blake johnson

Paul Davies’ article in the nytimes has garnered a lot of commentary on my usual blog reading list. For instance, there is a lot going on in the comments at Dave Bacon’s site and Chad Orzel has started more discussion.

For what it’s worth, while I usually find Davies to be a bit suspect, I would agree that there is an element of science which requires faith. On a very basic level, the scientific method is based upon the belief that the universe is ordered by laws and that these laws can be probed by experiment. It requires belief that if one repeats an experiment one should get the same result. I have written about this before a long time ago.

Article in the NYTimes yesterday about churches using Halo to get teens involved in the community. I must say that I find it odd to have Halo events at church, but I don’t necessarily have a problem with it. My local parish had a Superbowl event last year and I didn’t think anything of it. I suppose I could see more of a problem with a game like Gears of War which is overflowing with graphical violence. I am not entirely sure why Halo has a “M” rating, for that matter. There is no blood. It is somewhat cartoon-ish. In fact, I think it is hardly more violent than Star Wars.

Still, it would be weird to play Halo at church.

Chad Orzel has a nice post that pretty much sums up my feelings on Richard Dawkins. Maybe some day I’ll actually read The God Delusion, but having heard summaries of his arguments, it sounds like he says nothing new and that he severely misrepresents the nature of science.

Fun article in the NYTimes today about free will. A few years ago I became aware of the very interesting arguments made by Daniel Dennett, which are summarized quite well by the article:

Rather, Dr. Dennett argues, it is precisely our immersion in causality and the material world that frees us. Evolution, history and culture, he explains, have endowed us with feedback systems that give us the unique ability to reflect and think things over and to imagine the future. Free will and determinism can co-exist. “All the varieties of free will worth having, we have,” Dr. Dennett said. “We have the power to veto our urges and then to veto our vetoes,” he said. “We have the power of imagination, to see and imagine futures.” In this regard, causality is not our enemy but our friend, giving us the ability to look ahead and plan. “That’s what makes us moral agents,” Dr. Dennett said. “You don’t need a miracle to have responsibility.”

Wired has an article in the November issue about the “new atheism”. This is essentially a more aggressive form of atheism which says that not only is there no God, but belief in God is dangerous. Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett seem to be leading the charge in this fight, seeing as each has recently published a book on the subject.

One doesn’t have to look far to understand the motivation behind this movement. I mean, look at all the trouble religion has caused in the middle east. But, does Dawkins really need to be so bellicose? As an example of the sorts of things he says which get me riled up:

Highly intelligent people are mostly atheists

Maybe in certain sub-samples of “highly intelligent people” this is true, but I also know a lot of wicked smart people for which it is not.

Also, how is it that Dawkins and Dennett miss the rather obvious objection to atheism that it is really just another faith? They’ve exchanged their faith in God for faith in a rule-ordered universe.