Big Questions Week at Georgia Tech Video

Sneering Is Not an Argument

Much of atheistic rhetoric these days comes off as a collective sneer at the idea of theism or intelligent design. From my experience, atheists often forgo cogent arguments in favor of mocking, rather than arguing against, the existence and revelation of a God. Such proved to be the case in the debate last night between Christopher Hitchens and Jay Wesley Richards at Stanford University. Hitchens is the author of God Is Not Great, and Richards is co-author of The Privileged Planet and a senior fellow of the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture.

Read the story from the Stanford Daily, or read his book, and you will see that Hitchens is one of those argument-less atheists. He presents no coherent arguments of his own, and in fact addresses very few of Richards's points. In fact, in response to Richards's arguments from cause-and-effect and irreducible complexity, Hitchens simply asks if he believes in the virgin birth and resurrection of Christ. When Richards answers "yes," he is dismissed out-of-hand.

Melinda over at Stand to Reason makes some very good points about Hitchens's debate:

This is, of course, a dodge of the arguments Richards had offered. He apparently made no attempt to answer them and stay on topic. And what does belief in the virgin birth have to do with the rationality of Richards' evidence for ID? Rational people often have some irrational beliefs. Citing the latter doesn't defeat the former.

Let me say it again: a sneer is not an argument. While it may get you by in the arena of public opinion, it says very little (in fact, less than nothing) of the truth of your claims. This new generation of atheists is going to have to do a little better if they are to engage theists on an intellectual level.

A Vision for Veritas

A lot of people have begun to ask, "What do you want to accomplish?", "Why are you doing this?", and so on. The first time I was asked this question was when I was new to Veritas. I was taken back--not because I didn't know the answers, but because I realized the great need to be able to answer these questions very well. I can't ever give a half-hearted answer to these types of questions.

Our team sat down and had a bit of a vision session two weeks ago. We asked ourselves some big questions: "Where do we want to be in two years? What will Veritas have become? What will the culture of campus be like? What impact do we want to make as The Veritas Forum?"

Then, even more challenging, were the short-term questions: "How will we get there? What are we doing now that will help us accomplish this?" The challenge of answering these questions proved healthy to keep our goals in the forefront of our minds. After several such sessions, I believe we really know what it is that we can accomplish and desire to accomplish as an organization.

Now, I know you're asking, "So what did you come up with, specifically?" So I'm going to share.
Our long term goal is to establish a culture of investigation and open dialogue among Christians and non-Christians on campus about the most challenging questions. We will put on events and provide resources that will allow people to interact with Truth. We want to be an organization that people look toward for hope (that they would see/feel the Truth of Jesus), and to be an organization that unites Christian ministries on campus behind a common initiative of spreading the Truth and brilliance of Jesus. We hope to be a pre-evangelistic ministry that would bring non-Christians to the point of realizing the plausibility of God's existence and the Bible's inspiration. Then we hope to hook these people in with a campus ministry where they can be ministered to and eventually have a personal and relational encounter with Jesus Christ.

Looking forward, our "Big Questions Week" in February will challenge our campus on a deeper philosophical level. We hope to coin the event "Big Questions Week" as an annual big event associated with Veritas. Alternatively, we hope to also engage students on a cultural level - a level where the truth of Christianity can interact with their emotions. We believe the truth of Christianity is not just intellectual, so, with that, we've planned an event in the fall about marriage. We are also trying to bring a drama to campus in the fall. It's really exciting to see where God is leading our planning.

Now when people ask us questions about our vision, it really becomes an opportunity to share our conviction, excitement, and love for truth. The results of expressing this well have already been remarkable.

In His Grace and Truth,

Stephen Kump
2008 Campus Director
Veritas Forum at Georgia Tech

Veritas Promo Video

A Question?

Onlookers and passersby may have been curious. Then again, it's a college campus! Regardless, last night's event would probably look strange to most.

In our Planning Team meeting this week, we had a very fruitful discussion. Part of the business discussed included an excited interchange of ideas about a chalking campaign to advertise to the campus. To those unfamiliar with the term, Georgia Tech students often advertise their clubs and events out on the public walkways with large, brightly-colored messages written with sidewalk chalk. Perhaps this strategy belies the quriky nature of what students stare at as they walk to and from classes? Anyway--chalking is one of the most common (and also, I would wager, effective) ways of communication and advertising on Tech's campus.

Our team (guided by Jason) decided to chalk the campus in 4 stages over the next 5 weeks. If our intentions succeed, the first week will only pique students' curiosity. Each stage will see a different message chalked on the sidewalks - and only in the last stage will we start advertising the dates and relevant information for the events of our forum.

But I'm getting ahead of myself! There we were: ten students, three cars, and four boxes of large chalk. It was half past midnight, and I'm sure a strange sight indeed. Anyone watching would have seen five guys cruising up to an intersection, hopping out, writing on the sidewalk, and racing back to the car to speed off towards the next location. But what did we write on the sidewalks? This time, only one simple symbol: a question mark. They were many colors and sizes, some shaded, some fat, and some tucked into strange places (for advertising). But as we packed up and headed back to our house, I reflected on the strange profundity of what we symbolically marked all over campus:

THE questions. Some may seem big, some small, but wherever you go, you can't run from them.

More pictures: http://andyjones.smugmug.com/gallery/4193758

Georgia Tech Big Questions Week Feb 08

Planning the first annual Georgia Tech Big Questions Week has been an adventure. The whole Veritas Forum Planning Team has experienced God's work in so many new ways and seen Him move obstacles all over the place to gather support for this February forum. The vision for the forum this time around came directly out of our responses from the exit survey at last year's event in which the campus told us loud and clear that Tech has enough science and wants to hear about issues surrounding morality.

By title I'm the Creative Events Coordinator, but in truth every one of us has been working overtime to get this event together and raise support, etc. We expect much more work to make it happen the way we envision it, but are always expecting God to work His miracles to go far beyond our expectations.

In future posts I hope to relate my experiences with my brothers in Christ with whom I've had the pleasure of working to plan this event. I also might share some of my theological, philosophical and moral/ethical questions and areas of interest in order to give an example of the sorts of questions that Tech students have and need answered. And also maybe to show some of the skeptics out there that there are, in fact, engineers and "sciency" people that fully believe in and follow Christ. I hope to post again very soon. And remember the Big Questions Week is February 18th through the 22nd at Georgia Tech. We'd love to see you there!

Irreducible complexity, intelligent design, and science

A relatively fruitful discussion had started on the Facebook event wall before the April 10th event, and has gone from the forefront after the event. I would like to enable all involved to continue the discussion, as well as add some thoughts of my own. So, I invite everyone involved or spectating to join the discussion as it migrates here from Facebook, especially Nacho and Travis, who have carried the majority of the dialogue to this point. Here is my attempt to summarize the ground already covered:

The three main issues brought up were irreducible complexity, intelligent design, and the theory of science and truth. I have outlined the opinions on each of these topics below.

Irreducible Complexity
Trip said,

Irreducible complexity (IC) is the argument that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors.

Travis mentioned,

...a good book on Irreducible Complexity is Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box. Michael Behe is a microbiologist, and he discusses systems he believes are irreducibly complex from his field.

And Nacho countered,

If IC is an issue in evolutionary biology (I actually don't know, it's not my field), scientific research should lead to the discovery of natural processes that could lead to steps in evolution (and that discovery cannot be the postulation of divine intervention, just like in any other branch of science).

Intelligent Design
Nacho has stated his position with the following:

Would Schaefer use a theological argument to prove one of his discoveries in computational chemistry? If not, why does he request evolutionary biologists to do it?

As any other theory, it's [evolution's] falsifiable. But, if evolution fails, it should be replaced by another scientific theory which explains everything that evolution explains, is backed by all the natural evidence of evolution and, [sic] at some point will be superseded by another theory. I think the core of the discussion is if you can call "scientific theory" something that does require the use of supernatural explanations.

Ok, he [Schaefer] showed some physical evidence that shows the universe had a beginning and does not have a end, just like Christian theology explains. But doing so he assumed two things:
- The same physical laws that are valid today have been valid since the beginning of time, and
- there were no unexplainable events in the evolution of the universe that might affect the information we receive from that event.
The kind of god that he finds as as primary cause, then, is a god that walks away from his creation. Otherwise there should be "irreducible complexity" showing up at different stages of cosmological evolution.

Johann had this to add:

the entirety of the scientific community has agreed that ID/Creationism is bullcrap

Travis said,

I have a proposal - let's see where the evidence leads, and then label that scientific. Does the evidence support ID, or the cosmology usually associated with non-ID evolutionary processes? Let's leave the labels about what is scientific or not until after the evidence has been heard.

I think though that some of the problem is that we've created a false dichotomy between "natural" and "supernatural". There is only what is.
What I look for is truth - which I define as knowledge concerning what is. My assumption is that any knowledge of truth will be useful and apply to real life.

The Theory of Science and Truth
Nacho has said,

Saying that something is the way it is because "it was designed to be that way" does not allow any further scientific development so, I think, it can not be called science.

I'm not stating evolution is the ultimate answer, it's perfect or it's the absolute truth.

Your argument that ID still leave[s] the room for theological psychology or archeology is like replacing atmospheric physics by a norse mythology based explanation and then ask ourselves why thor makes some thunders hit the ground and others not.

Travis has written,

Some good books about the philosophy of science are The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn and Progress and Its Problems by Larry Laudan. They're both pretty readable, and talk a lot about how science can and cannot be used.

I think though that some of the problem is that we've created a false dichotomy between "natural" and "supernatural". There is only what is. What I look for is truth - which I define as knowledge concerning what is. My assumption is that any knowledge of truth will be useful and apply to real life.

Nacho responded,

You say my dichotomy of natural and supernatural explanations is false, but you do not say how and why. Science has explained consistently and efectively lots of things that were previously thought to be of miracolous [sic] nature. Why do you think this trend should be reversed?

Science is not a quest for truth, is a quest for a better explanation. It will never give you the reason or the meaning, those are philosophical or theological inquiries. And, if you are a believer as I think you are, you are not seeking the truth either. You know the truth (or at least, your truth).

Travis replied,

I think it's a mischaracterization (albeit a common one) that saying "it was designed to be that way" will end inquiry. After all, when presented with a design that works - the first thing people do is try and figure out why it works so well. For example, I once read a quote that I thought was profound by an early astronomer (Newton maybe?). He believed that learning about the world was "thinking God's thoughts after Him." If that isn't motivation for inquiry, I don't know what is.

I think that we should explore this dichotomy, as Travis puts it. Are there "natural" and "supernatural" worlds, or is the world we live in comprised of both? Is it a false distinction to exclude what is considered "supernatural" from discussion about the world? Note that I didn't say scientific discussion—that's because science is being used to explore only materialistic explanations for the world. Is that a valid definition of science, even? If not, what is science? What is truth? What is knowledge? Some of these existential questions are irreversibly married to the issues we are debating. I think much can be gained through discussing these questions and the statements above.

Our first event...a success!

The first ever Veritas Forum event at Georgia Tech was a week ago. Tuesday evening, April 10, Dr. Henry "Fritz" Schaefer came and gave his lecture "The Big Bang, Stephen Hawking, and God" at our first Veritas Conversation. Attendance was well over 300, and the Instructional Center auditorium was packed out—we brought in 60 folding chairs, set up 30 chairs in the lobby and broadcast the lecture out there, and had quite a few people sitting on the steps or standing inside the lecture hall. Check out the photo album on Facebook.

The lecture and Q&A were thought-provoking, sparking conversation that lasted past 11pm. We had attendees from the BCM, Campus Atheists, Campus Crusade for Christ, Westminster Christian Fellowship, and several other campus organizations, in addition to several Tech professors. Debate over the issues also arose on Facebook, and I am in the process of migrating that discussion to this blog.

I consider the huge response to such a small event a great success. I can't wait to see what kind of impact Veritas can have on the Georgia Tech community when we are able to put on full-fledged Forums and advertise more. Looks like the majority of the campus is ready to join in dialogue over these issues. May the free and open exchange of ideas commence!

If you missed the lecture, the audio and video will be online within the next couple of weeks. I'll post links when they're live. If you attended, please comment on this post with your thoughts and impressions from the event. A big thanks to the Veritas Planning Team for pulling this one off!