MN: A Position of Convenience?
by MikeGeneBack in 2004: "a lecture, sponsored by the Atheist and Agnostic Society, attracted about 150 people who heard Avalos, who teaches in the humanities, and Patterson, a scientist, offer their critiques of "The Privileged Planet," a book published this spring and co-written by Guillermo Gonzalez, assistant professor of physics and astronomy."
But this is not the only the time these two have teamed up.
On October 18, 2001, barely a month after the 911 tragedy that traumatized the American psyche, Avalos and Patterson teamed up to provide another presentation to the ISU community entitled, Why God Didn't Answer on 9-11: An Alternative, Non-Religious View:
The ISU community will have "a chance to hear a truly alternative view," said Hector Avalos, associate professor of religious studies.
Avalos, adviser for the ISU Atheist and Agnostic Society, will speak along with John Patterson, professor emeritus of materials science and engineering.
Avalos said he will provide the perspective of a former fundamentalist preacher, and Patterson will provide that of a scientist.
What's this? Avalos said that Patterson would provide the scientific perspective that explains why God did not miraculously prevent 911?? Wow. Just what could it be?
"God didn't answer on 9-11 Tuesday, because imaginary beings never answer anybody, so there," said John Patterson, professor emeritus of materials science and engineering.
So let me see if I get this straight. The same guy leading the charge to enshrine methodological naturalism as the equivalent of science was also putting on a forum that provided the scientific explanation for God not stopping 911?
August 30th, 2005 at 9:37 pm
[...] More on this story: http://telicthoughts.com/?p=24... http://telicthoughts.com/?p=24... http://telicthoughts.com/?p=24... Atheistic and materialistic evolutionists already bashed our beloved colleague [...]
Pingback by Teleological » Don’t Let Evil Avalos’ Bashings Against Gonzalez — August 30, 2005 @ 9:37 pm
August 31st, 2005 at 4:35 am
Is it just me, or are these atheistic arguments rather simplistic?
Comment by Jean — August 31, 2005 @ 4:35 am
August 31st, 2005 at 4:42 am
QUOTE:
Ryan Doyle, sophomore in religious studies, said he learned a lot at the hour-long electronic slide presentation.
"It was very informative," said Doyle, who said he was raised by a Roman Catholic and a Christian Fundamentalist. "There were a lot of ideas presented that I haven�t been exposed to before."
Avalos said this event gave students a choice.
"It's important, because it offers an alternative view that you don't hear very often," he said.
"Until now, we haven't heard from non-religious views on this campus."
William Christopher, president of the ISU Atheist and Agnostic Society, said he was glad there was a forum for an alternative point of view.
"The other forum was almost completely Christian," said Christopher, junior in biophysics.
"The views expressed at the beginning of that presentation completely discounted secular humanist views."
ENDQUOTE
You guys are forgetting the ID motto: "Teach the controversy!"
Comment by DataDoc — August 31, 2005 @ 4:42 am
August 31st, 2005 at 5:24 am
Hmm… I wonder if this presentation has led the public to believe that "arguing for atheism is something that the ISU does" Did any members of the faculty sign statements, distancing this from official ISU policy?
Comment by Krauze — August 31, 2005 @ 5:24 am
August 31st, 2005 at 7:08 am
DataDoc,
I don't care if they teach atheism or are controversial. It's the double standard that catches my interest: The same guy leading the charge to enshrine methodological naturalism as the equivalent of science was also putting on a forum that provided the scientific explanation for God not stopping 911. Doesn't Alvalos know that MN means science cannot pass judgment on the existence of God?
Comment by MikeGene — August 31, 2005 @ 7:08 am
August 31st, 2005 at 11:22 am
Where does it say anything about providing a scientific judgment on the existence of God? I see:
"The main points the two plan to discuss are the three possible answers given by the Oct. 1 panel: God gave people free will, there was a greater good served by the tragedy and sin was the cause.
Avalos and Patterson will give an atheistic view on how to deal with this tragedy, as well as philosophical and scientific references to evil."
Frankly, those three excuses shouldn't be hard to knock down.
An atheistic view on how to deal with the tragedy and philosophical and scientific references to evil are hardly a scientific judgment on the existence of God.
Oh, jeeze, I just noticed. Neither of them condemned animal rights activists. Mia Culpa, they must both be anti-science agents of Dawkins.
Comment by DataDoc — August 31, 2005 @ 11:22 am
August 31st, 2005 at 11:23 am
DataDoc,
What exactly are you responding to? Your post doesn't really address the issue that is raised with the article.
Those are nice soundbytes, but how are the supposed to address the double standard?
Comment by Doug — August 31, 2005 @ 11:23 am
August 31st, 2005 at 3:29 pm
This is a bit off topic, but the argument from evil isn't nearly as popular among professional philosophers of religion as it used to be. Alvin Plantinga took it down several notches in the mid-70s when he published the Nature of Necessity and God, Freedom, and Evil . It hasn't recovered since in those circles.
The Iowa State Daily article reports Patterson as saying science is "completely atheistic." If that's an accurate quote, then Patterson doesn't believe merely that science is methodologically naturalistic, but naturalistic by definition. That being the case MG's point stands.
Comment by roy w. — August 31, 2005 @ 3:29 pm
August 31st, 2005 at 11:21 pm
I'm not sure what's hard about this. Avalos said Patterson would speak as a scientist. As "a scientist," Patterson instructed his audience that 911 was not miraculously prevented because there is no God. Doesn't Avalos know that as "a scientist," Patterson has nothing to say about God?
Comment by MikeGene — August 31, 2005 @ 11:21 pm
September 1st, 2005 at 1:41 am
Doug, the article says, "Avalos said he will provide the perspective of a former fundamentalist preacher, and Patterson will provide that of a scientist." Mike Gene seems to believe that scientists have "nothing to say about God".
The "double standard" seems to be that if a scientist says nice things about God, he wins a Templeton Prize and a million dollars plus. When a scientist says something nice about atheism, he's a villain.
Comment by DataDoc — September 1, 2005 @ 1:41 am
September 1st, 2005 at 5:49 am
When Avalos represents Patterson as providing the perspective of a scientist, he is telling the ISU community that Patterson will represent Science at this forum, as if Patterson the scientist has something to offer compared to Patterson the professor. The perspective of the scientist was that God did not exist. Why is this the perspective of "a scientist" when science cannot address the existence of God?
Comment by MikeGene — September 1, 2005 @ 5:49 am
September 1st, 2005 at 10:30 am
This is part of the statement of the 120 that Patterson is apparently playing a major role in pushing for. If Patterson believes, as he is reported as saying, that science is completely atheistic then he's violating the above statement is he not? And if he can say that science can be properly eliminative of God then it follows that IDists can say that science can scrutinize nature for evidence of intelligence at work does it not? They may not in the end find it, but they aren't a priori, that is methodologically, forbidden to look.
That is the double standard at issue here, and emphatically not whether Patterson gets to say mean things about God. He who says A got's to say B.
Comment by roy w. — September 1, 2005 @ 10:30 am
September 2nd, 2005 at 7:43 am
Mike, science can't directly address an alleged being who is claimed to be beyond all human understanding and observation. But science, and the phenomenal increase in knowledge in general that we've enjoyed in the last few centuries, has left these alleged supernatural beings with precious little to do.
As an example, does anybody here believe in Thor any more? Before you answer, remember that we see "evidence" of his existence every time we see lightning or hear thunder. I'll bet you don't and not because you're aThorists, but because we have better theories, supported with ample naturalistic evidence, of what causes thunder and lightning today.
How about Persephone? We see "evidence" of her existence every time summer changes into winter and back. Of course not, we have better evidence and theories of what causes the seasons today.
How about Yahwah? We see "evidence" of his existence every time we see … Hmmm. Can't think of a thing that Yahwah is supposed to do that isn't explained better by a naturalistic theory. Can you name anything that we can see that Yahwah is supposed to do for which we don't have a better naturalistic explanation?
Supernatural beings are going the way of Phlogestin and Caloric. Not disproven, just replaced by better theories. I like to think of it as, "Ten thousand down, one to go."
Roy W., a scientist is allowed to have an opinion on the existence or non-existence of supernatural being(s). These views are, "by their very nature, claims of religioius faith, and not within the scope or abilities of science." You can, however, use science to get an estimate of how likely any supernatural being might be and especially, if there's a simpler explanation right here on earth.
The problem is not with science scrutinizing nature for evidence of intelligence at work. The problem for ID is that we've been doing just that for over 10,000 years and the results to date are zip. No credible evidence of non-human intelligence has been found and gobs of evidence for naturalistic causes for the phenomena formerly attributed to gods has turned up instead.
Comment by DataDoc — September 2, 2005 @ 7:43 am
September 2nd, 2005 at 8:24 am
According to DataDoc, we can indeed "use science to get an estimate of how likely any supernatural being might be." But according to the 120 Strong, "Whether one believes in a creator or not, views regarding a supernatural creator are, by their very nature, claims of religious faith, and not within the scope or abilities of science."
Comment by MikeGene — September 2, 2005 @ 8:24 am
September 2nd, 2005 at 8:30 am
DataDoc I would like to see that scientific estimate about supernatural being. Will you please give us a link here. Thank you.
Comment by inunison — September 2, 2005 @ 8:30 am
September 2nd, 2005 at 8:38 am
I second that. Let's see the method used, how it was calibrated, and what journal this analysis was published in.
Comment by MikeGene — September 2, 2005 @ 8:38 am
September 2nd, 2005 at 9:11 am
DataDoc, Most of the greatest scientists and philosophers throughout history (up to & including the 20th century) have been either IDists or Creationists. That alone refutes your nonsense.
It should also be noted that nature's origins requires the supernatural. Natural processes only exist in nature.
But you do have a point. Science is self-correcting and usually eliminates the BS. So let us allow ID an honest and open discussion and let the evidence lead the way.
IDists say if the evidence leads us to the metaphysical, then so be it. However it is obvious that it has to…
Comment by Joe G — September 2, 2005 @ 9:11 am