Skip to main content

idea for a book

It's a book that would be written for my children as college students.

It would principally address issues that I'm good at talking about: science/God; but it would make some reference to Catholic/Evangelical differences, but not in a way that would shift focus away from my initial goal, which is to address theism/atheism controversy.

It would also address in a very general way, the principles that should guide discussions of ethics.  In fact, it would take concerns and presumptions that go into discussions about ethics as fuel for the discussion of the metaphysical themes.  That is, it would relate ethical questions to materialism/theism/dualism

It would point to liturgy as the profoundest human achievement

It would look to Sokoloski as a model of clarity; to RD as a model of exuberance, sense of beauty and humor (but w/o schoolyard bullying); to St. Terese as a model of personal testimony of confidence in God; and Giussani as a model of Christ-centered holism and faith as adventure.

Its tone would be like that of my emails: try to avoid being pompous, funny in an off-the-cuff manner, hopeful, appreciative of beauty, charitable interpretation of opponents and seek their strongest arguments and present them fairly; ready to make distinctions and to employ self-referential arguments to undermine unwitting dogmatism; avoid tribalism; and it would finish with an exhortation.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

P F Strawson's Freedom and Resentment: the argument laid out

Here is a summary and comments on the essay Freedom and Resentment by PF Strawson.  He makes some great points, and when he is wrong, it is in such a way as to clarify things a great deal.  My non-deterministic position is much better thanks to having read this.  I’ll summarize it in this post and respond in a later one. In a nutshell: PFS first argues that personal resentment that we may feel toward another for having failed to show goodwill toward us would have no problem coexisting with the conviction that determinism is true.  Moral disapprobation, as an analog to resentment, is likewise capable of coexisting with deterministic convictions. In fact, it would seem nearly impossible for a normally-constituted person (i.e., a non-sociopath) to leave behind the web of moral convictions, even if that person is a determinist.  In this way, by arguing that moral and determinist convictions can coexist in the same person, PFS undermines the libertarian argument ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dembski's "specified compexity" semiotics and teleology (both ad intra and ad extra)

Integral to Dembski's idea of specified complexity (SC) is the notion that something extrinsic to evolution is the source of the specification in how it develops. He compares SC to the message sent by space aliens in the movie "Contact." In that movie, earthbound scientists determine that radio waves originating in from somewhere in our galaxy are actually a signal being sent by space aliens. The scientists determine that these waves are a signal is the fact that they indicate prime numbers in a way that a random occurrence would not. What is interesting to me is the fact that Dembski relies upon an analogy with a sign rather than a machine. Like a machine, signs are produced by an intelligent being for the sake of something beyond themselves. Machines, if you will, have a meaning. Signs, if you will, produce knowledge. But the meaning/knowledge is in both cases something other than the machine/sign itself. Both signs and machines are purposeful or teleological...
Post a Comment
Read more

Richard Dawkin's problem with God

Beliefnet has published an interview by Laura Sheahan with biologist Richard Dawkins, who employs evolution in support of atheism. In the second part of the interview, Sheahan says to Dawkins: "You criticize intelligent design, saying that 'the theistic answer'--pointing to God as designer--'is deeply unsatisfying'--presumably you mean on a logical, scientific level." Dawkins then replies to the interviewer: "Yes, because it doesn't explain where the designer comes from. If they're going to emphasize the statistical improbability of biological organs—'these are so complicated, how could they have evolved?'--well, if they're so complicated, how could they possibly have been designed? Because the designer would have to be even more complicated." My reply: Dawkins does not explain WHY the designer of biological organs would have to be more complicated than the organs he designs. He does not think that such an explanation is...
Post a Comment
Read more