David Berlinski and His Critics

I met some very interesting people at the TriaLogos festival in Tallinn last week. One of them was Dr. David Berlinski. I had not heard of him before, even though I kind of follow the Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design dialogue, but after the festival I did a more in depth study of the guy and found out that he is one of the leading and most outspoken Darwinism critics there are.

David Berlinski is a Senior Fellow for the Discovery Institute think tank. You can find his impressive CV along with a short bio here. His latest book, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions, sounds counter-cultural to say the least.

What makes Berlinski stand out is that he is a self-proclaimed "secular Jew" and agnostic, not a Christian. Some say he is a "zealous sceptic, more concerned with false gods than with real ones".

Having a tendency to lose academic positions with what he himself describes as an embarrassing urgency, Berlinski now devotes himself entirely to writing. In Tallinn he said he has been fired from every professorship he's ever had. The reason? His anti-Darwinism.

Ben Stein's new documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed includes numerous Darwinism critics - professors and scientists - who have been ousted from the "scientific community" for daring to question the status quo. A trailer of the documentary - which probably will never air in Finland (purported "low sales" as censorship justification) - can be seen here.* In the trailer, Berlinski is the man with the umbrella Stein shakes hands with and he is seen a few seconds later leaning back in an armchair in thought.

I must add that though Berlinski says that "everyone knows the evolution theory is a gas-bag" and calls evolutionary psychology "an enormous wasteland", he is not wholly impressed with the ID movement's attempts at explaining the questions that Darwinism quite obviously fails to explain. In Darwinism Versus Intelligent Design he states his independence from both. I recommend reading both the Darwinists' and the ID scientists' response to his critique. Halfway through the piece the podium is given to Berlinski who gracefully replies to each one.

I intend to attend a lecture given by the Dean of the Polytechnic University, Dr. Matti Leisola, titled Has Science Buried Religion? in Lahti this upcoming Wednesday at seven o'clock. The talk is part of a apologetic series offered by Studia Generalia.

* I checked the Amazon reader ratings for the documentary. It got 3 out of 5 stars. How so? If you look more carefully, it got only either ones or full fives, nothing in between. The pro-Darwinists gave it ones and the others a five.

Texting to Tanzania

A Sunday morning text-message correspondence I had with the Tanzanian branch:

Danny: ”Skipattiin Benjy kanssa Amana [kirkko] ja käytiin pyöräilyretkellä ja sen päätteeksi SeaCliffin rantakahvilaan virvokkeille. Mitä sinne?”
Jason: ”Aiaiai mahtavalta kuulostaa! Moi Benjy! Jasu-setä tulee jouluksi sinne. Mitä tuon teille tuliaiseksi?”
Benjy: ”Karkkia ja hedelmäkarkkia ja sitten lelun. Danskulle ei mitään.”
Danny: ”Heh... Voi sillekin jotain tuoda.”

Same in English:

Danny: “Benjy and I skipped Amana [church] and after a bike-ride are enjoying sodas at the SeaCliff beach cafeteria. What's up?”
Jason: “Wow ... sounds great! Hi Benjy! Uncle Jason is coming over for Christmas. What should I bring you guys?”
Benjy: “Candy and fruity candy and then a toy. Nothing for Daniella.”
Danny: “Heh... You can bring her something too.”

"Screw this," thought Joshua ...

"I asked for Gucci sunglasses and a Kalevala bracelet. Who do they think I am, a one-yeard-old dummy?"

TriaLogos in the Old Town of Tallinn

Taking the ferry across the Gulf of Finland today to attend the TriaLogos festival in the Old Town of Tallinn. The festival's program is very interesting again this year (last year I didn't make it).

I'm looking forward to many presentations, especially: Jeffrey Langan's "St. Augustine's City of God: Empire vs. Civilization", Robert Sungenis' "The Effect of Secular Philosophy on Art, Architecture, Culture, Music, Movies, Television and Literature, from Kant to the Modern Age" and "The Religion of Scientism", and James Larson's "What is Truth?".

TriaLogos is more than a seminar, it is a festival, and as such it includes plays, concerts, etcetera. I'll be back late Friday night.

Dissertation: Theology of Love

I have decided to continue my studies and reapply (back) to the University of Helsinki. In my thesis I studied John Paul II's theology of the body. In my dissertation I hope to enter one of the many doors opened by my thesis and focus on theology of love. The exact topic needs to be ratified by my professors, but I'm hoping that I'll be able to conduct a comparative study between the conceptions of love (theologies of love) of two great minds: John Paul II (Catholic) and C. S. Lewis (Anglican/Protestant).

The topic, on one hand, is superbly interesting, but on the other, superbly terrifying. I am not just referring to the academic dimension in conducting a study of this scale. What terrifies me is the topic itself: love. Let me explain.

It is an age old question whether knowledge or virtue constitutes the essence of a good life. What is the relationship between knowledge and virtue? When we say we "understand a thing", is it by virtue of knowledge or by virtue of virtue that we do understand? After analyzing the question deeper, many would conclude that the answer is both. And that knowledge and virtue, at the end of the day, are organically connected to one another. But what does this have to do with a systematic study on love?

Nowhere is this interconnectedness between knowledge and virtue more apparent than in love.

This poses a serious limitation for any study of love, a two-part limitation. Firstly, a true understanding of love requires not only knowledge of love, but also love itself, love as a virtue. The true studier of love must be a true lover. Otherwise we are dealing with superficialities. The innermost secrets of love reveal themselves to the scholar-lover more than to the scholar. Thinking about love is not a substitution for loving.

I believe both John Paul II and C. S. Lewis to be scholar-lovers par excellence, so the content their lover-minds produced is most likely of superior quality. So they are excellent sources. However, if the studier of their thought is himself not well versed in the school of love, this superior quality will not be penetrated.

The second part of the two-part limitation follows the same logic. Somehow the findings of a study of love -- a study which for argument's sake we take as successful -- must be communicated to the public, to the readership. By virtue of all what's been said of knowledge and virtue (in understanding), the deeper findings of the study will be comprehensible only to the lovers.

So I'm anxious firstly because the chances of conducting a successful study are slim and the topic, love, obligates the serious researcher to attempt something of a conversion of heart; and secondly because, presuming the study is successful, the topic, love, obligates the serious reader to attempt something of a conversion of heart.

A difficult situation. Yes, but what could be more important than love? I think I am the luckiest person alive if my study plans are ratified.

"We must remember that love reveals itself, not by words or phrases, but by action and experience. It is Love which speaks here, and if anyone wishes to understand it, let him first love." -- Bernard of Clairvaux

Proofs of God's Existence -- Part III

(The Atheist-bashing ends.)

1. ARGUMENT FROM PRESIDENTIAL IGNORANCE
(1) If I ask God to blesserize Texas, nobody'll mess with it.
(2) Nobody messes with Texas.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

2. ARGUMENT FROM C.S. LEWIS
(1) C.S. Lewis had a lot of good arguments in favour of Christianity ... at least that's what all my Christian friends tell me...
(2) C.S. Lewis wrote some popular books too!
(3) Therefore, God exists.

3. ARGUMENT FROM CHRISTIAN EXPERTS ARE IGNORED
(1) Dembski, Behe, Kreeft, Graig and Plantinga are ignored by mainstream intellectuals.
(2) Only a fear of the truth could explain this.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

4. ARGUMENT FROM CHRISTIAN EXPERTS ARE NOT IGNORED
(1) Mainstream intellectuals are paying some attention to Dembski, Bene, Kreeft, Graig and Plantinga.
(2) Only a growing recognition of the truth could explain this.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

5. ARGUMENT FROM THE BIBLE (II)
(1) The Bible says the Bible is true.
(2) Therefore the Bible is true.
(3) The Bible says God exists.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

6. ARGUMENT FROM UNTRANSLATED OLD FRENCH
(1) "Mais pourceque j'avois déjà connu en moi très clairement que la nature intelligente est distincte de la corporelle; connsidérant que toute composition témoigne de la dépendance, et que la dépendance est manifestement un défaut, je jugeois de là que ce ne pouvoit être une perfection en Dieu d'être composé de ces deux natures, et que par conséquent il ne l'étoit pas; mais que s'il y avoit quelques corpos dans le monde, ou bien quelques intelligences ou autres natures qui ne fussent point totutes parfaites, leur être devoit dépendre de sa puissance, en telle sorte quelles ne pouvoient subsister sans lui un seul moment." -- René Descartes, Discours de la Méthode
(2) How could you possibly refute that?
(3) Therefore, God exists.

7. ARGUMENT FROM YOUTH GROUP MINISTER
(1) God is awesome!
(2) Like, totally, dude!
(3) Therefore, God exists.

8. ...

Actually, I found 300 so-called "Proof's of God's Existence" from the Atheists of Silicon Valley Humor Page, but the rest weren't very funny. In fact, many of them are solid -- really, no joking -- solid arguments for God's existence, that were just modified a little to sound absurd. And, oddly enough, sometimes after the modification they still sounded solid and not absurd!

I think I will post ten of each of these two types: ten the ones that are solid but twisted, and ten of the ones that are solid, unsuccessfully twisted and not funny.

Proofs of God's Existence -- Part II

(The Atheist-bashing continues.)

1. ARGUMENT FROM MANIFESTATIONS
(1) If you turn your head sideways and squint a little, you can see an image of a bearded man in that tortilla.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

2. ARGUMENT FROM NON-BELIEF
(1) The majority of the world's population are nonbelievers in Christianity.
(2) That is just what Satan intended.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

3. ARGUMENT FROM INCOHERENT BABBLE
(1) See that person spazzing on the church floor babbling incoherently?
(2) That is how infinite wisdom reveals itself.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

4. CALVINIST ARGUMENT
(1) If God exists, then he will let me watch you be tortured forever.
(2) I rather like that idea.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

5. PEACOCK ARGUMENT FROM ORIGINALITY
(1) I have written the following to demonstrate the existence of God.
(2) (insert entire text of a William Lane Graig article)
(3) Therefore, God exists.

6. ARGUMENT FROM TEEN CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT
(1) God is so totally awesome, dude, and if you would pretend that Creed and POD were good bands, you would realize that.
(2) Also, our Youth Group leader Skip once, like, cured a broken leg using only the power of the almighty Lord.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

7. ARGUMENT FROM PRAYER
(1) God exists.
(Atheist makes counterarguments)
(2) You have my prayers.

8. ARGUMENT FROM SPAGHETTI
(1) A few people saw something weird in a bowl of spaghetti.
(2) Some Catholics believe it is the Virgin Mary.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

9. ARGUMENT FROM THE FOUNDING FATHERS
(1) The Declaration of Independence includes the words "God" and "Creator".
(2) Only a Christian would include the words "God" and "Creator".
(3) Therefore the US is a Christian Nation.
(4) A Christian Nation couldn't last over 200 years without God's help.
(5) Therefore, God exists.

10. ARGUMENT FROM INVISIBLITY
(1) God is invisible.
(2) I can't see God.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

Proofs of God's Existence -- Part I

I've gathered a few knock-em-down arguments for the existence of God. They're quite intellectual, and some are more convincing than others. Now go and impress your friends.

1. MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) God is either necessary or unnecessary.
(2) God is not unnecessary, therefore God must be necessary.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

2. MORAL ARGUMENT
(1) In my younger days I was a cursing, drinking, smoking, gambling, thieving, murdering, bed-wetting bastard.
(2) That all changed when I became religious.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

3. ARGUMENT FROM THE BIBLE
(1) (arbitrary passage from OT)
(2) (arbitrary passage from NT)
(3) Therefore, God exists.

4. ARGUMENT FROM INTELLIGENCE
(1) Look, there's really no point in my trying to explain the whole thing to you stupid Atheists -- it's too complicated for you to understand. God exists whether you like it or not.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

5. ARGUMENT FROM BELIEF
(1) If God exists, then I should believe in Him.
(2) I believe in God.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

6. ARGUMENT FROM INTIMIDATION
(1) See this bonfire?
(2) Therefore, God exists.

7. ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY
(1) Eric Clapton is God.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

8. ARGUMENT FROM INTERNET AUTHORITY
(1) There is a website that successfully argues for the existence of God.
(2) Here is the URL.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

9. ARGUMENT FROM INCOMPREHENSIBILITY
(1) Flabble glurk zoom boink blubba snurgleschnortz ping!
(2) No one has ever refuted (1).
(3) Therefore, God exists.

10. ARGUMENT FROM LOVE
(1) God is love.
(2) Love is blind.
(3) Stevie Wonder is blind.
(4) Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.
(5) Therefore, God exists.

The Power of Commas

I prefer English grammar to Finnish grammar. Finnish, as a language, is more rigid and its vocabulary is narrower. I'm sure a Finnish philologist -- someone who remembers the one million grammar rules -- might disagree. I like English's versatility. Commas, for instance, may be placed almost wherever one wants. In places where one takes a natural break. In Finnish, on the other hands, there are fixed rules. Certain words must, by default, always be followed by a comma, no matter whether there's a natural pause or not.

You might remember this example that well illustrates the power of commas in English. The two sentences are exactly the same, except for the location of the commas. And yet somehow their meanings are perhaps slightly different.

1. Woman, without her, man is nothing.

2. Woman without her man, is nothing.