

For a few years, I resisted the admission that my atheist-conversion experience had been a bit of middle-aged madness. I do not find it easy to articulate thoughts about religion...

...atheist friends... seem to me like people who have no ear for music, or who have never been in love. It is not that (as they believe) they have rumbled the tremendous fraud of religion – prophets do that in every generation. Rather, these unbelievers are simply missing out on something that is not difficult to grasp. Perhaps it is too obvious to understand; obvious, as lovers feel it was obvious that they should have come together, or obvious as the final resolution of a fugue.

...one thing that finally put the tin hat on any aspirations to be an unbeliever was writing a book about the Wagner family and Nazi Germany, and realising how utterly incoherent were Hitler’s neo-Darwinian ravings, and how potent was the opposition, much of it from Christians; paid for, not with clear intellectual victory, but in blood. Read Pastor Bonhoeffer’s book Ethics, and ask yourself what sort of mad world is created by those who think that ethics are a purely human construct. Think of Bonhoeffer’s serenity before he was hanged, even though he was in love and had everything to look forward to.

My departure from the Faith was like a conversion on the road to Damascus. My return was slow, hesitant, doubting... but I know I shall never make the same mistake again. Gilbert Ryle, with donnish absurdity, called God “a category mistake”. Yet the real category mistake made by atheists is not about God, but about human beings. Turn to the Table Talk of Samuel Taylor Coleridge – “Read the first chapter of Genesis without prejudice and you will be convinced at once . . . ‘The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life’.” And then Coleridge adds: "‘And man became a living soul.’ Materialism will never explain those last words.

Other responses to questions put to him in the New Statesman:

Do people like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins simply not get life?

... clever as the professional atheists are, they are missing out on some very basic experiences of life.

What's the worst thing about being faithless?

...When I thought I was an atheist I would listen to the music of Bach and realize that his perception of life was deeper, wiser, more rounded than my own. Ditto when I read the lives of great men and women who were religious...

Of the things that drove you [to] atheism, what have you still to resolve?

Childish playground things - religious people aren't cool, religious people have spots, wear specs, all those feelings; embarrassment at being in the same gang as people whose views sound, and perhaps are, absurd; or worse than absurd. The disconcerting sense that certain psychological types (often v unappealing) seem to be drawn to religion. I very much dislike the intolerance and moralism of many Christians, and feel more sympathy with Honest Doubters than with them.

And now quotes from the Daily Mail:

[Christianity is the] story of a Jewish prophet falling foul of the authorities in an eastern province of the Roman Empire, and being punished, as were thousands of Jews during the governorship of Pontius Pilate, by the gruesome torture of crucifixion. This Easter weekend we revisit the extraordinary ending of that story - the discovery by some women friends of Jesus that his tomb was empty. And we read of the reactions of the disciples - fearful, incredulous, but eventually believing that... 'The Lord is risen indeed!' But how many in Britain today actually believe the story? Most recent polls have shown that considerably less than half of us do... For much of my life, I, too, have been one of those who did not believe. It was in my young manhood that I began to wonder how much of the Easter story I accepted, and in my 30s I lost any religious belief whatsoever.

Like many people who lost faith, I felt anger with myself for having been 'conned' by such a story. I began to rail against Christianity, and wrote a book, entitled Jesus, which endeavoured to establish that he had been no more than a messianic prophet who had well and truly failed, and died.

Why did I, along with so many others, become so dismissive of Christianity? Like most educated people in Britain and Northern Europe... I have grown up in a culture that is overwhelmingly secular and anti-religious. The universities, broadcasters and media generally are not merely non-religious, they are positively anti. To my shame, I believe it was this that made me lose faith and heart in my youth. It felt so uncool to be religious. With the mentality of a child in the playground, I felt at some visceral level that being religious was unsexy, like having spots or wearing specs. This playground attitude accounts for much of the attitude towards Christianity that you pick up, say, from the alternative comedians, and the casual light blasphemy of jokes on TV or radio. It also lends weight to the fervour of the anti-God fanatics, such as the writer Christopher Hitchens and the geneticist Richard Dawkins, who think all the evil in the world is actually caused by religion. The vast majority of media pundits and intelligentsia in Britain are unbelievers, many of them quite fervent in their hatred of religion itself..

For ten or 15 of my middle years, I, too, was one of the mockers. But, as time passed, I found myself going back to church, although at first only as a fellow traveller with the believers, not as one who shared the faith that Jesus had truly risen from the grave. Some time over the past five or six years - I could not tell you exactly when - I found that I had changed. When I took part in the procession last Sunday and heard the Gospel being chanted, I assented to it with complete simplicity.

My own return to faith has surprised no one more than myself. Why did I return to it? Partially, perhaps it is no more than the confidence I have gained with age. Rather than being cowed by them, I relish the notion that, by asserting a belief in the risen Christ, I am defying all the liberal clever-clogs on the block... But there is more to it than that. My belief has come about in large measure because of the lives and examples of people I have known... who have lived, and faced death, in the light of the Resurrection story, or in the quiet acceptance that they have a future after they die.

The Easter story... changes people's lives because it helps us understand that we, like Jesus, are born as spiritual beings. Every inner prompting of conscience, every glimmering sense of beauty, every response we make to music, every experience we have of love - whether of physical love, sexual love, family love or the love of friends - and every experience of bereavement, reminds us of this fact about ourselves.

Ah, say the rationalists. But no one can possibly rise again after death, for that is beyond the realm of scientific possibility. And it is true to say that no one can ever prove - nor, indeed, disprove - the existence of an after-life or God, or answer the conundrums of honest doubters (how does a loving God allow an earthquake in Italy?) Easter does not answer such questions by clever-clever logic. Nor is it irrational. On the contrary, it meets our reason and our hearts together, for it addresses the whole person.

In the past, I have questioned its veracity and suggested that it should not be taken literally. But the more I read the Easter story, the better it seems to fit and apply to the human condition. That, too, is why I now believe in it.

Easter confronts us with a historical event set in time. We are faced with a story of an empty tomb, of a small group of men and women who were at one stage hiding for their lives and at the next were brave enough to face the full judicial persecution of the Roman Empire and proclaim their belief in a risen Christ.

...materialist atheism is not merely an arid creed, but totally irrational. Materialist atheism says we are just a collection of chemicals. It has no answer whatsoever to the question of how we should be capable of love or heroism or poetry if we are simply animated pieces of meat.

The Resurrection, which proclaims that matter and spirit are mysteriously conjoined, is the ultimate key to who we are... Most of the greatest writers and thinkers of the past 1,500 years have believed it. But an even stronger argument is the way that Christian faith transforms individual lives...

Dr Conor Cunnigham on Darwin and God

2009-04-06T15:21:00.006+01:00

In this fascinating Nottingham University podcast theistic evolutionist Dr Conor Cunningham, of the Department of Theology and Religious Studies at Nottingham University, discusses his recent (and in my opinion generally very good) TV documentary on Darwin and God.

Dr Conor makes some excellent criticisms of the 'selfish gene' theory, and its sociological spin off, namely 'meme' theory. He castigates Richard Dawkins for his 'amature, cod philosophy.'
He also does a nice job debunking urban myths about belief in a flat earth and the Copernican revolution.

Conor's TV documentary unfortunately mentioned ID only once, to confuse it with creationism, and did not include any ID proponents, despite discussing the problem of 'convergence' for standard Darwinian theory. Of course, I disagree with Conor on the issue of ID, which he sees as a 'heresy'! (I didn't think his stated reason for this conclusion held water. He basically said in the documentary that if one believed in a God who acted within nature, what could one do with the problem of evil? But of course, any orthodox Christian must believe in an interventionist God, at least so far as revelation goes - i.e. regarding Jesus' incarnation, miracles, resurrection, etc. - and so this question already arises for any orthodox believer. Hence theistically interpreted ID doesn't raise a new question for theology.) Nevertheless, I agree with Dr Conor in rejecting both ultra-darwinism and creationism.

'A Sceptic's Guide to Atheism' (Paternoster, 2009) - The Evangelical Philosophical Society Interview

2009-03-24T00:24:00.003Z

The American Evangelical Philosophical Society recently interviewed me about my new book, A Sceptic's Guide to Atheism (Paternoster, 2009). The result is now available on their web blog.

ARN's New Look Website

2009-03-23T14:30:00.003Z

Check out the fantastic new look Access Research Network (ARN) website, and my newly updated Featured Author Page therein.

ARN are one of the leading peo-Intelligent Design websites.

'A Sceptic's Guide to Atheism' (Paternoster, 2009) - Book Launch Talk by Peter S. Williams

2009-03-21T14:55:00.005Z

The audio recording of my well received talk from the Christians in Science hosted book launch of A Sceptic's Guide to Atheism (Paternoster, 2009) is now available to download here (from the local south group website media page) or here (from my damaris podcast channel).

A Sceptic's Guide to Atheism (Paternoster, 2009) is now available through the Damaris Trust web store.

If you'd like to book me to come to your area to put on an event with a power-point illustrated talk, Q&A and copies of A Sceptic's Guide to Atheism for sale, contact the Damaris Office

Atheist Julian Baggini responds to the 'new atheism'

2009-03-20T10:23:00.004Z

Dr. Julian Baggini, author of Atheism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford, 2003) - has a go at the 'new atheism' in an article published by Frianke.no Here are the edited highlights...

'...my opinions are not so much about these books as the general tone and direction the new atheism they represent has adopted. This is not a function of what exactly these books say, but of how they are perceived, and the kind of comments the four horsemen make in newspaper articles and interviews. All this, I think, has been unhelpful in many ways. In short, the new atheism gets atheism wrong, gets religion wrong, and is counterproductive... atheism is not widely recognised as a world-view in its own right. This world view is essentially a very general form of naturalism, in which there are not two kinds of stuff, the natural and the supernatural, but one. The forces that govern this substance are also natural ones and there is no ultimate purpose or agency behind them. Human life is biological, and thus does not survive beyond biological death. Such a worldview needs defending, and a special name, only because for various reasons, it is not the one that most humans have adopted... So in my book, I tried to articulate the grounds for this view with as little reference to the religious alternative as possible. The new atheism, however, is characterised by its attacks on religion. “There is a logical path from religious faith to evil deeds,” wrote Richard Dawkins, quite typically, quoting approvingly Stephen Weinberg, who said, “for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.” Hitchens goes so far as to explicitly say that “I am not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist.” This antitheism is for me a backwards step. It reinforces what I believe is a myth, that an atheist without a bishop to bash is like a fish without water. Worse, it raises the possibility that as a matter of fact, for many atheists, they do indeed need an enemy to give them their identity.

A second feature of atheism is that it is committed to the appropriate use of reason and evidence. In order to occupy this intellectual high ground, it is important to recognise the limits of reason, and also to acknowledge that atheists have no monopoly on it. The new atheism, however, tends to claim reason as a decisive combatant on its side only. With its talk of “spells” and “delusions”, it gives the impression that only through stupidity or crass disregard for reason could anyone be anything other than an atheist. “Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence,” says Dawkins, once again implying that reason and evidence are strangers to religion. This is arrogant, and attributes to reason a power it does not have.

This is most evident when you consider the poverty of the new atheism’s “error theory”, which is needed to explain why, if atheism is indeed the view evidence and reason demands, so many very bright people are still religious. The usual answers given to this are not good enough. They tend to stress psychological blind-spots and wishful thinking. For instance, Dawkins says “the meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.” But if very intelligent people are so easily led astray by such things, then shouldn’t the new atheists themselves be more sceptical about the role reason plays in their own belief formation? You cannot, on the one hand, put forward a view that says great intelligence is easily over-ridden by psychological delusions and, on the other, claim that one unique group of people can see clearly what reason demands and free themselves from such grips. Either many religious people are not as irrational as they seem, or atheists are not entitled to assume they are as rational as they seem to themselves.

I also think the new atheism tends to get religion wrong. The focus is always on the out-dated metaphysics of religion... However, there is much more to religion to the metaphysics. To give a non-exhaustive list, religion is also about trying to live sub specie aeternitatis; orienting oneself to the transcendent rather than the immanent; living in a moral community of shared practice or as part of a valuable tradition; cultivating certain attitudes, such as gratitude and humility; and so on. To say, as Sam Harris does, that “religion is nothing more than bad concepts held in place of good ones for all time” misses all this...

The new atheism has also, I think, created an unhelpful climate for atheism to flourish. When people think of atheists now, they think about men who look only to science for answers, are dismissive of religion and over-confident in their own rightness...

For me, atheism’s roots are in a sober and modest assessment of where reason and evidence lead us. That means the real enemy is not religion as such, but any kind of system of belief that does not respect these limits on our thinking. For that reason, I want to engage with thoughtful, intelligent believers, and isolate extremists. But if we demonise all religion, such coalitions of the reasonable are not possible. Instead, we are likely to see moderate religious believers join ranks with fundamentalists, the enemies of their enemy, to resist what they see as an attempt to wipe out all forms of religious belief...

It is sometimes argued that this kind of desire for engagement with moderates is dangerous, since the liberals merely provide cover for the extremists. I find this as unpersuasive as the argument that talking to democratic socialists only encourages the communists, or that negotiating with Fatah is a sop to jihadists...

For these reasons, I am not happy about the public rhetoric of the new atheism, which has the most powerful effect on how people perceive people like me. Anyone committed to the proper use of reason and evidence should use both to see that this rhetoric matters, whether they like it or not, and modify their approach accordingly.'

A Sceptic's Guide to Atheism - Now on the Damaris Store

2009-03-19T13:53:00.001Z

My new book, A Sceptic's Guide to Atheism (Paternoster, 2009) is now available through the Damaris Trust web store.

John Dickson - The New Atheist's Questionable History

2009-03-18T18:07:00.002Z

The New Atheists questionable history part 1 from CPX on Vimeo.

The New Atheist's questionable history part 2 from CPX on Vimeo.

Michael Ruse - 'The Trouble With Richard Dawkins'

2009-03-18T16:43:00.002Z

The trouble with Richard Dawkins from CPX on Vimeo.

A Response to Edward Turner’s Review of 'I Wish I Could Believe In Meaning: A Response to Nihilism' (Damaris, 2004) by Peter S. Williams

2009-03-14T03:27:00.018Z

Ed’s review of I Wish I Could Believe in Meaning: A Response to Nihilism (Damaris, 2004) is prefaced with comments about a debate he and I had at Liverpool University in March 2009. I will not respond to Ed’s comments about our debate, but will focus upon his book review as such.

Damning With Faint Praise

Ed has one point of praise for I Wish I Could Believe in Meaning:

‘The one (count it) interesting passage that had me thinking was Williams’ discussion of beauty: is it subjective or objective? Would the Mona Lisa still be beautiful if there were no human beings left on Earth to appreciate her?’

I’m glad I stimulated Ed’s thinking. However, I’m sorry he mistakenly thinks my defence of objective beauty is a deduction from my theism (‘Williams’ answer is that beauty must be objective since God is the final arbiter of such matters.’) and that the only argument I give besides is ‘merely asserting that David Hume’s subjective view of beauty that “one man’s meat is another man’s poison” means that sadomasochism might be beautiful to some people but personally, Williams doesn’t like that sort of thing very much.’ Not that Ed indicates what he thinks is actually wrong with this argument! All of which leaves Ed with a subjective view of beauty – and this despite the facts that he is a moral objectivist, and the fact that it seems hard to be subjective about the one but not about the other (an argument made in my book with reference to G.E. Moore’s definition of beauty)! Ed comments: ‘My own view is that beauty is a manmade construct; an opinion, an emotive response, nothing more.’

Ed’s Core Criticism

Ed begins his review by summing up I Wish I Could Believe in Meaning as a book: ‘In which my antagonist sets out his reasons as to why the atheism of Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennett and Charles Darwin is deeply unsatisfying and that belief in God alone can provide meaning and purpose in people’s lives. Except in relation to the latter he doesn’t. He quite simply does not.’ (I do in fact make it clear that Darwin can’t straightforwardly be labelled an atheist.) Ed is adamant in asserting that I provide no positive reason for the claim ‘that belief in God alone can provide meaning and purpose in people’s lives.’ According to Ed: ‘The book is argued entirely negative terms.’ It isn’t.

While I certainly do claim that belief in God is the only philosophically coherent way in which to believe in an objective meaning and purpose in life, I also defend the more fundamental claim that it is only the existence of God that makes life objectively meaningful and purposeful in actuality (whether or not one believes either the former or the latter). Having noted this nuance, we can note Ed’s concern to hammer home his point about my book failing to even try to make a positive case: ‘There is not one argument, not one sentence, not one word, not one single syllable in support of Williams’ proposition that only belief in God in general and the Christian God in particular is either truthful, useful or meaningful.’ Of course, I think many beliefs are true besides belief in God (!); but in short, Ed’s assertion is simply untrue.

I think Ed means to say that there isn’t a single syllable in my book in support of the propositions enumerated above (i.e. that belief in God is the only philosophically coherent way in which to believe in an objective meaning and purpose in life, and that it is only the actual existence of God that makes life objectively meaningful and purposeful in actuality). Well, my book isn’t concerned to defend ‘the Christian God’ per se – the mere possibility of divine revelation is the book’s closing point. Nor am I concerned to argue that belief in God is ‘useful’ in any pragmatic sense. I thus find it odd to see Ed arguing:

‘Apologists seem to require reminding of this ad nauseum (not that it ever sinks in) that an argument for usefulness is in no way, shape or form an argument for truth. I’m sure the belief that Elvis will return from the dead/ alien captivity provides boundless hope and meaning to certain members of our society, but that is hardly going to persuade a rational skeptic of the truth of this proposition. As I read the book, I was increasingly convinced that “I Wish I Could Believe In Wishful Thinking” would have been a far more appropriate title.’

I can only suppose Ed has misunderstood the epistemological moves underlying the reasons I gave for regarding belief in value, meaning and purpose in life as properly basic beliefs (beliefs for which the burden of proof lies with the sceptic).

I am concerned to argue that belief in God is true, and Ed’s assertion that I make no effort to defend this belief is inaccurate. For example, having defended the proposition that objective moral values exist on pages 57-64, I spend pages 64-69 defending the proposition that the entailment of the existence of objective moral values is the existence of God! The entailment of these two propositions is the conclusion that God exists. In other words, pages 57-69 of I Wish I Could Believe in Meaning constitute a defence of the moral argument for the existence of God.

I could understand it if Ed were to argue that the moral argument is invalid, or depends upon a premise with which he disagrees. What I can’t understand is his assertion that I don’t attempt to give positive arguments for the claims that objective moral value exists and that its existence goes hand in hand with the existence of God. Pages 57-69 alone disprove Ed’s assertion that: ‘The book is argued entirely negative terms.’

It also has to be said that Ed apparently fails to take into account the positive theistic argument from mind developed at length in Chapter Five; or the various positive aesthetic (subsuming design) arguments for theism provided in Chapters Six, Seven, Eight and Nine!

Ed’s central complaint against I Wish I Could Believe in Meaning is clearly that: ‘The book is argued entirely negative terms: because the atheist world view provides no hope, no meaning and no purpose to life, it should be rejected in favor of theism. Alas, Williams offers no positive arguments is favor of theism, but simply attempts to show how unattractive he finds atheistic materialism.’ But this is untrue! I do argue that the atheist worldview provides no objective hope, meaning or purpose to life; but I also argue that there is objective meaning (goodness and beauty) and purpose (design) in life and that therefore the atheist worldview is false! It’s Ed’s failure to notice the positive argumentative structure of I Wish I Could Believe in Meaning which leads him to muse:

‘Perhaps because [Peter] knows he is preaching to his own choir, he takes it as read that his audience will have accepted the first premise and attempts to demonstrate that atheism is meaningless and with content. The only justification Williams gives is a personal anecdote about when a women he spoke to at the launch party of his first book, The Case For God, said that she wished she could believe in God as her life might have some purpose and meaning. “Why don’t you?” was Williams’ reply to this poor lost little soul. What I want to know is “Why should I?”

My reply to Ed is that he should pay particular attention to the arguments on pages 57-69 and in Chapters Five-Nine.

Discussing Morals

Bemusingly, in the very same review in which Ed claims that I don’t provide any arguments for theism, he comments: ‘Williams argues that objective morality can only come from God. God exists and he has the final say on matters of right and wrong.’ Thus Ed contradicts himself.

Ed critiques the moral argument by mounting an argument against believing that the Bible contains a genuine revelation from God:

‘Williams makes assertions which sound great on paper but fall apart when given a small injection of reality. As I said in our debate, if there is an objective moral standard, if that objective moral standard is God and if the practice of slavery is objective wrong, then why would God expressly and repeatedly mandate, regulate and justify it in the one book he thought was so important he dictated himself?’

Even if this argument works, it isn’t an argument against theism, only against a Jewish or Christian form of theism which accepts scriptural inerrancy! There are, however, other problems with Ed’s argument. For a start, he states: ‘The moral wrong of slavery is just as applicable to the people of first century Palestine while Paul was recommending the practice as it was in the nineteenth century whilst Abraham Lincoln and William Wilberforce were opposing it.’ But this fails to take account of the significant differences between the social practices labeled ‘slavery’ in the Bible and in nineteenth century America. The two just aren’t the same, and to treat them as such is therefore to argue by equivocation.

On this and other issues of biblical morality I recommend starting with Paul Copan’s excellent article: ‘Is Yahweh a Moral Monster?’

Ed affirms that: ‘Those who argue that objective morality can only be achieved through God still have all their work ahead of them.’ It is unfortunate that Ed doesn’t engage with the multiple reasons given in my book for making a link between the existence of objective moral values and the existence of God (cf. p. 67-69), especially since he grants the only other premise of the moral argument: ‘I believe that there is an objective standard of morality… We must be able to condemn the atrocities carried out by Islamo-fascists as wrong, full-stop. No ifs, no buts, no sickly relativistic maybes.’

Continuing his discussion of morality, Ed writes: ‘There is fulfillment in performing a good deed for its own sake, as opposed to doing it because an invisible Big Brother in sky wants you to do it… A humanist is, after all, someone who can be good when no-one is watching.’ I find nothing to disagree with here except the insinuation that a Christian is someone who can’t be good when no-one is watching (an insinuation that basically confuses applied ethics with meta-ethics).

Ed accepts that ‘there are many good deeds carried out in the name of religious faith,’ but he points out that ‘there are also many atrocities that flow directly from it as well,’ atrocities that he believes ‘don’t equalize at the margins as much as Williams would wish. Is there any wickedness, any evil, any atrocity that is denied to people who think they have God on their side?’ I wouldn’t say that God is on my side in quite the sense in which Ed seems to mean it; but I can only answer that, of course, I believe God has specifically denied my right to commit wicked acts (including acts such as those listed within the ten commandments). In my view, all evil and every atrocity is objectively speaking denied to everyone, including people who mistakenly think they have God ‘on their side’. Such people (who may or may not be culpably mistaken) may of course fail to deny themselves any evil and any atrocity. But then, couldn’t one say exactly the same thing about atheists? That all evil and atrocities are objectively denied to atheists who mistakenly think that they have right - if not God (!) - on their side? Belief in God can be misused to justify evil, but then so can atheism. So can nation or political party. So can love. At least theism can rationally justify calling some things evil, whereas, as Ed himself admits, a materialistic worldview cannot step up to the plate here. Ed may sweepingly proclaim that ‘The smug assertion, trotted out so regularly by believers that an atheist cannot say that the God-ordered atrocities of the Old Testament were objectively wrong, falls down like a house of cards – like all religious reasoning – once matters are thought through a little more carefully.’ But he also admits: ‘When it comes to morality, I make an exception to my otherwise materialistic world-view.’

For more on the moral argument, cf:

(Audio) Peter S. Williams, 'The Moral Argument for God'

(Video) William Lane Craig, 'Can We Be Good Without God?'

Unintelligent Design?

Ed's complaints against my treatment of intelligent design theory don't contain too much to which I feel a need to respond, except to point out that he misrepresents the ID argument. He misrepresents it as taking the form of an argument from ignorance: ‘I can see the fallacy in the ID argument a mile off. It is little more than a dressed up “God of the Gaps” argument: “I can’t explain how this works. Therefore it must be God.”’ That is indeed an invalid argument. It’s just not one advanced by ID. He also misrepresents ID as an argument for theism, when it isn’t (cf. Casey Luskin, ‘Is Intelligent Design Theory Really An Argument for God?’). Ed himself asks: ‘And just who is this Intelligent Designer? Do you have his business card?’ Well, no, not from looking at nature we don’t. There is no divine signature in our DNA, even if there are indications of intelligence behind our digital code. That’s why design theorists hold (following David Hume) that it’s impossible to justify the conclusion ‘God did it’ simply by looking at the evidence for design in nature. Design gets you a designer, it doesn’t get you a designer label.

Ed opines: ‘Anyone who has read Richard Dawkins’ treatment of Behe and ID in The God Delusion will read these passages with a withering sense of incredulity.’ The thing is, I have read Dawkins’ treatment of Behe (and ID) in The God Delusion. Dawkins doesn’t so much ‘treat’ Behe as completely fail to ‘treat’ him at all. Dawkins doesn’t even quote Behe.

Ed accuses ID of being ‘a political ploy, an attempt to get creationism into school science classrooms by the back door.’ At least for its originators, this simply is not so. Indeed, the major advocacy organization for ID has an official science teaching policy against the teaching of either creationism or ID (and they aren’t the same thing) in schools: 'As a matter of public policy, Discovery Institute opposes any effort require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education.' (cf. Discovery Institutes Science Education Policy)

Ed raises the so-called ‘problem of dysteleology’, which is a sub-version of the problem of evil:

'The reason why humans often suffer terrible back pain is because our spines are supporting 70% of our body weight on its own. Our spines are better suited to a species which should be still walking around on all fours. The fact that the human oesophagus shares the roles of swallowing and breathing means that humans are very susceptible to choking to death every time they eat. Some design, I would say. It’s not just argument from the inadequacy of the designer as Williams so desperately contends. To accept that biological organisms were intelligently designed, you have to accept that the designer most have either been stupefying inept or incredibly callous and capricious and cruel.'

I really don’t know what to make of Ed’s comment that: ‘It’s not just argument from the inadequacy of the designer as Williams so desperately contends.’ What I do know is that it’s a pity Ed doesn’t engage with my discussion of the dysteleology argument (p. 137-161).

cf. Paul Nelson, ‘Jettison the Argument or the Rule? The Place of Darwinian Theological Themata in Evolutionary Reasoning ’

Ed notes: ‘Willaims cites respectable scientific journals which have purportedly published peer-reviewed article advocating ID.’ [Sic] But there’s nothing merely purported about these publications, as Ed himself makes clear when he comments that ‘the history of peer-reviewed articles advocating ID is sparse...' It is true to say that: ‘the history of peer-reviewed articles advocating ID is sparse to say the least!’ It is, however, somewhat misleading to note that ‘The amount of publish material advocating ID is outweighed by a week’s worth on Darwinian evolution’, unless the papers in question are actually contradicting each other, and even then this wouldn’t settle the question of which paper was correct.

cf. ‘Peer Reviewed and Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting The Theory of Intelligent Design’

Ed concludes that: ‘ID has all the credibility of the theory that the movements of the planets dictate our lives.’ I beg to differ, but I’m happy to join Ed in recommending that readers ‘listen to [my] Premier Christian Radio debate against Peter Hearty, a member of the UK National Secular Society and a scientist’ since I don’t at all accept Ed’s view that ‘Hearty demolishes every single one of Williams’ assertions without a second thought!’

Readers can listen and make up their own minds @ http://idpluspeterswilliams.blogspot.com/2006/10/gold-award-for-debating-intelligent.html or www.damaris.org/cm/podcasts/?category=peterswilliams&ps=10

Quote-Mining, Orr What?

Ed complains about what he perceives as: ‘the abject quote-mining that litters the entire book.’ Ed evinces a deep distrust of apologists: ‘This disgraceful tactic should speak for itself without any further comment from me. Right from my first experiences of debating with apologists, I am no longer surprised at such below-the-belt tactics. I wouldn’t trust their word if one of them told me Richard Dawkins’ views on the colour of an orange.’ Ed is apparently sure that I commit this sin on purpose:

‘Maybe I’m guilty of idolatry in relation to certain atheist writers, but as I read the quotes which peppered I Wish I Could Believe In Meaning and the way which Williams was attempting to use their own words against them, I thought, “That doesn’t sound like the Richard Dawkins/Dan Dennett/Charles Darwin I know!” I sourced the quotes from their original texts myself and exactly as I suspected, Williams is engaging in that disgraceful, dirty and dishonest tactic known as “quote-mining”. He takes certain quotes wholly out of context to make it appear that either the authors doubt their own views or they have a faith-based commitment to Darwinian evolution as a means of justifying their non-belief in God.’

Ed presents four purported examples:

Dawkins

Williams quoting Richard Dawkins:

Even if there were no actual evidence in favour of Darwinian theory we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories.

The full passage from The Blind Watchmaker is as follows:

Instead of examining the evidence for and against rival theories, I shall adopt more of an armchair approach. My argument will be that Darwinism is the only known theory capable of explaining certain aspects of life. If I am right it means that, even if there were no actual evidence in favour of Darwinian theory (there is of course) we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories. One way to dramatise this point is to make a prediction. I predict that, if a form of life is ever discovered in another part of the universe, however outlandish and weirdly alien that form of life may be in detail, it will resemble life on Earth in one key respect: it will have evolved by some form of Darwinian natural selection. Unfortunately, this is a prediction that we shall, in all probability, not be able to test in our lifetimes, but it remains a way of dramatising an important truth about life in own planet. The Darwinian theory is in principle capable of explaining life. No other theory that has ever been suggested is in principle capable of explaining life. I shall demonstrate this by discussing all rival theories, not the evidence for or against them, but their adequacy, in principle, as explanation for life.

The trouble with the above is that when Ed quotes my quotation of Dawkins he misses out what I put in, namely an ellipse ‘…’ That ellipse indicated that I wasn’t presenting a single unedited unit of quotation. On pages 118-119 of my book that quote actually reads as follows:

'even if there were no actual evidence in favour of the Darwinian theory . . . we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories'.

But what about missing out Dawkins comment that there is of course evidence for Darwinian theory? Am I thereby misrepresenting Dawkins as believing that there is no scientific evidence for Darwinism? Not at all, as the immediate context of my quotation makes clear:

‘For an atheist like Dawkins, evolution is not so much the result of an assessment of the scientific evidence as it is a necessary assumption brought to its interpretation. Dawkins lets the cat out of the bag when he writes that: “even if there were no actual evidence in favour of the Darwinian theory . . . we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories.”’

The crucial phrases here is ‘not so much’ (which doesn’t mean ‘not at all’). This quote comes just before I spend several pages elaborating upon the a priori philosophical roots of Darwinism. Later on in the book I am at pains to demonstrate how Dawkins begs the question in favour of Darwinian explanations due to a philosophical commitment to naturalism which trumps his consideration of empirical data (cf. much of Chapter Nine).

Dennett

Here's another of Ed's examples:

Williams quoting Daniel Dennett:

I have learned from my own embarrassing experience that how easy it is to concoct remarkably persuasive Darwinian explanations that evaporate on closer inspection.

The full passage from Darwin’s Dangerous Idea is as follows:

The ideas expressed in this book are just the beginning. This has been an introduction to Darwinian thinking, sacrificing details again and again to provide a better appreciation of the overall shape of Darwin’s idea. But as Miles van der Rohe said, God is in the details. I urge caution alongside the enthusiasm I have hope I have just kindled in you. I have learned from my own embarrassing experience that how easy it is to concoct remarkably persuasive Darwinian explanations that evaporate on closer inspection. The truly dangerous aspect of Darwin’s idea is its seductiveness. Second-rate versions of the fundamental ideas continue to bedevil us, so we must keep a close watch, correcting each other as we go. The only way of avoiding the mistakes is to learn from the mistakes we have already made. - Dennett (1995) [2006 ed.] p. 521.

The longer quotation appears to me to do nothing to alter the meaning of the shorter quotation. The shorter quotation accurately represents the caution Dennett does urge at greater length in the longer quoptation against being too easily satisfied with facile Darwinian explanations. I used this quote from Dennett as a section heading, and as far as I can see this use didn’t misrepresent Dennett as doubting Darwinism.

Darwin

Ed complains that: 'In another place Williams quotes from the sixth edition of Charles Darwin’s On The Origin Of Species by splicing two lines together from different pages of the book! The first part of Williams’ quote actually comes further along by some 20 pages in Darwin’s book on than the second part!'

The quote in question is this from page 418 of I Wish I Could Believe in Meaning:

'...the belief that an organ so perfect as the eye could have been formed by natural selection, is enough to stagger anyone... I have felt the difficulty far too keenly to be surprised at others hesitating to extend the principle of natural selection to so startling a length.'

I'll come back to the order problem Ed notes later, but let's start with the more substantive issue: It wasn't my intention with this quote - used as a section heading - to give the impression that Darwin doubted his own theory! Indeed, the quote itself doesn't display any doubt on Darwin's part! It merely evinces an empathy with those who do doubt: Darwin has himself felt the difficulty in believing that the eye could have formed by natural selection and is therefore not surprised at 'others' hesitating to explain it thus (by the way - the argument I mount in my book concerning the eye focuses upon the irreducibly complex light sensative spot with which the Darwinian explanation of eye evolution conveniently begins).

The section headed up by this quote in my book actually discussed Richard Dawkins' use of the very argument Darwin used to defend belief in the evolution of the eye. I explain that Darwinists assume graded paths up 'Mt. Improbable' must exist to be traversed by evolution, talking about the 'Darwinian explanation of the eye.' (p. 423.) I assume most people would reckon that Darwin held to a Darwinian explanation of the eye. However, I didn't explicitly say that the views of Dawkins and other Darwinians also represented the views of Darwin on this particular matter, and in that I suppose that someone who didn't read the quote from Darwin with much care (since it suggests his own lack of doubts) and who wasn't apprised of the background to this debate might just possibly have been mislead into thinking that Darwin himself thought that the eye couldn't have evolved. But this impression, if anyone received it, was not one that I intended to generate.

Coming back to the order problem, I should take this opportunity to correct both the quotation and the footnote (number 145), which references: Darwin, Charles, The Origin of Species, 6th edition (New York: Collier Books, 1962), p. 184. Although the elipse in the quotation indicates that the quote isn't a single unit, the single page reference footnote is indeed inaccurate. In point of fact, the two parts of the quote given in my book actually come from pages p165 & 146 respectively (all references herein are to the Darwin Online edition of the Origin that Ed footnotes), which are thus quoted in the wrong numerical order, as Ed correctly points out. The trouble here is clearly the fact that Darwin passes an almost identical comment on pages 218-219 of the Origin:

'the naturalist who reflects on the origin and manner of formation of the eye, with all its marvellously perfect attributes, should make his reason conquer his imagination, I have felt the difficulty far too keenly to be surprised at any degree of hesitation in extending the principle of natural selection to so startling a length.' (my italics.)

I'm grateful to Ed for the opportunity to publically note and correct this mistake.

Orr

Finally, I did not mine ‘H. Allen Orr’s damning review of Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box to make it appear that Orr has doubts over Darwinism.’ I very clearly prefaced my quotation from Orr to avoid this impression: ‘H. Allen Orr (a critic of Behe) argues…’ (p. 431.) – before I quoted him on a point of agreement.

In short, I don't think I'm guilty of misquoting people in a way that misrepresents their views.

Conclusion

I reject Ed’s assertion that my book sets about ‘reaching its conclusions without offering any arguments in support’. Indeed, Ed himself rejects this assertion (when he attacks my presentation of the moral argument for theism)! Likewise, I reject Ed’s claim that I have ‘grossly misrepresenting the atheistic world-view’. After all, Ed himself admits that ‘When it comes to morality, I make an exception to my otherwise materialistic world-view’. Ed also admits to embracing a subjective understanding of beauty. I also reject Ed’s multiple miss-characterization of intelligent design theory as i) a directly theistic argument ii) with the logical form of an argument from ignorance that is iii) part of a plot to smuggle the teaching of creationism into schools. Moreover, peer -reviewed ID publications (while comparatively thin on the ground), really do exist and really do continue to get published. Finally, I reject Ed’s accusation that I am guilty of ‘misquoting famous atheistic thinkers' in order to misrepresent their views.

Ed was right to pick up on the fact that one of my footnotes was in error. And I happily grant Ed's stylistic observation that I Wish I Could Believe in Meaning contains many ‘quotes from other sources’. Writing in the theological journal Themelios, Dominic Smart praised I Wish I Could Believe in Meaning for being 'jam packed with quotable quotes and references... Buy the book if you are wont to quote - its a treasure trove.' (Themelios, 31/1, p. 135-136.) But if you don’t like books with lots of quotations and footnotes, then this isn’t the book for you.

Subversive Thinking: Positive comments from non-Christian blogger

2009-03-12T07:46:00.002Z

A non-Christian blogger called Jimie (whom I surmise must have some association with Liverpool University) passes some very positive comments about my work in general here at his blog Subversive Thinking:

"A Christian friend lent me philosopher Peter Williams' recent book entitled "A sceptic's guide to atheism". I haven't read it yet, so I can't to do a review or specific comment on it.

But I'm familiar with some of the Peter Williams' articles and, even though I'm not a Christian, I must admit that Williams' papers, essays and review are excellent. Thus I'm confident that his book will be another good and useful reading.

As far my opinion goes, Williams' strong point in his writings is that he's very meticulous and detailed in his argumentation; he uses many references and sources, and he often confronts the best arguments of atheists. This kind of intellectual honesty is rarely seen in many "new atheists", whose debating style is mostly rhetorical and with a tendency to attack the weakest point of theism. That makes them rhetorically effective (in special, for atheists), but intellectually poor (for any other non-biased reader). So, Williams often makes a strong case for his views on controversial topics; forcing his opponents to argue or reply in a sounder way (which is an incentive to high-level intellectual debates), or to reply with straw men or irrelevances (due to the opponent's lack of rational responses to Williams' main and substantive points)."