The science portion of my lecture titled Atheism Explained and Exposed roused various comments from Atheists—you can watch the video here.
I find that Atheists are obsessed with science. Actually, I find that they are obsessed with scientism which is only obsessed so called. They have merely seemed to have gotten the memo which directs them to simply employ the term “science”—see video here.
Yet, so unlearned are many of them in the actual historical history of science that they are not only unaware of its biblical and Christian roots but deny it when they are informed of this historical fact of history.
Here are some of the comments I received.
From YouTube: Gnomefro, “The idea that Christian philosophy caused science is completely ridiculous. The very idea that you can infer anything about the stability of nature from a philosophy about a reality in which supernatural agents interact with the world all the time in response to prayer and the like is just completely ridiculous.” You will note that the claim was not that “The idea that Christian philosophy caused science is completely ridiculous because that is not the known history of science.” Rather it was that “The idea that Christian philosophy caused science is completely ridiculous” because of Gnomefro’s inability to understand how it could be so. In other words, Gnomefro’s subjective philosophy cannot reconcile it and so it cannot be—even though it is.
Not also, the subjective nature of the conclusion as it is merely “just completely ridiculous” as per Gnomefro’s opinion.
Gnomefro further notes that “Deism on the other hand, might have a shot at motivating science, but even here science will be an irrational method because it relies on the existence of a being for which there’s no evidence.” This is interesting as Gnomefro claims that “there’s no” as in zero “evidence” even when not even Bertrand Russell or Richard Dawkins were unable to go that far. Russell’s statement, which Dawkins merely yet agreeably parrots, was “Not enough evidence.” This is an admission that there is evidence but not (by Russell’s subjectively standard) enough.
Gnomefro goes on to writes, “In reality, the scientific method of course doesn’t require any presuppositions like that. All it requires is probability theory such that you can test hypotheses via various forms of observation. Modern science simply did not arise with Christianity, but with the development of statistics (and calculus, but the latter is not crucial for the scientific method).”
Not again that Gnomefro’s is not a historical argument but a philosophical one. You see, even if we grant that philosophically “the scientific method of course doesn’t require any presuppositions like that” the historical fact is that it did “require any presuppositions like that” which actually, would lead to the philosophical conclusion that “the scientific method of course” did “require” a “presuppositions like that.”
Recall that Gnomefro’s claim was that we cannot viably infer anything about the stability of nature from the Bible and/or Christianity because it is a philosophy about a reality in which supernatural agents interact with the world all the time in response to prayer. Yet, the fact is that the scientific method was premised upon the Christian (and also Jewish) belief that the God of the Bible is a rational being who created a rational creation and populated it with rational beings who could rationally discern the cause and effect nature of the creation.
Thus, interestingly, Gnomefro’s very own “probability theory” fits the “Christian philosophy” since there is a probability of induction even when in improbable instances “supernatural agents” will “interact with the world.”
Yet, in any case, the claim is that a Judeo-Christian biblical worldview philosophy is not required but merely a generic “probability theory such that you can test hypotheses via various forms of observation.” Yet, Judeo-Christian biblical worldview philosophy is the premise upon which one would even think that “you can test hypotheses via various forms of observation” due to the rational uniformity of nature with regards to the ability to derive the same conclusions regardless of the various forms of observation one is employing—assuming that those forms of observation apply: for example, you will not get cellular evidence via telescope even though you got some via a microscope.
Even though the historical fact is that modern science arose with Christianity, Gnomefro asserts that “Modern science simply did not arise with Christianity, but with the development of statistics (and calculus, but the latter is not crucial for the scientific method).” But even if one could imagine that modern science arose with, or from, statistics upon what are statistic based? A presupposition of induction and in fact, not a merely presupposition but a premise and one that came about due to Judeo-Christian theology.
Lastly, Gnomefro writes, “There’s even empirical evidence for this: The fact that no scientific paper has ever relied on an argument that goes ‘The Christian God exists, therefore…’” Well, it is now 100% that Gnomefro knows not of what they are speaking.
Firstly, the historical fact that modern science arose form Christianity does not mean that scientists must reason in the manner that was straw-manned by Gnomefro. Secondly, of course some scientists have relied on such and do so as a premise even if they are unaware of it, deny it, etc. Thirdly, yet more to the point: of course some scientists have relied on such and here is one example in The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, Isaac Newton employed the following as a premise, “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”
Well, hoping that Gnomefro would actually deal with the point I made I merely replied with “It is a simple historical fact” and got no reply.
Orcodrilo then chimed in with (ellipses in original), “so… people who believed that flesh was transmuted into salt, that water was transmuted into wine, that a woman that did not have sex had a baby… those people caused science? Impossible!, the people who dont believe in that crazy stuff, the skeptics, the unbelievers, those are the ones that try to find real consistent reasons for how things work!”
With comment #2 I already discerned a patter: ignore the historical facts and claim that something is impossible because you subjectively think it is impossible And, by they way, in an Atheist worldview “think” refers to expressing bio-chemical neural reactions occurring within a bio-organism’s haphazardly evolved (unguided, goal-less, random and accidental) gray-matter.
Now, since when it comes to science that which Orcodrilo claims is “Impossible!” is not only possible but what actually happened then perhaps all of those other things Orcodrilo denies are possible as well. Based on the statement that “the skeptics, the unbelievers, those are the ones that try to find real consistent reasons for how things work!” I would image that this person’s knowledge of the history of science only goes back to the most recent Richard Dawkins video clip.
What could I do but do as I did previously and attempt to urge some actual focus on the fact of history? Thus, I wrote, “It is a simple fact of the history of science” and I got no reply.
No Fascist Ideologies wrote, “Once upon no time (because time hadn’t yet been invented), the first thing ever was the smartest thing ever. And the smartest thing ever was also the most powerful thing ever. This eventually come in handy when it’s immaterial ass needed to make a place for it to even exist in, as much as immaterial things tend to exist. Then after a paradoxically infinite amount of time had not passed for an eternal being, the eternal no time or material pseudo – existing being got really bored with its own perfectness and decided it would make a big old space and fill it with next to nothing by comparison. 13,798,000,000 years later that shit got old and it decided what it really wanted was to make creatures that would eventually evolve into humans, so that the super genius could [expletive removed] hide from them. The End.”
So yet another person who, by golly, wants to disapprove but cannot actually deal with the issue in a factual manner and so serves us undercooked red herring.
My reply was, “‘…it is very easy for a man to seem to himself to have answered arguments, when he has only been unwilling to be silent’—Augustine of Hippo, City of God, Book 5, Chap. 26.”
Well, No Fascist Ideologies replied with “The very same Augustine who just, you know, sorta willy nilly made suicide a ‘Cardinal sin’? Yeah, your unimpressive quote is not even a very cleverly crafted attempt to hide the message you are trying to convey, which is essentially ‘shut up’. The counter argument that is always so not compelling.”
And another piece of the puzzle as to why I hardly ever interact within comment section is locked into place. For whatever it is worth: firstly, that Augustine made suicide a cardinal sin is an ad hominem. Secondly, that Augustine made suicide a cardinal sin only means that Augustine made suicide a cardinal sin and has no biblical relevance much less relevance to the history of science.
Lastly, just to get another unpleasant taste, No Fascist Ideologies wrote the following to and I quote “*****” who may have commented on Google+ or something because I could not see their comment but only No Fascist Ideologies’ reply which was, “Care to elaborate on that? Or are you going to be just another coward hurling [expletive removed] from a position of theological anonymity? You people are so old news. Just look at you arguing with the nonbeliever like it’s 2008 or some [expletive removed]. Get off our [expletive removed] already you demonstrably inferior cult victims. You are going to have to chock up the Internet as a loss for your side there pinwheel. You have your tax exempt church, your books, childhood indoctrination, laws to protect your rights, the freedom to go out and preach on the street corner and drown out people with a megaphone, but the Internet is where the buck stops.”
A Jim Carrey “Alrighy then” line seems apropos.
Now on to some comments on Facebook which, shockingly, were even worse than those on YouTube. I certainly would not consider these to proceed forth from the top brass but I take ’em as I get’em.
Daimonie wrote, “Provide us with a transcript. Does it contain evidence for the claims you make?” to which I replied with “My evidence and claims are intermixed within the talk.”
Keeping in mind that the talk, video, post, comments section was (supposed to be) about the history of science, James Newell decided to skip all of that facts of the history of science stuff and wrote, “Christianity is decreasing says PEW research. Too bad free stinker.”
I replied as I usually do when Atheists make such boasts as they often do, “‘Christianity is decreasing’? Praised be Jesus as that affirms even more Bible prophecy!”
James replied with “We already knew that. Only 144,000 male, virgin, Jews are going to heaven free stinker. You might want to see if you make the cut. LMAO” and linked me to a video from the Atheists Ally. Even factually, there is no biblical claim that “Only 144,000 male, virgin, Jews are going to heaven.”
Now, my Facebook avatar/icon is this:
Thus, in the meantime, Hester Prynne asked, “Why do you have a blanket on your head?” because that is what is relevant, apparently. I replied, “It is not a blanket.” Alan Mason wrote, “Sure looks like one” to which I replied, “Looks can be deceiving.” I know, I know what a waste of high tech to engage in such stuff and in the meanwhile someone posted an photo of a chimp with a towel on its head because they could muster no fact based reply to the issue at hand which is what I was hoping they would get to.
Here we go again as David Rowbotham wrote, “I will watch your video if you pay me £326.32 in advance.” In other words, by golly, I’m going to post a comment even though I did not even go through the trouble of clicking “Play” on a video. So here we go again, I replied with “‘…it is very easy for a man to seem to himself to have answered arguments, when he has only been unwilling to be silent’—Augustine of Hippo, City of God, Book 5, Chap. 26” and yet, I find that I use this quote A LOT with Atheists.
James Newell decided to ask the intellectually challenging question “And who are you? Some [expletive removed] with a pulpit? Youtube is full of idiots just like you. Just tell us what [expletive removed] your selling and hit the [expletive removed] road.” Note the stream of ad homimens: it is irrelevant who I am, from whence speak, where I post videos, whether or not I am an idiot, etc. since the issue is historical facts and the fact is that no one even bothered dealing with those. I simpoly replied with “Please mind your manners.”
Alan Mason replied with “Or what? You’ll go away?” to which I responded by writing, “Friend, I can tell that you are desperate to say something, anything, even though you have nothing substantive to say. Please comport yourself in a manner commensurate with reasoned discourse.”
And that was the end of that on both YouTube and Facebook.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.