tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7816993466458431323.post5449907759739013071..comments2023-03-03T10:19:50.651-05:00Comments on Reflections of a Catholic Scientist: On avoiding the occasion of the sin of anger; why I won't respond to comments by evangelical atheistsduhemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08742949750689428697noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7816993466458431323.post-52804239545669397482014-01-09T11:55:14.011-05:002014-01-09T11:55:14.011-05:00One more point Matt. I will not publish your la...One more point Matt. I will not publish your last comment, which insults me personally and again, to put it politely, contains many statements that are contrary to fact. There's no point or profit for you or me to continue a " 'tis/'tisn't" argument. I won't respond to unsupported assertions (e.g. "neuroscience rubbishes Chalmers") or implied denigrations of those who believe in God (e.g. your remark about Newberg investing religion among other disorders). This morning I went to the Adoration Chapel and prayed for you and other militant, evangelical atheists that grace might be given to you, if not for a belief in God, at least a more open attitude to looking into material that challenged your faith (and, by the way, I have read one of Dawkins' books, have read two of Christopher Hitchens). Good luck to you in your search for Truth.duhemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08742949750689428697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7816993466458431323.post-40073685350772934992014-01-09T08:43:38.825-05:002014-01-09T08:43:38.825-05:00Matt, I would have preferred to reply to your comm...Matt, I would have preferred to reply to your comment by private email in order not to seem to insult you in a public forum, but that doesn't seem to be possible, so I'll reply here to your assertions point by point. I'm not going to rebut everything you've said--that would take a chapter, but just provide a few examples.<br />". I have presented arguments that are substantiated by logic, reason and evidence " That's not so<br />Let's take your assertion that providing counter examples does not satisfy necessary or sufficient conditions. According to the mathematical definition of a necessary condition, if A is a necessary condition for B, then all instances of B will satisfy A. Accordingly, if A= atheism and B= being a good scientist, then all good scientists will be atheists. That's not so. The definition of a sufficient condition is that if A is a sufficient condition for B, then all instances of A will satisfy B. Or, in your terms, if atheism is a sufficient condition for being a good scientist, every atheist will be a good scientist. That's no so--witness Dawkins, whose ability as a scientist is decried by fellow atheists.<br />You have claimed "that science culls theism" (whatever that may mean) and other statements that say belief in God and science are incompatible, but have provided no evidence for these bald assertions. And as for an appeal to authority, I'd prefer to take the views of Nobel Prize winners, Eigen, Schawlow, Townes, Penzias, to yours or Dawkins. <br />You claim to be open-minded. I'll believe that when there's some evidence that you've read books that oppose your atheistic faith (and it is a faith, not a rationally ordered belief system):<br />Fr. Stanley Jaki, "The Limits of a Limitless Science"<br />Keith Ward, "Why there Almost Certainly Is a God--Doubting Dawkins"<br />Edward Feser,, "The Last Superstition--A Refutation of the New Atheism"<br />Peter Kreeft, "Jacob's Ladder: Ten Steps to Truth:<br />There is not much point in further discussion until you do give evidence of putting some effort in trying to understand opposing views. And I do believe that it is not by intellectual effort alone that faith comes, but by grace. So I will pray for you that you may receive that grace, or at least a more open-minded attitude to the possibility of belief.<br />By the way, your point about forsaking the internet if foolish comments bother me is well taken (and I should again remark that in CAF and Facebook I have enjoyed debating with those who supported their views by logic and evidence). Mental and physical health considerations are important, I am considering the possibility of not blogging again, or at least finding sites which you don't visit. With the exception of your comments I have found it satisfying, and what I have had to say seems to be received well. But moral and physical health are prime considerations. I should add that when I taught thermo and quantum mechanics, I was gentle with those who had problems, as long as they made an effort, but when they were lazy, I was merciless. <br />duhemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08742949750689428697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7816993466458431323.post-38521880975475067632014-01-09T06:16:12.462-05:002014-01-09T06:16:12.462-05:00Matt Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11420461935500773565noreply@blogger.com