Letter To An Atheist
Last night on our radio show we spoke with author and leading atheist Sam Harris about his book “Letter to a Christian Nation.” We invited Dr. Peter Kreeft who is an author of 45 books himself and a professor of philosophy at Boston College. It was a spirited discussion about Sam’s book which I highly recommend people buy. It was a highly thought provoking read- one that only solidified my Christian faith and theistic word-view.
That said there were a number of issues that time did not permit us to cover that deserves some further examination.
Sam makes a multitude of claims in his book about “religion” (he doesn’t distinguish between any specific religions but conflates them all despite their numerous inherent differences) in general in support of his atheistic world view (which many would characterize as secular humanism/materialism which the Supreme Courts has ruled is a religion of its own). Yet many of his central assertions are nothing more than unsubstantiated generalizations, distortions, and outright mis-truths (i.e lies). He argues for “scientific proof” and “rationality” on virtually every topic of debate he covers in his book, but after reading his book twice, I found a number of groundless claims that Sam fails to reconcile with the facts.
For example:
Sam claims “nature offers no examples of an intelligent designer.” Yet, virtually every area of science (astronomy, biology, bio-chemistry, physics, and cosmology, etc.) all point clearly to a highly refined and highly complex universe that could not have possibly resulted from “chance.” Even well known atheists Quentin Smith and David Hume concur, “The contention that we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing is absurd.” Or consider gravity which is fine-tuned to one point in a hundred million billion billion billion billion. Darwin said, ” If it could be demonstrated that any complex organism existed which could not have possibly been formed by numerous successive slight modifications my theory would absolutely break down.” Biochemist Michael Behe (whom I cited to last night who Sam derided and dismissed as an “ID apologist”) has demonstrated exactly that through his description of “irreducibly complex” molecular machines including the irreducible system of transporting proteins within cells and the intricate process of blood clotting.
Sam claims that the theory of Darwinian evolution is scientifically true and that there is no serious debate about it. This is as arrogant an assertion as it is absurd given the plethora of evidence which has demonstrated numerous holes in the theory most notably, as I said last night, the Cambrian Explosion, which even Darwin had admitted would nullify his theory. The Cambrian Explosion’s dazzling array of new life forms, in the words of world renowned biologist Stephen Meyer “which appeared suddenly fully formed in the fossil record with no prior transitions would have required the infusion of massive amounts of biological information…which is the hallmark of the mind…purely from the evidence of genetics and biology, we can infer the existence of a mind that’s far greater than our own-conscious, purposeful, rational, intelligent designers who’s amazingly creative.”
Sam claims human life does not begin at conception. This claim too is absurd and strains credulity. For somebody as bright and articulate as Sam to deny this axiomatic verifiable truth is puzzling. It is a scientific fact not up for debate that human life begins at the very moment of conception- a process knows as fecundation. To believe otherwise contradicts accepted science. Yet Sam, who is dogmatic in his naturalistic worldview, ignores this scientific reality, which he so emphatically demands of theists.
Sam claims states that “red states” have higher murder rates than more secular/atheistic “blue” states and purports to demonstrate a correlation between conservative Christianity and higher crime and murder rates. He is correct that “17 of the top 22″ states with the highest murder rates are indeed “Red” states. But Sam conveniently ignores the fact that every city within those “red” states that have the highest homicide rates are all “blue” cities (i.e. New Orleans, Atlanta, Milwaukee, Wash D.C., Philadelphia, K.C. Cleveland, Memphis, etc.) If anything, it is the liberal Dem “blue” cites whose failed liberal social, educational and welfare programs, which create govt dependency, illegitimacy, crime, and illiteracy etc… are the more plausible causes of the high murder rates not “evangelical Christian fundamentalists.”
Sam claims that secular/atheistic/least religious countries in the world have higher per capita incomes, healthier populations, and better overall stds of living than other more religious countries. Yet all the countries he lists are all overwhelmingly Christian nations (including Australia-76% Christian, Belgium-75%Catholic and 25% Protestant, Denmark-91% Evangelical Lutheran. according to the World Almanac and Book of Facts.) He conveniently omits China, the only official atheistic country in the world who has one of the lowest per capita incomes, lowest stds of living, and highest human rights violations in the world. I think Sam actually got it exactly backwards. It is an inconvenient truth, but nevertheless the truth. Sam also cliams that most vilence, death, and war is thersult of religious fundamentalists. On this a very plausible case could be made for the religion of “peace” Islam. But Sam ignores that hundreds of millions of innocent people died in the 20th Century not from “fundamentalist” Christians but from ahteisitic totolitarian Commusnist, Socialist, and Nazi regimes. Again, an inconvenient truth Sam conveniently omits.
Sam ponder whether “one can reasonably wonder whether most aborted fetuses suffer their destruction at any level.” My question to Sam is, if in doubt why not give the defenseless little baby the benefit of the doubt and let her live. Would you bury a person if you were unsure if he/she were alive or dead? We know empirically that babies “feel” pain when they are dismembered by an abortionistâ??s scalpel, the dilation and curettage method, and the dilation and evacuation method. We also know that when a baby’s head is punctured with a scissors, its brains vacuumed, and its head crushed that the baby in a late term abortion also feels excruciating pain. One would think somebody as intelligent as Sam would oppose abortion at any stage given his praise on page 23 for the Jain patriarch Mahavira who said “do not injure, kill, abuse any creature or living being.” This is a gaping contradiction that Sam never reconciles.
Sam claims that Embryonic Stem Cell Research shows enormous promise and that Christians who oppose it are “uninformed.” He finds no “moral reason for our federal government to fund” embryonic stem cell research. As a dogmatic advocate for rational science and opposition to human suffering one would expect that Sam would be opposed to the intentional creation of human life for experimentation and destruction especially given the fact that Embryonic SCR has produced nothing, has not begun one human trial, and tends to cause malignancies called teratomas meaning “monster tumors.” I am also surprised he does not even mention Adult Stem Cell Research which has been used to treat dozens of diseases including Type 1 diabetes, liver disease, spinal cord injuries, and the restoration of bone marrow in cancer patients without killing any human embryos at any stage of life. With all due respect, it is Sam who is wholly uninformed on this issue and arrogantly derides anybody with moral misgivings about the intentional creation and destruction of human embryos.
As the great former Democrat Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, “people are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts.”
October 16, 2006 7:55 pm 
Sam Harris was all over the place last night. This type of “defense” is seen in other hyperactive liberals who can’t ground themselves, mainly because they have nothing to ground themselves with, other than with emotional bantering and opinions that they are trying to propose as “FACTS”.
I would pay for front row seats if Lee Strobel, a lawyer and former atheist turned christian, were to take Mr. Harris “behind the woodshed” and verbally fillet him on all of his “FACTS”.
Sounds like a showdown if I were to ever see one!!!
Great job last night Kevin and Gregg.
Scia (ALL about FACTS!!)
Do you beleive in the bible? You rely so much on your empirical data which is the basis of science yet you can so easily deny it for your own faith. Did you know that whales have legs in thier skeletons and therefore it has been said that they evolved from a hippo like creature. Just because you dont have the imagitive capacity to understand the complexity of our universe doesnt mean some outdated and flat out ridiculous book like the bible has the answers. As for me i dont entirley agree with sam because there are things science will never be able to explain. I dont deny the existence of a god but, i dont beleive it either.
The Big Bang theory is pretty simple to disprove. For instence if it was the nature of the explosion to creat then it would still be its natur. Funny thing I seen 100s of explosions while I was in Iraq and never once did one of those explosions creat a thing. In fact explosions do right opposite instead of creating they destroy. The ateist today wants you to beleive something like this. “I was a cell when I began to begin, Then I was a tadpole with my tale tucked in then I was monkey in the coconut tree now I am a man with a PHD. They tell us there was this big explosion nobody knows exactly when and nobody know exactly how. But it formed the sun and a piece broke off it and landed in the water and made a living cell. You know what it takes alot more faith to believe that junk than just to believe that In the Beginning God. Amen. The probability of life origionating from an explosion is comparable to the probability that the unabridged dictionary origionated from an explosin in a print shop. You had this explosion and it formed a binder and titles fell on it and at the same time the explosion caused pages and glue to bind themselfs and created ink and the ink blew up and got on the pages in exact perfect order. How foolish can you be. Like I said it takes a heap more faith to believe that junk as to simply believe that In the Beginning God Created. you say where did God come from He came from nowhere because He is everywhere and there was no place for him to come from. He is omnipresent. God bless you Gregg and staff at pun dit reveiw I wish I could listen to your programs. Signed Forrest
I would like to say that I Believe in that old King James Bible with all my heart. I stole a King James Bible to use in a satanic ritual and the Holy Ghost of God spoke to me through His Holy Word. I was placed under Holy Ghost conviction through the Word of God and He pointed me to the Lord Jesus Christ and spoke to my heart That if thou shalt call upon the Name of the Lord thou shalt be saved. I am a witness that the Bible is true along with the Sovereign God of the universe who sent His Son to die on Calvary so that if any man would come on Gods terms He shed enough blood to save 10 million worlds. After seein what was wrote about the Word of God I had to earnestly contend for the faith that was once delivered to the saints. God Bless signed Forrest
Phil,
Sounds like you are pretty familiar with the Bible. I am sure you have read it correct? Why have you come to the conclusion that it is “flat out ridiculous?” On what basis have you arrived at this assessment?
Gregg
Something being “complex” does not imply “design”.
Remember the “origami boulder”.
An origami book I have lists thousands of folds necessary to reproduce the incredibly complex “boulder” design, but then you realize it’s just a joke… about a crumpled up ball of paper you might have thrown on your bus ride to school.
Crumpling up a brown piece of paper… Does it require intelligence? No. But does it look like a boulder? Yes. You might say I “fine-tuned to one point in a hundred million billion” decimals of precision boulder accuracy, but that is a joke too.
Conclusion: complexity NOT EQUAL TO intelligent design.
Read up on how Behe has been discredited:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe
What “plethora of evidence” disproves evolution? Could you elaborate on how the Cambrian Explosion disproves evolution?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion#iii.29_What_caused_the_Cambrian_Explosion.3F
Good questions. I will do my best to deal with them in a thoughtful manner. First, it is important to point out that in Sam\’s book on page 70 Sam says \”proclmations about God and the failures of Darwinism do not in the least signify that there is a legitimate scientific controversy about evolution.\” As I said in the original post, that statement strains credulity in that it is as absurd as it is arrogant to deny \”any legitimate controversy about evolution\” as if it were settled science. My main point is that the vast majority of scientific evidnece has disproven the core tenets of Darwinian Evolution. For Sam to suggest that there is \”no legitimate controversy\” among scientists makes him seem totally irrational as if evidence to the contrary can be easily proven.
Darwin\\\’s theory of evolution which is really a tautology has produced nothing in the fossil records after 150 years of diligent looking. Am I incorrect? the fossil records that I am aware of don\\\’t show \\\”interminable varieties\\\” and fossils connecting teh \\\”extinct to the extant.\\\” The fossil records that I am aware of shows sudden bursts of all manner of animals, modest change, followed by sudden extinction. Harvard paleontologist evolutionary paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould could not find anything in the fossil records to suport Darwin\\\’s theory. Darwinists pointed to Archaeopteryx for years as the lone fossil link from dinosaurs to birds which has been proven to have no relation to modern birds.
The reason that Evolutionists claim how Behe has been \\\”discredited\\\” is that his 1996 book \\\”Darwin\\\’s Black Box\\\” used microbiology to refute Darwin\\\’s theory. This was an inconvenient truth for Darwinists- which is why they refer to him like Sam Harris and other atheists do as an \\\”apologist for ID\\\” instead of clearly refuting the evidence presented in the book. Darwin himself said( as I said in the original post): \\\”If it could be demonstrated that any complex organism existed which could not have possibly been formed by numerous successive slight modifications my theory would absolutely break down.â?ť Behe produced a number of irreducibly complex mechanisms with thousands of complex cellualar structures, blood clotting mechanisms, and the human eye,the flagellum, the cilium, etc.. Behe compared the cell parts that comprise these mechanisms to a simple mousetrap and showed that if even one of the parts were missing you would not have a mousetrap at all. Behe demonstrated that it is statistically impossible for all 30 parts of the flagellum for example to to be brought together by \\\”numerous, successive, slight modifications\\\” of natural selection.
Evolutionists concurred. Evolutionary biologist Tom Caalier-Smith said,\\\” For none of the cases mentioned by Behe is there yet a comprehensive and detailed explanation of the probable steps in the evolution of the observed complexity.\\\”
It\\\’s easier for Evolutionists to smear Behe as \\\”discredited\\\” then deal with the evidence he presents.
But if you don\\\’t believe Behe what about Hoyle and Wickramasinghe-atheists by the way- who came to similar conclusions about the origins of life that Behe did. Hoyle conducted a statistical analysis to determine the mathmatical probablitity of the basic enzymes of life arising by random process and concluded that the odds were 1 to 1 followed by 40,000 zeros or \\\”so utterly miniscule\\\” as to make Darwin\\\’s theory of evolution absurd. Francis Crick who won the Nobel Prize for his codiscovery of DNA also concluded that the spontaneous evolution of life could not be reconciled with the facts. He said,\\\” The probabliity of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd.\\\”
If there is evidence that shows that natural selection can produce systems that over time become integrated to the point where they become irreducibly complex where is it?
I guess my question for you is the same question that Colin Patterson, world renowned paleontologist at the Natural History Museum in London, asked: \\\”Is there anything you know about evolution, any one thing that you think is true?\\\” The burden of proof is really on you.
I look forward to your answers to the questions I have posed.
Gregg
Actually, if I understand the article below correctly, it was a priest who discovered the Big Bang theory, “A Day Without Yesterday”.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0022.html
“…This discovery would have come as no surprise to Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966), a Belgian mathematician and Catholic priest who developed the theory of the Big Bang. Lemaitre described the beginning of the universe as a burst of fireworks, comparing galaxies to the burning embers spreading out in a growing sphere from the center of the burst. He believed this burst of fireworks was the beginning of time, taking place on â??a day without yesterday.â?ť “
By the way, Dr Kreeft is brilliant!
wow is all I can say. Good excellant answers Gregg signed Forrest
Gregg i think you dont have any formal education on Geology or biology am i correct? These scientists are stating through probability that it is possible. Just because the probability is small doesnt make it impossible. Are you aware of the unimaginable size of our universe. in the observable universe there are around 80 thousand million galaxies. a typical galaxy contains from 10 million to ten trillion stars. So you are going to tell me life rising spontaneously is absurd. I think you are afriad of uncertainty. The possiblity that you don’t have control of your afterlife. The truth is no one knows what death will bring. no one knows if there is a god but, i know for with reasonable certainty that it is not the god of the bible.
Gregg i think you dont have any formal education on Geology or biology am i correct? These scientists are stating through probability that it is possible. Just because the probability is small doesnt make it impossible. Are you aware of the unimaginable size of our universe. in the observable universe there are around 80 thousand million galaxies. a typical galaxy contains from 10 million to ten trillion stars. So you are going to tell me life rising spontaneously is absurd. I think you are afriad of uncertainty. The possiblity that you don’t have control of your afterlife. The truth is no one knows what death will bring. no one knows if there is a god but, i know with reasonable certainty that it is not the god of the bible.
Phil,
You are conflating and I think confusing two very different theories (The \”Big Bang Theory\” and \”Darwinian Evolution\”) But before we get into that issuue let\’s start by discussing the first question I posed which was:
\”Phil,
Sounds like you are pretty familiar with the Bible. I am sure you have read it correct?
What is the Bible\’s main point?
Why have you come to the conclusion that it is â??flat out ridiculous?â?ť
On what basis have you arrived at this assessment?\”
Looking forward to your responses to each of these quesitons.
Gregg
To discredit evolution you need to present a better theory. “Creation” is not falsifiable or testable. Thus “creation” is not even a “theory” in the context of science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science
(unless you know of some way to get God to create new lifeforms for us in a testable way)
Also please avoid the “burden of proof” logical fallacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_%28logical_fallacy%29
“To discredit evolution you need to present a better theory.”
I have quoted some of the most renowened scintists in the world who have discredited evolution and have said that ID is more reasonable given the high level of complexity in the universe and the gaping holes in the natural selection theory.
I will again ask the same question I posed earlier:
“Colin Patterson, world renowned paleontologist at the Natural History Museum in London, asked: â?ťIs there anything you know about evolution, any one thing that you think is true?
Gregg
I can discredit evolution Evolution #1 In the beginning God Ceated. #2 God said let there be light and there was light why because he is God. You say where did God come from and i say He came from nowhere because He is evryshere He is omnipresent. Evolution would have you believe we evolved But that is a lie that sucked hitler in. I proclaim that Scripture is 100% correct and it proclaims that all trees and graas and such come from there kind. As far as man is concerned God said Let us make man in our image after our likness. That is so simple that every child that hears this message believes it because it is the truth. love Forrest Ps. The Word of God is pure without one thread of error. That is a fact and whether you beieve it or not its still so. You dont have to believe in bravity if you dont like go jump off a 100 story building and all the way down tell yourself gravity doesnt exist and youll still splat
The Death of Science, Part II…
We had a lot of fun with our ealier “Death of Science” thread - we certainly got a lot of comments! But I do believe the conversation was left unfinished and, also, that I didn’t make properly clear what I……
“I have quoted some of the most renowened scintists in the world who have discredited evolution and have said that ID is more reasonable”.
I hope your “most renowned” scientists don’t include Behe. His own department finds it necessary to say this in order to attract students who really want to study science.
Have you read these responses?
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or read Finding Darwin’s God?
You falsely claim that the SCOTUS has ruled Secular Humanism a religion. That is false.
In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, Justice Hugo Black commented in a footnote, “Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others.” Such footnotes, known as obiter dicta, are personal observations of the judge, NOT a ruling by the court.
The court has no jurisdiction vis-a-vis validating what constitutes a religion.
1+1=2 god is not powerfull enough to change that
you’ve never seen god
jesus was white in you’re religion: there werent white people in jerusolum, let alone white hebrew.
you’re vanity is what forces you to belive in youre special story of god and youre relationship whith it.
Comon miss conception, “athiests belive in nothing”, _reality there is no god so religious people belive in nothing, what makes more sence, the world is plaged with self inflicted problems from followers of god or crazy people who need to congregate for reassurance that there not crazy ,abusive, violent and that adjusting of inflation rates isn’t steeling and that there god (or excuse to wage war and steel land and recources and PEOPLE)does exist. sorry, to complicated for you, you should find sollice in a simple book i know ,its got good words; not trurh
dinosaurs, or do you belive god specificaly had a son to trick you threw his own devine plan of lies( you’re not even shure who i mean , god or devil)to prove youre love of a vain love needer in you’re clasic codependins lie
do you belive after oh so perfect god had satin that he would have jusus to love us
still confused oh inteligent christian, fact no miracle has been performed in your lifetime other than special effects in the cinimas and TV thats your god, a god damb telivision
gods proof is a book writen to form an empire, no les critical than meincamph, (council of nicia 412ad)
still reading, doubt it, studys show christiand read less books than athiests, studys also show the most simple and effective mind controle techniques for the complacent(those who follow and dont ask opposing questions) is repetition, like reading a good book over and over, especialy with a support group (codependant relationship)
what if religion was evolving a perfect working class for the ritch using religion and economy like an algorythmic sypher, you would be pretty guilty of vanity and steeling if you were apart of it all by just following.
fact athiests are athiests by compultion to the truth.
fact athiests belive in the good of man,
fact all religious would chose god over there own mankind, there true brothers and sisters, all for fear of hell, cowards if im wrong than ill burn in hell gladlu not to worship the god of hypocrates and phylisties of vanity
all that man can earn or save is time and thats exactly what religion steals from you, you’re ultimate poseshion, so you dont have influance over youre own children, becouse you willing ly give them to god like whores of you hated satin, funny the fine line drawn between god and lucifer in belifes, “you disagree” have you even wread your bible you soo belive in?
Everyone except the administrator of this thread is either a “6-day-heretic”, a atheistic gasbag focusing on the wrong issues, or someome who, by the looks of their spelling, obviously skipped elementary school.
Atheists: Ignore the Bible. Leave it alone. The more intelligent Christians don’t back up theism with it anyways.
Administrator: Focus on Natural Theology. You’ll ruin these idiots if you do.
Langley: However valid your experience may be, it’s not going to convince an atheist. Also, stop with the KJV, it’s very deceptively translated.
Moronic Atheist Who Cannot Spell for the Life of Him: Just shut up… My God, nobody thinks Jesus was white, and Christians are Christians due to their compulsion to the truth. You deserve to be ignored. The overwhelming majority of the things you say Christians believe are positively laughable. No right-minded Christian actually believes much of what you claimed they do. You’re blowing smoke, and I would urge you to join the military, they apparently have a knack for evangelism.
You, orthographically challenged, dyed-in-the-wool faith-head-atheist.
There have been thousands of recorded miracles in the post-modern era. Like, the Miracle of the 70,000 at Fatima, and the several that Mother Teresa performed.
WTF would a Philosophy professor know about the intricacies of evolution anyway?
Even Pope JP2 accepted evolution back in 96. Get with the times guys