franz kiekeben
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Philosophy
  • Publications
  • Contact

THE IMPROBABILITY OF THE BIBLICAL GOD

12/11/2017

0 Comments

 
It is from the Bible that Christians learn many of the specific characteristics of their god. They may say that they believe in God as a result of some direct experience of him, but when it comes to the belief that this is specifically their “three for the price of one” deity, they rely on scripture. It is there that they learn, among other things, that he is both the Yahweh that picked the tribe of Israel as his favorite as well as the Jesus that gave the Sermon on the Mount.

But how likely is it, if there were an omnipotent, omniscient, changeless, eternal creator of the universe, that he would be the deity described in scripture?

If Yahweh is the one true god, why was he originally worshipped much like any of the false gods of other ancient tribes? Why was he, just like them, thought of as a local god who fought against the enemies of his people? And why did he, like the false gods, demand sacrifices?

Why, even after they began worshipping only Yahweh, did the ancient Israelites remain monolatrists, who still believed in the existence of the gods of competing tribes? And why did they believe in stories about Yahweh that were rehashed out of the pagan myths of others, such as the story of the flood (which they got from the Babylonians)?

Worst of all, why, when he became incarnate, did this god – according to the information found in scripture – also believe in these stories?

Religious thinkers try to make the Christian God into a high philosophical concept. He is outside of time, wholly other, a being whose existence is part of his very essence. It all sounds very sophisticated. But until they can properly answer simple questions like the above, their god will continue to be no more believable than any of the other ancient deities.


[Originally published at Debunking Christianity]


0 Comments

IS “THE SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST” AN EMPTY TAUTOLOGY?

12/4/2017

0 Comments

 
A common objection to Darwin’s theory is that it depends on a truism and therefore fails to make a scientific, empirical claim. Darwin argues that those who are the fittest survive long enough to reproduce. But who are the fittest? According to creationists Henry and John Morris – and they are certainly not alone in saying this – “the only pragmatic way to define ‘the fittest’ is ‘those who survive’.”

But if “the fittest” are by definition those that survive, then “survival of the fittest” really means “survival of those who survive” – and that is completely unenlightening. Since it is a tautology, it is true no matter what, and therefore doesn’t tell us anything about the way things actually are: whether evolution or creationism is true, those that survive are those that survive.

As evolutionist Robert Pennock points out, the Morrises weren’t sufficiently logical to remain consistent in their criticism: shortly after raising the above objection, they claim that – as part of “the Creator’s plan” for preventing the spread of harmful mutations – natural selection does weed out the unfit. Yet on their view, who are the unfit if not those that die out? Other creationists have been more careful, however. And either way, the challenge remains: Why isn’t “the survival of the fittest” an empty tautology?

It’s not helpful to point out that the catchphrase “survival of the fittest” wasn’t Darwin’s, but Herbert Spencer’s. Other evolutionists – including Darwin himself – use the phrase. And besides, the same objection could be raised with respect to the concept of natural selection without using Spencer's expression.

The concept of natural selection is not circular, however, because “the fittest” are not really defined as “those that survive.” Rather, they are those that have traits that make them more likely to survive. And “survival of those that have traits that make them more likely to survive” is not an empty tautology. It means that there is a difference between those that usually survive long enough to reproduce and those that do not. The former have certain characteristics that the latter lack.

As to what these traits are, that’s an empirical question. But it’s important to realize that they are not defined as the single characteristic of “being more likely to survive.” Natural selection therefore is far from an empty claim.

​
[Originally published at Debunking Christianity]


0 Comments

    Archives

    April 2022
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014

    Categories

    All
    Atheism
    Creationism
    Determinism And Free Will
    Ethics
    Infinity
    Politics And Religion
    Presuppositionalism

    RSS Feed

Link to my author's page on Amazon