The author of the book mentioned in the original post simply has no ability to make a reasoned and fair logical argument. I read the begining of his Case for God book, and, man… the stuff he tries to pull can be debunked by pretty much anyone with a little bit of thought.
The part where I really lost it is where in one paragraph he “porved” that God had to exist because evolution is bunk because it claims that things get better and better over time (uh, no, completely screwed up idea of what evolution is) and they clearly don’t so God must exist because, you know, if evolution isn’t true than the only possible replacement theory is the existence of God because there couldn’t be some other theory, right?)… and I think it also managed to work in some astoundingly bad information about the Big Bang theory and some other stuff in that same paragaph too. The author is either completely ignorant or someone who purposefully distorts other people’s arguments because he knows he can’t make a good case against what other people really say.
The only people I’ve seen who think his books are any good are either people who just aren’t very bright at all and the ones who so desparately want to believe that they’ll jump for whatever shoddy argument in support of their beliefs that someone tosses out at them (and, often, both). People of other religions (or no religion) won’t find anything in these books of any value.
I’m reading The Case for Faith by Strobel at present. I think some of the things he says in that particular book are more sound, more convincing than others…but I think it serves a purpose. I don’t think it’s the baseless, irrational book some cynics would have you believe it is, but it’s (obviously) far from solid proof. I think it’s worth reading though.
Yeah, that’s the one I read, wasn’t sure on the title before. Completely awful. He makes horrible logical fallacies and straw man attacks all the way through it. Even the title is a major clue to the kinds of arguments inside because he implies that any case for faith automatically means his particular brand of Christianity and not some other religious belief.
I would agree, except in the case of discussing abiogenesis. The chapter dealing with that does not limit the support of hypotheses originating with God to the specific concept of God according to any particular religion or sect; it merely argues that the best explanation for abiogenesis is rooted in action by a being greater than we. And that alone was a good enough reason for me to read it.
Of course, that argument itself is tissue thin and flawed on about 50 levels and uses fallacious reasoning and bogus statistics and reaches an invalid conclusion.
I don’t have the book in front of me but I’ll try to speak from memory about Strobel’s arguments.
First, he structures this book in the form of a series of “objections” to theistic faith with each “objection” getting its own chapter.
His chapter on evolution/abiogenesis is entitled something like (this may not be exact) “Evolution explains life so there is no need for God.” (Is that close?)
So his first factual error is in the title to his chapter. Evolutionary theory does not explain the origin of life nor does it, in itself, show a lack of need for God. The fact that Strobel is either unaware of or unwilling to acknowledge the distinction between abiogenses and evolution is already a serious flaw in his credibility.
Strobel then goes on to interview a series of creationists (as is his habit, Strobel interviews only Christian apologists, choosing to play the role of “skeptic” himself. Strobel’s pretense is that he is a “hard boiled journalist” asking tough questions from Christians. As you might imagine, Strobel invariably proves to be the most credulous skeptic on earth). He goes after evolution with some of the standard, boilerplate creationist fallacies (no transitional fossils, ID, irreducible complexity) before launching into an attack on abiogenesis which mostly consists of arguing that laboratory experiments have failed to produce life and a citation of fallacious statistics as to the probablity of the “random” formation of a cell.
Believing that he has now shown abiogenesis to be inexplicable by natural processes, Strobel then goes on to make the massively fallacious leap that a “supernatural” explanation is more likely than a natural one.
Since I don’t have a copy of the book, I can’t offer a more detailed rebuttal but i do remember that virtually every step of Strobel’s argument was flawed in some way and sometimes on more than one level.
Okay, that’s a good answer. Thanks for responding, Diogenes.
First, I’m curious why you say the statistics are fallacious. Second, you are right that it is definitely quite a leap from his various hole-poking in various “explanations” for abiogenesis to the suggestion that only the “theological explanation” is the most likely, but that in and of itself doesn’t mean that the “theological explanation” isn’t the most likely.
Personally, as curious as I am about theology, I try not to commit myself too much - after all, how much can we be sure of? However, I think that particular argument has at least a bit of truth to it. When I try to fathom the idea of the creation of life, it seems more likely to me that it was the product of an intentional act by an intelligent being.
That said, it’s by no means logically infallible. Then again, when has anyone ever logically proven the existence (or lack thereof) of God?
There are multiple reasons. For one thing, he talks about the odds of a leap from inorganic matter to a complete cell. There is no belief in science that cells formed spontaneously out of non-living matter. Abiogenetic theories involve a long series of steps in between non-living material and living cells so Strobel commits the creationist fallacy of defining abiogenesis as cells just poofing into existence out of nothing. For another thing, Strobel (actually the creationist he’s interviewing) misstates a couple of things about probability statistice, assuming for instance that all trials were sequential instead of acknowledge that there were millions of trials occurring simultaneously to produce those first self-replicating polymers. For another thing, he’s drawing the bullseye after the arrow has already been fired. Imagine taking a bucket of golf balls up to your roof and hitting them all as far as you can in random directions with your driver. Now go back down to the ground and mark the precise landing of each ball. Now go back up to your roof and try to hit each ball into the exact same spot you hit it the first time. How many tries would it take you to precisely duplicate your first distribution of golf balls? It would be virtually impossible, wouldn’t it? It would require a miracle. And yet you did it with no effort or thought at all the first time. It’s the same with abiogenesis and the evolution of life on earth. The odds might be astronomical for the same event occurring the same way again but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen the first time.
Here is a page from Talkorigins which goes into greater detail about the common fallacies inherent in the statistical arguments which creationists try to use againts abiogenesis.
Empirically speaking, all natural explanations must be exhausted before supernatural explanations can be considered. Moreover, Strobel’s theological explanation is no more likely than an infinite number of other hypothetical supernatural possibilities. Strobel did not show in his book (and neither has anyone else, for that matter) that abiogenesis could not have occurred by natural processes, therefore a nature explanation is still empirically and logically more reasonable than a supernatural one.
This is called the teleological argument for God, also called the “argument from design.” Logically, it’s a weak argument but viscerally and intuitively it tends to be the most convincing. It doesn’t really work as a proof because for one thing the perception of “design” in the universe is a subjective, emotional response, not an objective observation of verifiable fact, and there is nothing in this perceived “design” which is falsifiable. For another thing, the teleolgical argument can be used on the designer just as easily as it can be used on the universe (creating a necessity for an infinite series of designers) and for a third thing, a designer doesn’t have to be God.
I am not saying that the rebuttals to the teleogical arguments are proofs against God, just that the argument doesn’t work as a proof for God.
This is true. God cannot be proven or disproven which is why it is foolish for Strobel to hold out his books as being objective arguments or empirical “cases” for his own religious beliefs. Theology does better when it just acknowledges that it’s rooted in a few assumptions which cannot be proven and must be taken on faith. Whenever apologists attempt to prove these assumptions as having any empirical support they fall down badly.
Nonsense. If a natural explanation is possible,but contrived (e.g. exceedingly unlikely or implausible), then one can consider the possibility of a supernatural explanation. One does not have to completely disprove the naturalistic explanation first.
Of course, if you assume that supernatural events cannot possibly occur (as you assert, based on previous threads), then one would indeed want to exhaust any and all naturalistic explanations first. However, this is not something that is “empirical” or otherwise dictated by the fundamental laws of logic.
Um…actually, yes it is. Any natural explanation, no matter how unlikely, is still preferable to any supernatural explanation. To put it another way, unlikely explanations are still preferable to impossible ones.
Well, I’m specifically talking about a method of discovery, not necessarily what is absolutely true. If you can’t falsify something, you can’t plug it into empirical method. There is no way to test or evaluate an infinite number of supernatural hypotheses for a given phenomenon when there is no observable evidence for any of them. And If you don’t make certain assumptions about things (like the assumption that the laws of physics cannot be violated) then you can’t apply any scientific methods of discovery.
As with previous discussions, you’re assuming that miracles are indeed “impossible.” This is by no means firmly established, and it ist most certainly not “empirical.”
Think here of “impossible” as meaning could not happen within the known laws of nature. It’s reasonable to assume something isn’t a miracle if it can be explained by science.
So in other words, the supernatural is “impossible” because we can define that word to mean “cannot happen within the known laws of nature” (i.e. cannot happen if we postulate that the supernatural never occurs).
Do you see why that statement is ultimately unhelpful?
