Our analysis of the Great Debate

Well, it didn’t quite take us a week — we were just so excited by “The Great Debate: Is There Evidence for God?” that we couldn’t wait to comment on it. The following analysis is co-written by Surak and Sarah.

The two opposing sides of the scientific debate over the God hypothesis were well represented on Wednesday by Dr. William Lane Craig (Christian Philosopher and Theologian from Talbot School of Theology) and Dr. Lawrence Krauss (Theoretical Physicist from Arizona State University). Dr. Craig’s argument was based on the clearly-stated and logical assertion that if God’s existence is more probable given certain information, that information meets the essential criterion for evidence. Dr. Krauss was equally clear in his definition of evidence: it must be falsifiable to be scientific. We find both standards to be very useful.

There was some confusion on the part of the moderator as to whether the topic of the debate was the existence of any evidence for God or the existence of enough evidence to prove God’s existence. We think the moderator erred in his statement of the debate’s purpose, since no one could reasonably argue that there is proof or disproof of God’s existence. As Dr. Krauss correctly stated, science cannot falsify God; so, the question can only be, “Is God likely?”

We will assess the debate in terms of whether or not there is any evidence for the existence of God, although Dr. Krauss tried to set the bar unfairly high with his assertion that a highly extraordinary proposition, such as the God hypothesis, requires extraordinary evidence. However, we think defenders of the God hypothesis can accept and meet this challenge.

Continue reading

The Great Debate: Postmortem

Well. That was thorough.

It’ll probably take me about a week to write up my commentary on The Great Debate. It will be broken into two or three parts, since there is a lot of ground to cover. Also, it won’t be just me — Surak will handle one aspect of the material (the probability argument) and I will handle the other (the nature of science argument).

Meanwhile, after two hours and twenty minutes of rousing debate about the deepest questions of existence, this is my frame of mind:

(Click to enlarge.)

Off to do some wallowing.

Continue reading

The Great Debate: Is There Evidence for God?

Update: Be sure to check out our analysis of The Great Debate.

♦ ◊ ♦

Re-posting this, since today’s the day. I will be tuning in, and will present a critique of both sides on this blog within a day or three of the debate.

Copied-and-pasted from an email I received:

Join Thousands across America tuning in on March 30 to…

The Great Debate: Is There Evidence for God?

Two Really Smart Guys Go Head to Head to debate the existence of God on a live, streaming video. Dr. William Lane Craig (Christian Philosopher and Theologian from Talbot School of Theology) will debate Dr. Lawrence Krauss (Theoretical Physicist from Arizona State University) on the question, “Is There Evidence For God?”

The debate will stream live on the web on the night of March 30, beginning at 7 PM.

It is suggested you log on to view the debate on the web at least 15 minutes prior to the event, to make sure everything on your computer is set up correctly. If you cannot watch it then, the debate will be available to watch at any time after the debate is over. Some suggestions may be to watch it from your home or to set up a live showing of it for a group.

If you have friends with whom you have discussed these kinds of questions be sure to pass along this info. And then tune in and decide which side you think presents the most compelling arguments.

DETAILS:

Date: Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Time: 7:00 PM EDT
[Note: The email stated EST, but I’m pretty sure it’s EDT. -Ed.]

Location: NC State

You can stream it live from the official website (link appears to be working now).

♦ ◊ ♦

Some background for each of the debaters [h/t PQ Exchange]:

Alien life and the Christian view of Creation

A bacterium from the meteorite (right) is similar in size and structure to the terrestrial bacterium Titanospirillum velox (left) (Riccardo Guerrero / Richard B. Hoover / Journal of Cosmology)

Fascinating:

Dr. Richard B. Hoover, an astrobiologist with NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, has traveled to remote areas in Antarctica, Siberia, and Alaska, amongst others, for over ten years now, collecting and studying meteorites. He gave FoxNews.com early access to the out-of-this-world research, published late Friday evening in the March edition of the Journal of Cosmology. In it, Hoover describes the latest findings in his study of an extremely rare class of meteorites, called CI1 carbonaceous chondrites — only nine such meteorites are known to exist on Earth.

Though it may be hard to swallow, Hoover is convinced that his findings reveal fossil evidence of bacterial life within such meteorites, the remains of living organisms from their parent bodies — comets, moons and other astral bodies. By extension, the findings suggest we are not alone in the universe, he said.

Claims like this have been made before, and while previous claims turned out to be unsupported by the evidence, they always give rise to the question of whether the presence of life elsewhere in the universe undermines the Judeo-Christian view of Creation. The best answer is the simplest one: it doesn’t. Ancient and medieval Jewish scholars of the Genesis account of creation maintained that the universe was created with the potential for life built into it. This agrees with the growing scientific evidence that the universe is undeniably tuned for life. Working from both perspectives, I would be surprised if we did not eventually find evidence of at least the most basic forms of life elsewhere.

The religiously pivotal question is whether or not we ever find intelligent or even conscious life elsewhere since, according to the Judeo-Christian view, these would have to be deliberate creations by God. As physicist and theologian Gerald Schroeder points out in his book The Science of God, two different verbs are used in Genesis when describing key events: “created” and “made.” The former refers to the instantaneous act of bringing something into existence from nothing. Genesis uses this word only three times: first for the creation of the universe on day one, then for the creation of animal (intelligent) life on the fifth day, and for the last time on the sixth day when Adam is endowed with a human soul. For the remaining events of the six days of Genesis, including the third day when life first appears, the word “made” is used, as though something that already existed was merely being restructured. Non-intelligent forms of life, like the primitive bacteria discovered by Dr. Hoover, would fall under the category of “made.” Intelligent and conscious forms of life would fall under the category of “created.”

With this in mind, let’s ask a revised version of the key question, “Would the discovery of conscious beings elsewhere in the universe undermine the Judeo-Christian view of Creation?” It would if Genesis stated that the creation of Adam is a unique event, not to be repeated elsewhere in space or time. I have not seen anything in scripture to suggest this is the case. In fact, the great Christian apologist, C. S. Lewis, laid out a plausible scenario for conscious life on other planets within the context of the Judeo-Christian view in The Space Trilogy. In these novels, humans encounter alien beings on other planets in the solar system that, though they have some things in common with us, are wonderfully unfallen and thus enjoy direct communication with the Creator.

This brings us to one of the great problems for the materialist view that humans have no spiritual component: the need to explain why an overwhelming majority of humans throughout history have demonstrated a deep longing for the spiritual. The prevailing explanation seems to be that it is an evolutionary tic, an unfortunate byproduct of an otherwise beneficial genetic mutation. So let’s engage in a bit of speculation to turn the tables: would the discovery of conscious beings on another planet who turn out to be as spiritually-inclined as humans undermine the materialist view of existence? Seems to me it would, given the immense improbability of two entirely different species of conscious beings developing the same evolutionary tic independently.

Continue reading

Billions of planets in the Milky Way?

About 50 billion, to be specific. If you take the results from the Kepler Mission and do a bit of math, that’s the implication. Hundreds of millions of those planets are predicted to be in the habitable zone, too.

I’ve seen a moderate amount of hubbub about the theological implications of finding life elsewhere in the universe, especially intelligent life. I’ll likely post on this in the future, but for now I’ll just point out two things: 1) the Bible is mute on the subject; and 2) the great Christian apologist, C. S. Lewis, had no problem with the prospect of intelligent life out there. (He did, however, express concern about humankind’s likely behavior toward any alien life we might encounter. Unfortunately, he’s probably right, but I’ll keep watching Star Trek and hoping for the best anyway.)

Continue reading