Hi, thanks for your comments. I respond below in bold italics:

This article fails to account for the fact that brain damage easily changes personality (see Phineas Gage), same with drugs, electromagnetic interference (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8593748.stm), etc.

Examine the cases mentioned in this article: http://singularityhub.com/2011/01/29/the-coming-era-of-brain-based-law-through-the-eyes-of-david-eagleman-video/#more-26070

This article as well: http://www.unews.utah.edu/p/?r=062110-3

Also, what about amnesia? A knock to the head will ruin our memory. Furthermore, certain animals have certain levels of consciousness, they are not like humans, but they are conscious to a certain primitive level. Yet the Bible doesn't teach animals have souls. So we must account for that.

Take a look at the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain%E2%80%93computer_interface

Furthermore, the point that cells die and new ones are made isn't too good either, because it's true that every 7 years we are "technically" a new physical person, but so are animals, and yet their memories are preserved (I don't know about you, but my dog has been around for 12 years and sill remembers me...).

This is Part 2 of a three part series. I address the successes of neuroscience in Part 1 of the series, which it appears you have not read. You might want to read the whole series before commenting further. Here is the link to all three parts: http://mychristianapologetics.com/categories/Human%20Nature%20and%20the%20Soul.aspx

Hey…Have a little more respect for your doggie! Does the Bible really teach that animals do not have souls? I am not aware of this being the case. In fact, the Old Testament uses the Hebrew words “nephesh” (soul) and” ruach” (spirit) of animals in Genesis 1:30 and Ecclesiastes 3:21 respectively. These are likely simple souls that do not survive death. In any event, we should not be too quick to assert that all animals are soulless without adequate grounds.

  Mark Goldblatt (http://markgoldblatt.com/Resource/Soul.pdf) provides an actual argument beyond the already dying dualistic explanation for everything. Consciousness comes from the brain, but the soul directs it. This accounts for everything observed.

The brain is the hardware, the mind is the software, the soul is the computer programmer, and when the hardware (or software, I suppose) is destroyed or damaged, the computer programmer (the soul) can no longer interface the way he should with the tools he has to operate in the physical world.

I found Goldblatt’s article interesting and entertaining. But I would hardly call what he has presented an argument for or against any particular anthropological view. In fact, he obviously presupposes a form of dualism. He is musing over how the soul and the brain might interact given dualism and seems quite amenable to either a Platonic or Aristotelian approach. He fleshes out in a most accessible manner arguably the most difficult problem for materialists in this debate, that is, the unity of consciousness and self awareness. (I would add a related and equally difficult dilemma for materialists: the correlation between brain states and mental states. Strict materialist are left with the totally implausible option that they are the same. As the Tyndall quote that opens the article suggests, the problem has not gone away in the last century and a half).

Goldblatt concludes that he sees no way at this point that we can get to unity of consciousness and self awareness from here without an immaterial nature, i.e., a soul. I would disagree with Goldblatt's apparent evolutionary presuppositions and resultant emergentism, but I think he is at least tracking in the right woods. (Incidentally, William Hasker has proposed a substantial immaterial soul that emerges upon the physical from a Christian perspective in his book The Emergent Self. For an abbreviated presentation, I recommend his article entitled “Persons as Emergent Substances” in Soul and Body Survival: Essays on the Metaphysics of Human Persons, edited by Kevin Corcoran: http://www.amazon.com/Soul-Body-Survival-Metaphysics-Persons/dp/080148684X/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1299552111&sr=1-3)

Again, I disagree with Hasker’s emergentism on both philosophical and theological grounds.

Furthermore, your argument of consciousness being totally pre-determined under natural laws isn't beyond refutation, as further insight into neuroplasticity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity) might reveal more soon. 

I think you misread me here. I said nothing about natural laws. I believe in natural laws. What I argue is that libertarian free will and sameness of personal identity through time do not find a home within the worldview of “naturalism”, that is, a closed materialistic worldview within which immaterial entities are not welcome and where human beings are just physical things.

The brain even has the ability to change its functions (http://www.kurzweilai.net/parts-of-brain-can-switch-functions). So as you change, your brain changes, and as your brain changes, you change. Also, who says God can't create a brain so complex that allows for subjective free will? Also, certain scientists are pushing for a Quantum Mind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind) theory which doesn't enforce determinism.

 Certainly as our souls interact with the Holy Spirit and we are transformed increasingly into the image of Christ, I would anticipate that corresponding changes in brain states would be apparent. But we must be careful not to mistake our thoughts of God for the electrochemical activity in the brain. Brain activity is purely physical and measurable. Thoughts of God are immaterial and immeasurable. In fact, the very property of intentionality (the “of-ness” or “about-ness” of our thoughts) is immaterial and cannot be located in the brain.

If we as Christians are to be taken seriously when defending the soul, we need to acknowledge its limitations of interfacing with the physical world, as well as stop using arguments like "matter can't possibly bring consciousness" for no reason other than it being a personal opinion.

Your sense of fear comes from the amygdala (http://singularityhub.com/2011/01/04/woman-doesnt-fear-reaper-anything-at-all/), which is more proof that dualism needs to radically change if it is to survive in the future.

Wait a minute! Even your friend Mark Goldblatt  asserts that it is quite difficult for him to imagine matter bringing consciousness. In this short three part series, I have offered an argument based on philosophical reflective evidence for the existence of a non-emergent immaterial dimension to human beings. I believe my argument is both valid and sound. You may not find it cogent, but if because of that you are suggesting that I am expressing my own unargued opinion, that would be a misrepresentation.

Quite a number of Christian academics have argued powerfully, and, in my estimation, persuasively for a non-emergent soul on philosophical, theological, and empirical grounds. You may want to check out some of the books I feature at the end of the third article in this series. Cooper’s book remains the seminal work on this topic from the standpoint of philosophical theology. Moreland and Rae present a rigorously argued case for Thomistic dualism and the impact of dualism on ethical reasoning. Habermas has done extensive research in the field of well evidenced near death experiences that offer potent empirical support for the existence of an immaterial human substance let alone life after death. I would add a recent work by J.P. Moreland entitled The Recalcitrant Imago Dei: Human Persons and the Failure of Naturalism:  http://www.amazon.com/Recalcitrant-Imago-Dei-Persons-Naturalism/dp/0334042151/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1299555101&sr=1-6

Christians do need to take the soul seriously and not allow it to be hijacked or its remarkable powers to be minimized just because brain science has confirmed with sophisticated equipment what human beings had known intuitively and by direct observation for quite a long time already: soulish behavior is affected by changes in the brain and vice versa. Christians need to recapture confidence in the dualism that is taught in the Bible and that is given to us in our experience and to shamelessly defend this position in the public square. Recovering a robust notion of this composite nature of human beings and the resultant reality of the Image of God in them is the surest path toward a humane ethic that recognizes the full personhood of every individual from conception to the grave.

Blessings,

Arnie Gentile

Interesting Enough... The God of Islam seems like a better choice after reading this. If the trinitarian God "longs" to save us from this evil life, then that means that he also is limited in doing what he wants.

“Longing” makes one deficient only if one is lacking something. God lacks nothing. That he “longs” for the best interest of his creatures is just another way of communicating his compassion. He has not lost control of his creation or his creatures. But he has created humans with free will, and he allows them to choose between good and evil, between believing in and obeying God or following their own paths. The consequences of either choice are monumental. Jesus expressed longing when he wept over Jerusalem. Was that evidence of a diminished divinity? Certainly not. It was evidence of a rich divinity, tempered in eternity past through relationships with the other members of the Trinity. God can “long” for things and remain omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent. He has sovereignly chosen to perform his great work of salvation within a redemptive environment over which he has complete control. Someday, in his time, he will destroy evil and install a New Creation. In the mean time, he calls us to follow him in Christ.

 Muslims believe that Christians believe in. Allah can do the exact same things but doesn't need to be a trinity. That is what makes Muslims believe that Christians are following a mistaken path.

If you have not already, I encourage you to go back to the first article in this series and read all three articles in order. My argument is based on an inference to the best explanation. Given the world as it is, which God is more likely to be the one in charge, the Christian trinitarian God or the Muslim monistic God. It is not about what Muslims or Christians believe their God can do. It is about examining the way the world is, and considering which hypothesis best fits the facts, the Christian God or Allah. Which God is more likely to have the ability and/or the motivation to create and redeem the world regardless of what we may claim?

If humans were born sinners wouldn't that make God our enemy? Who God and angles have to fight until they are good? Islam emphasizes the Choice that humans have between good and evil. Christianity however condemns people to evil based on what this article is saying. Islam however acknowledges the evil but says that people are not just evil because of Adam.

Again, we are arguing to the best explanation given the way the world is. God created Adam innocent. It is Adam who chose to rebel. Adam was punished for his own sin, and so are we. The fact that sin entered the world through Adam does not make the rest of us any less responsible for our behavior, attitudes, or thoughts. We do not inherit Adam’s guilt, but we do inherit sin’s consequences. To believe that we can save ourselves reveals an arrogance that pushes ourselves away from God. In a world created by God which man has soiled by his own sin, only God can be the judge. Even the smallest sin has infinite consequences because it is an offense against an infinite being. To think that we can save ourselves or that what we have done is not all that bad is the height of hubris not humility. The Christian God sent his only Son to suffer and die on our behalf because that is what it took for us to be saved, like it or not. Since Allah does not have a son, it doesn’t look like he has the credentials for the job.

The bottom line is that the Christian God is inherently relational. The God of Islam is not. Which is thus more likely to create a world bristling with community and interpersonal ethics? I make my case in all three articles in this series.

Blessings,

Arnie

Hi, Thom,

Thanks for stopping by. You are welcome any time. As I understand your first objection, you claim that an empty tomb with a rolled-away stone offers weak evidence for the resurrection, even weaker than an empty tomb with the stone still in place. Your second concern has to do with what you have perceived from the text as an “unguarded” tomb on the first night after the crucifixion.

Fair enough. I will address your second objection first. Was the tomb really unguarded the first night? A superficial reading of Matt 27:62-66 might lead one to believe this. The text reveals that the chief priests and Pharisees were definitely concerned about a grave robbery and approached Pilate “the next day, that is, after the day of Preparation,” with an urgent request to seal the tomb and post a guard. The day after the day of Preparation would have been the Sabbath, which began at 6 pm Friday evening. So any time after 6 pm would have been “the next day.” Luke 27:54 corroborates this stating that “it was the day of Preparation, and the Sabbath was just beginning,” when Jesus was laid in the tomb. In addition, given the priests and the Pharisees’ state of agitation, it seems highly unlikely that they would have allowed an evening to pass without the tomb being watched.

What about the empty tomb and the stone? Pilate grants the Jewish leaders’ request and allows them to make the tomb as secure as they can (Matt 27:65). He gives them permission to use the Roman guard under their control and to do whatever it takes to protect the grave site. They seal the stone and set the guard. What does this mean? The seal would have been an official sign of some kind declaring the tomb legally off limits by order of the Roman governor. The seal guaranteed that the contents of the tomb had been inspected by the proper legal authority. Violating this seal ensured severe penalties. The guard would likely have consisted of at least four soldiers, each one working a three hour shift, so that the tomb would be guarded around the clock by alert and well armed custodians.  Failing their mission would likely have led to their summary execution. Such a state of affairs made a grave robbery quite implausible. Hence, the removal of the stone was a very big deal. The text tells us that the guards “went into the city and told the chief priests all that had taken place.” In response, the Jewish leaders bribed the soldiers to propagate what they knew to be a lie, that is, that the body had been stolen (Matt 28:11-15). Under the circumstances, they knew that this really could not have happened.

I invite you to read the entire series leading up to this article. Once you have considered the entire case, I would be glad to engage in further conversation. Here’s the link to the first article in the series.

http://mychristianapologetics.com/2009/10/20/miracles.aspx

Thanks again for your intelligent interaction and probing questions. I appreciate your interest in this topic.

Blessings,

Arnie Gentile

1. 11/15/2010 2:53 PM thom waters wrote:
   Arnie, thanks for your response.
   
   I find it intriguing that ultimately so much of the defense for the Resurrection relies on speculation and certain "facts" that wouldn't even pass the basic test for the Minimal Facts approach. A defense or argument that leads one to suggest that " . . . it seems highly unlikely . . . " reveals more a bias or tendenz than it does anything else. Just my opinion.
   
   I think I failed to adequately express my philosophical problem with the rolled away stone in front of the Tomb. I believe you would have a much more fascinating story if you have people showing up to the Tomb claiming to have seen the risen Jesus, and these so-called guards standing firm that such an eventuality was impossible because the Tomb had not been tampered with while they had been guarding it. As the story now stands you have a so-called Resurrection whose foundation is this Empty Tomb, not the so-called appearances. It seems to inevitably lead to a syllogistic argument that goes:
   
   An empty tomb means that a resurrection has taken place;
   
   The tomb of Jesus was discovered empty;
   
   Jesus was resurrected.
   
   Interestingly enough I find little evidence to suggest or confirm that Jesus was actually placed in this tomb in the first place. The only "witnesses" to this are apparently some women friends and relatives of Jesus. This becomes a fascinating point when viewed in relationship to I Corinthians 15:3-8, which, as you know, is the oldest extant mention we have to the Resurrection appearances. As you also know, this account has no mention of the so-called appearances to the women. Some have suggested that Paul omits them because of their unreliability legally and their embarrassment factor. Although I could argue that Paul omits them because he is simply not aware of any so-called appearances to these women and that they were simply not a part of the early tradition because they never happened, let's assume that he omits them for the initial reason mentioned. If that is the case that the women's testimony is unreliable and embarrassing, then you certainly can't accept the women's testimony to the burial as anything other than unreliable and embarrassing. What proof is there to the burial of Jesus in this tomb? There would appear to be none.
   
   Anyway, just wanted to respond to your reply. The Resurrection has fascinated me for some time, and I appreciate the thoughtful exchange. Thom
   Reply to this
   1. 11/17/2010 9:27 PM Arnie Gentile wrote:
      

      Hi, Thom, thanks for advancing the discussion. I respond to you in bold italics within your text below.

      I find it intriguing that ultimately so much of the defense for the Resurrection relies on speculation and certain "facts" that wouldn't even pass the basic test for the Minimal Facts approach. A defense or argument that leads one to suggest that " . . . it seems highly unlikely . . . " reveals more a bias or tendenz than it does anything else. Just my opinion.

      I’m not sure what specific “speculations” you refer to here, Thom, but if something “seems highly unlikely,” then the burden of proof is on the opponent to present an argument to the contrary. That something seems “highly unlikely” does not mean that it is pure speculation. For example, it “seems highly unlikely” that most of the disciples would have gone to their death defending what they all knew to be a lie. Now, the burden of proof rests on the skeptic to present an argument suggesting that it “seems highly likely” that the disciples would have gone to their death for a lie. This is not speculation. This is the nature of argument. We can never have absolute certainly when dealing with forensic evidence. We seek the explanation that best fits the facts.
      
      I think I failed to adequately express my philosophical problem with the rolled away stone in front of the Tomb. I believe you would have a much more fascinating story if you have people showing up to the Tomb claiming to have seen the risen Jesus, and these so-called guards standing firm that such an eventuality was impossible because the Tomb had not been tampered with while they had been guarding it. As the story now stands you have a so-called Resurrection whose foundation is this Empty Tomb, not the so-called appearances. It seems to inevitably lead to a syllogistic argument that goes:
      
      An empty tomb means that a resurrection has taken place;
      
      The tomb of Jesus was discovered empty;
      
      Jesus was resurrected.

      No, the argument goes like this:

      The tomb was discovered empty.

      Jesus was seen alive by his disciples.

      Therefore, Jesus was resurrected.

      It doesn’t matter whether or not anyone actually saw Jesus exit the tomb. This would make the case neither stronger nor weaker. The only two relevant facts are that the tomb was empty and that Jesus appeared and was seen. Both of these conditions are necessary if we are to have a resurrection.

      In addition, with the possible exception of John, none of those who found the tomb empty immediately believed that Jesus was alive. They believed when they had actually seen him. Mary thought that the gardener had moved the body (John 20:15). The apostles thought the report of the women was “an idle tail, and they did not believe them” (Luke 24:11). Regarding Peter and John, we are told that “as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead” (John 20:9; This immediately follows the statement that John “believed” but qualifies this belief somewhat). Over and over the Scriptures tell us that the disciples were largely clueless, even given the report of an empty tomb. The last thing they expected to see again was a living Jesus. Not until they actually saw him did they truly believe and begin proclaiming the resurrection publicly.
      
      Interestingly enough I find little evidence to suggest or confirm that Jesus was actually placed in this tomb in the first place. The only "witnesses" to this are apparently some women friends and relatives of Jesus. This becomes a fascinating point when viewed in relationship to I Corinthians 15:3-8, which, as you know, is the oldest extant mention we have to the Resurrection appearances. As you also know, this account has no mention of the so-called appearances to the women. Some have suggested that Paul omits them because of their unreliability legally and their embarrassment factor. Although I could argue that Paul omits them because he is simply not aware of any so-called appearances to these women and that they were simply not a part of the early tradition because they never happened, let's assume that he omits them for the initial reason mentioned. If that is the case that the women's testimony is unreliable and embarrassing, then you certainly can't accept the women's testimony to the burial as anything other than unreliable and embarrassing. What proof is there to the burial of Jesus in this tomb? There would appear to be none.

      Perhaps the strongest bit of evidence that Jesus was placed in the tomb is Joseph of Arimathea. He appears in the burial accounts of all the gospels. This multiple attestation provides strong support for the authenticity of this story. Here is a wealthy Sadducee, who would have had a great deal to lose, performing this loving act of giving Jesus a decent burial, so his body would not be thrown into an anonymous pit and eaten by dogs. The Sadducees were not particularly popular among Christians since they were the ones primarily culpable for pressing the charges against Jesus that led to his death. So it would “seem highly unlikely” (sorry) that the gospel writers would have fabricated a Sadducee to be a hero in the passion account.

      Regarding the women, first century Jewish culture was very sexist. The testimony of a woman was not allowed in court. So why would the gospel writers, if they were fabricating their accounts, unanimously agree that the women were the first at the tomb and the first to see and report the risen Lord? Why would they include material that weakens the credibility of their argument if the material were not true? If you were trying to convince a hostile jury of your innocence of a crime, would you fabricate a story to intentionally incriminate yourself? That the story of the women appears in all four resurrection accounts strengthens the argument for the resurrection, and even many of the most skeptical scholars agree.

      Keep in mind that Paul is reciting a creed; he is not authoring something original here. The creed is a set piece. He is repeating what had been passed down to him. We don’t know for sure why the creed does not contain the story of the women at the tomb, but the fact that the story is not included is irrelevant. The creed contains the bare bones of the gospel, and that is apparently all it was designed to do. The contents of the creed agree with the gospels on the essentials, and that’s all that matters. That the story of the women was omitted to make the creed more “seeker sensitive” to a Jewish audience is quite plausible.
      

      I agree, Thom, the resurrection is indeed fascinating, and, if true, profoundly meaningful to our lives both here and hereafter!
      

      Many blessings, Thom,
      

      Arnie  
      
      Anyway, just wanted to respond to your reply. The Resurrection has fascinated me for some time, and I appreciate the thoughtful exchange. Thom

      
      Reply to this
      1. 11/19/2010 1:58 PM thom waters wrote:
         Hello, Arnie.
         
         I think in responding to some of my observations you turned the argument on its head.
         
         Any real burden of proof with regard to the claims of Christianity lies with the believer. The skeptic makes no claims. I don't necessarily accept your premise that if something "seems highly unlikely" then the burden of proof is on the opponent to present an argument to the contrary. However, for our discussion I will stipulate to that and relate it to the first of Christianity's claims.
         
         What proof do we have that Jesus died on the Cross? I take no position with regard to the claim. I'm simply asking the question. Christianity makes the claim. In answering it one must be careful not to confuse belief and what is or was believed with actual proof.
         
         For example, the possible creed that Paul cites in I Cor. 15:3-8 is not proof. It is what was believed.
         
         Also, to cite references from historians regarding the crucifixion of one Jesus is not proof to his death. That would be something to which they could not attest.
         
         Also, to take an approach that leads one to suggest that it "seems highly unlikely" that he didn't die is not a proof. You might want it to be, but it is not.
         
         Also, to state that 99% of all N.T. scholars accept that Jesus died on the Cross is not a proof either. It might be an attempt to label those who question it as simply a radical, fringe element, but it is not a proof.
         
         After considerable research it "seems highly unlikely" that Jesus died on the Cross. From your argument the burden is now on you.
         
         1--In most crucifixions the victim was left on the cross to perish. Sometimes this took days and scavenger birds would ravage the bodies. Death happened. It was not pronounced. Jesus was on the Cross between 3-6 hours before being taken down.
         
         2--Pilate was apparently unbelieving to the news of his death (Mark 15:44). What was it that Pilate knew that made him disbelieve the news?
         
         3--Contrary to the attempts by many to create an image of Jesus as almost dead before the crucifixion, quite the opposite appears to have been the case. From the Cross he appears to be lucid, forgiving, recognizes friends and relatives, and appears in control of his faculties. This occurs from the Cross. What might his condition have been before the Cross? We do have his statement in Luke 23:26-31 which seems to suggest that even before the Cross he was a man very much in control of his faculties, not a man on the verge of death.
         
         Still, whether one accepts the attempt by apologists to paint the pre-crucified Jesus as a man on the verge of death, or the one that seems to appear in the N.T. documents themselves, neither one is a proof either to his death on the Cross or to his surviving the Cross.
         
         Only Christianity makes the claim that Jesus died on the Cross. What is the proof to support this claim?
         
         I have had to condense this as I am running out of characters. Thanks, Thom.
         
         Reply to this
         1. 11/22/2010 11:15 PM Arnie Gentile wrote:
            

            Hi, Thom,

            I agree with you that anyone advancing a truth claim bears the burden of defending it. However, once a defense has been made, the burden shifts to the opponent to rebut the argument. Certainly the skeptic may choose not to and simply continue to deny the believer’s position, but the skeptic would then risk devolving deeper into irrationality assuming the believer has presented a plausible case.

            You assert that the skeptic makes no claims. But this is not true. The skeptic advances quite a bold claim. His claim is that ‘x’ is not or that ‘x’ cannot be known.  For example, an atheist claims that God does not exist, and an agnostic claims that God cannot be known. Both of these claims require arguments to defend them. In the end, a skeptical epistemology is often self-consuming since one wonders how the agnostic can possibly know that God cannot be known!

            Let me make a few comments on the nature of knowledge and the meaning of “proof” so that we do not equivocate. I hold to the classical definition of knowledge as justified true belief. Justification (or “proof” if you will) does not require absolute certainty. We do not require that in a court room, nor should we require it in arguing for the historicity of an event in any other field of inquiry. We count as knowledge anything that has a reasonable degree of probability, not only that for which we have absolute mathematical certainty. And we achieve this desired level of probability based on an examination of the evidence.

            We understand that ancient texts contain what people claim to have happened. None of us was there. So we go through a process of examining the evidence. We seek to draw objective conclusions regarding the credibility of the witnesses, the reliability of the texts, and the archaeological findings in order to develop a cumulative case in support of our hypothesis. As a result, we claim to have knowledge of all kinds of historical facts that have much less attestation than those claimed by Christianity.

            The historicity of the crucifixion is well attested and accepted by secular and sacred historian alike, and most reasonable people today would agree that Jesus was successfully executed by Roman authorities. If we accept as historical that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon in 49 BC, then we should certainly accept as historical that Jesus Christ died on a cross circa 33 AD. Of course, we have only ancient texts that contain only what people said they believed, but that is what history is, and we accept the process and either live with rationally held beliefs about the past based on reasonable levels of probability, or require such a high level of certainty that we go through life knowing nothing. And that is the irony of extreme skepticism.

            "Then they said to him, 'What must we do, to be doing the works of God?' Jesus answered them, 'This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.'" (John 6:28-29)

            Blessings, Thom,

            Arnie

            
            Reply to this

Greetings, my Dutch brother, welcome back! I know its a long way to travel! I respond to your post below.

Quote: "But does the evidence of the fossil record really support Darwinian gradualism as the story of the origin of animal diversity and disparity?"

It does support the evolutionary theory. Animals evolved and are still evolving. I take this as a strong fact.

On what basis may we assert this? As your claim stands, you have simply asserted that evolutionary theory is true because animals have evolved and are still evolving. But this is a circular argument since it assumes what needs to be proved. In addition, there is no evidence that animals are still evolving of which I am aware. Since the Cambrian explosion, the primary characteristic of the geological record is its sameness or "stasis."

Quote: "Darwin claimed that “the number of intermediate transitional links, between all living things, must have been exceedingly great.” Was he right?"

All living creatures are links between their ancestors and their children. And every fossil is a link between his ancestor and his children. And there are so many missing links, even if evolution where not true. Does this mean that there are no links? That animals (who became fossils) didn't get children, or that animals didn't had ancestors? Of course not!

We are not concerned about whether or not animals had children. I think we can all agree on that. We want to find the actual fossil links that provide evidence for Darwin's theory. The fact that these links are missing from the fossil record indeed creates great problems for Darwinism.

Darwin claimed in The Origin of Species that “the number of intermediate transitional links, between all living things, must have been exceedingly great [because]  if the theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest [Cambrian] stratum was deposited, long periods of time elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the [Cambrian] age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures ."

The fossil record does not support this prediction. There is no evidence for Darwinism.

'Missing links' doesn't mean anything.

Missing links mean everything. If not, why have paleontologists been so passionately (and unsuccessfully) searching for them for the past 160 years? The links must be found if Darwin's theroy of evolution is true.

Every fossil and every living creature today is a link. And maybe there are links missing in the fossil record, that doesn't mean that the animals didn't had children. We don't know, simply because we don't have the fossils of their children.
Maybe their children didn't became a fossil or maybe the animals who became a fossil died without children. We just don't know.

But the truth of Darwinism (that is, gradual evolutionism) cannot be established on an argument from silence. It can only be supported by a fossil record that actually exists. Otherwise, it remains only a speculation. That means that there is room for other views that may provide a better explanation.

My question: When is the number of fossils 'exceedingly great'? If 1 out of the 1.000.000 animals became a fossil, than we do have a lot of fossils! If 1 out of the 2 became a fossil, than we don't have so much fossils. For as far as I know there are no "higher" creatures in the cambrium strata. No mammals, dinosaurs or primates.

Darwin claimed that the truth of his theory depended on the unearthing of the fossils of a swarm of creatures. I really don't think that most objective analysts would disagree on the meaning of swarm. It means that there would be a saturation of the record with transitional forms regardless of the actual number.

The argument you have so far presented is called the artifact hypothesis, that is, the absence of evidence is just an artifact of the fossil record. But this does not leave us with any reason to believe that evolution is true. It only explains away the lack of evidence such that believing in evolution becomes an act of blind faith rather than a belief based on evidence. I offer the following two links for further information:

1. 1/14/2010 12:24 AM Travis Coleman wrote:
   Thank you SongBird. I know that on a social scale that I am more acceptable than Jeffrey Dahmer. That's why he was in prison and I am a free man. That was not my point, however.
   
   He actually did find forgiveness. That's the point. Did my concept of the universal availability of the Grace of God extend even to one such as Jeffrey Dahmer? Jeffrey was glad he was in prison. He didn't want to get out. He didn't convert to get sympathy or a shorter sentence.
   
   If Jesus really is who he says he is, then I must take him at his word that he is ready, willing, and able to forgive anyone who repents and turns to him.
   
   I was humbled because my view of God's grace was not robust enough for it to include a Jeffrey Dahmer.
   
   Jeffrey felt he should have died for his crimes. The Pastor ministering to him in prison agreed with him. Jeffrey said, "Then am I sinning by living?" Jeffrey was beaten to death by a fellow prisoner.
   Reply to this

Greetings. I interact with your comments below.

I read with interest your perceptions of how atheists experience the world, particularly with regards what you call 'moral law'. You assert that atheists live in a 'closed world', devoid of any sense of 'good' and 'evil', but I have to tell you that on the whole we live happy fulfilled lives, and are not represented by your one quote by the psychopath Jeffrey Dahmer. I'm assuming he was atheist?

I am not sure if Jeffrey Dahmer was an avowed atheist. However, he seemed to understand at a gut level the logical moral conclusion of the atheistic proposal quite clearly, more clearly, I would argue, than most atheists. Nonetheless, after his arrest, he admitted to being constantly haunted with guilt, describing his life as a constant nightmare. Why is it that he should be so haunted if there really is nothing out there?

Because if that's the yardstick you are using, then let's own up to the fact that there have been many more insane and terrible acts committed by the religious - justified by god!

I do not measure all atheists by Jeffrey Dahmer. He is just an example of someone who seemed to understand at a gut level that there could be no meaning or ethical sanction in life unless there were a universal moral law and thus a Moral Law Giver. He is someone who felt the pressure of the Moral Law even as he tortured his victims. I concede in my article that most atheists behave morally. My claim is that they do so in spite of their worldview, not because of it.

There have indeed been horrible acts done in the name of God. One might wonder if those who have committed such acts were true believers despite their theological claims. Be that as it may, your stunning assertion that “many more insane and terrible acts have been committed by the religious” requires qualification (what is meant here by religious?), evidence, and argument to defend it. Please produce this evidence and make your argument. What is the basis for this claim? 

On the other hand, the progressive optimism that launched the twentieth century was rooted in a growing secular and atheistic evolutionary ideal. These hopes were buried under the feet of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot to name a few. Each of these men was ideologically driven by the atheistic ideal imbedded in Marxist determinism and/or evolutionary eugenics. Each of them was responsible for millions of murders. So let’s be careful not to throw rocks in a glass house.

The atheist view is that good and evil do not fly about the earth like a miasma waiting to infect us - people do good things or they do bad things.

Wait a minute…Foul! You have no grounds for assessing goodness or badness. What are your criteria and where do they come from? How do you know what is good or bad. What is your basis for judgment?

Psychopathology however is not a choice, it's a medical condition, one which god seems happy to insert into the occasional human brain - or not to prevent, anyway. (Incidentally, I'm interested to know what the religious position is on this. If the deity COULD prevent the condition and hence the act, but doesn't, that's cruel and therefore not 'Good', but if it CANNOT change or prevent the condition, then it cannot claim to be 'Omnipotent' - not a good case for an all-powerful, all-loving god).

Whew, you are opening a whole new argument here. I have addressed some of your concerns in other articles at this blog. Perhaps if you would like to read some of these articles and leave a comment, we could discuss these questions in those contexts. Check out the category “Existence of God” and the category “Problem of Evil” in my sidebar.

Stealing however IS a choice and what might make an atheist stop short is not a 'fear of retribution' as has been stated, but empathy. It is also empathy that makes us throw ourselves into danger to save a fellow human being.

Empathy? Why empathy? What grounds do you have for claiming that empathy is a universal moral principal? Then you admit that there is at least one transcendent moral truth that applies to all people in all places. Am I correct? You concede that you would likely experience a sense of moral failure or even guilt if you failed to exhibit this virtue. I am afraid that by so conceding, you have refuted your atheistic worldview. Moral absolutes do not grow on trees or flit randomly about the the night sky. They must have a source outside of human existence if they are to apply to all humans.

This does not fly in the face of Darwinian theory because it is relatively rare, but there are so many subtleties to that debate which can't be covered in the short and, it must be said, quite closed-minded forum here.

Excuse me, but you have just told me in so many words that empathy should control our behavior. Furthermore, you are apparently claiming that Darwinism is true for all persons at all times and that atheism is true for all persons at all times, whether I choose to believe it or not. Nonetheless, I did not delete your post, and, in addition, I am here choosing to engage with you in rational discourse. Who’s the closed minded one here?

Your religion would infantilise me by removing my own volition and replacing it with a 'parent in the sky', who will 'punish' me if I don't do as 'he' says.

Volition? What’s that? I thought you believe that atheism is true. Whence cometh volition? In order to make a moral choice, we must have access to moral truth. We must have true belief, that is, knowledge of transcendent realities. But atheism, particularly the Darwinistic variety, leaves us alone in a closed universe of mindless physical, biological, and chemical processes. There is no mind behind the matter (We can debate the origin of consciousness and the immaterial nature of the mind at a later date).

 Darwinism is a theory for which there is a lot of convincing evidence.

Really? If you could present some of this evidence at some point, I would be open to considering it (No, really, I said open).

One doesn't 'believe in' it however - that would be arrogant, because if a better explanation comes along, we revise our understanding, and you can't do that if you have closed off all other avenues of thought.

Oh, come on, of course you “believe in” Darwinism (and atheism), otherwise we would be wasting our time here. For several paragraphs now you have been passionately attempting to defend your belief. Don’t suddenly back off now. That would be dishonest. Own it. I certainly do not blame you or condemn you for your belief. I respect you as an individual made in God’s image. I have tolerance for your belief. I just think that it is wrong and that you should reconsider. I happen to believe that the evidence for theism far outweighs the evidence for atheism. I invite you to read the other articles at this blog and to comment on them. You are welcome here.

It is not in the least bit arrogant to believe that something is true. One is only arrogant if he refuses to change his belief despite clear evidence to the contrary. In fact, we must first have beliefs if there are going to be changes in our beliefs. It is the nature of being human to have beliefs about things. So don’t go politically correct one me here.  

What we 'believe' would be irrelevant in any case.

What we believe is enormously relevant in all cases. Ideas have consequences.

I would suggest that most believers in god have closed their minds to all other ideas and their deity is the end of the story.

How many believers have you known with whom you have discussed these issues? I would be careful about stereotyping here. Be open-minded!

To most atheists that is an intellectually impoverished way to approach the world, which is just as full of wonder and beauty for them as it is for anyone.

My experience has been that believing in God changes everything from black and white to color. I am compelled to ask, “What is the source of all of this beauty and wonder that we both observe?” Why in the world is there something rather than nothing in the first place, let alone a something that is so wonderful and beautiful? Belief in God enriches my intellectual life and motivates me to engage the world and discover what it’s all about. I see no reason why belief in God should abort intellectual inquiry. That has certainly not been my experience, nor the experience of many thousands of intellectuals since Christianity began .

  You suggest that I must somehow be 'admitting' an existence of god by having a set of moral values. Why is my ability to go through life as a happy person with plenty of wonderful friends and family so hard for you to accept?

I have not even remotely suggested that an atheist cannot be a “happy person with wonderful friends and family.” I certainly wish that for you. What I have argued is that the desire for and the valuing of such enjoyment should provoke a very important question…”Why?” Whence cometh this inner yearning for a happy life? Why value such goodness? Why is it that this seems to be a universal yearning? We consider the evil in the world and sense that things are not the way they are supposed to be. Yet, we long for the way things are supposed to be, and tend to generally agree that happiness, friends, and family are a part of this. Why should we have this longing in an atheistic world in which Darwinism is true? It simply does not make sense, and, I would argue, should compel us to look upward.

Thanks for listening, and I hope you will publish this. It it meant as an honest (although undoubtedly inadequate) attempt to put my point of view as an atheist, which in my case simply means 'not believing', in the same way that I do not 'believe' in unicorns.

You are welcome! Please come again! I don’t believe in unicorns either. So we do have something in common!

Many Blessings,

Arnie

1. 1/13/2010 12:24 AM Arnie Gentile wrote:
   Do you really mean to tell me that no religious person swearing on their bible has ever told a lie?
    
   Of course not. I believe that you are missing the purpose of my comment. My purpose was to point out the consistency with which the indicated worldview was placed into practice. Since the indicated worldview accepted the existence of a transcendent being who had established transcendent norms that apply to all people, such as the ninth commandment, then it would be consistent with such a worldview to be cautious about those swearing upon a Bible to tell the truth in the name of God who in fact did not believe in either God or the Bible. Such an "oath" would be a mockery and a sham.    
   
   It is a truly chilling thought that someone anywhere could be denied the opportunity to give their testimony in a court of law, because their freedom of choice led them to a position of not holding a belief in god.
   
   People are denied this opportunity regularly today because of the beliefs that they have freely chosen, even beliefs that are constitutionally protected. That is why potential witnesses are deposed and potential jurors are interviewed. If it is ascertained that the individual's beliefs might unduly bias the outcome of the trial, the individual is simply and summarily dismissed. Being a witness or a juror is not a right protected by the Constitution. It is a duty. This is why witnesses and jurors are subpeonaed. You can't just walk in off the street and say, "Hey, I want to exercise my right to be a witness." There is no such right. Ironically, a potential witness or juror in today's moral climate may be denied the opportunity because he or she does believe in God and a transcendent moral order. In any event, one's dismissal from being a witness or a juror is in no way a violation of their constitutional right to freely choose what they believe.
   
   The response that this is a good reason to become a christian makes me fear for all people living in the so-called 'Land of the Free'.
   
   I never said that this was a good reason to become a Christian. In fact, this would be a very bad reason to become a Christian. A person should become a Christian because the person is convinced in both the heart and mind that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who rose from the dead and that there is no other name under heaven by which one can be saved. One who has been genuinely transformed in this way will lead a life of love and willingly accept any consequences for professing this belief, even persecution and death. That is Christianity.
   
   Regarding the "Land of the Free," I would argue that the freedoms intended by our founding fathers are being usurped precisely because our country is becoming increasingly secular. The founders understood the importance of true religion being exercised in the public square if freedom was to be preserved. They understood that even one's right to be an atheist could only be preserved if God and his transcendent values, embodied both in the Bible and in Natural Law, were publicly recognized and endorsed. They feared that a growing secularism and unbridled democracy would lead to people abandoning the providence of God and looking to the government to fill the void. This, they believed, was the ticket to tyranny, and it is happening today as we speak. If the founders visited us today, I believe that they would weep. May God have mercy on our nation.
   
   Blessings,
   
   Arnie
   Reply to this

1. 1/13/2010 10:05 AM SongBird wrote:
   I must respond to the assertion that looking to ground ethics and morality in neo-Darwinism "leads to embarrassing questions for atheists." There's no such thing as an embarrassing question for atheists!! Bear in mind that for me 'atheist' means someone who does not accept the premise that there is a god. I don't actively claim that there absolutely isn't one, because you can't prove a negative, and we must accept that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However the presence of evidence does reinforce a premise. Maybe one day there will be incontrovertible evidence for the existence of a god, and then all atheists will be proved wrong.
   
   There is much we do not know, and if an obvious answer to any question is not forthcoming, then we must simply say we do not know - for now. Further investigation, more questions, more discussion are necessary, but that's not embarrassing, it's stimulating and challenging and all part of the great quest of trying to find the answers.
   
   SongBird
   Reply to this
   1. 1/13/2010 11:38 PM Arnie Gentile wrote:
      I must respond to the assertion that looking to ground ethics and morality in neo-Darwinism "leads to embarrassing questions for atheists." There's no such thing as an embarrassing question for atheists!! Bear in mind that for me 'atheist' means someone who does not accept the premise that there is a god. I don't actively claim that there absolutely isn't one, because you can't prove a negative, and we must accept that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However the presence of evidence does reinforce a premise. Maybe one day there will be incontrovertible evidence for the existence of a god, and then all atheists will be proved wrong.
       
      Thanks again for your comment.  If we define "embarrassing question" as one that would stump a person in a public debate, then I believe that the statement you disagree with is actually true of the strict atheist, that is, one who has committed herself to atheism (the propostion that God does not exist), which you have not. In fact I offer such a question immediately after making that comment. 
      
      Be that as it may, from your last post, I conclude that you are really not an atheist (at least not a "strict" one), but a seeker perhaps with some agnostic tendencies. You do not categorically deny God's existence, but you have as yet not accpeted his existence because of what you believe is an absence of evidence (Please correct me if I am wrong on this. I really want to understand your intellectual postion). I am happy to report that there is no "absence of evidence" for the existence of God. There are very good reasons to believe that God exists, Christ rose from the dead, the Bible is historically accurate, and that Christianity is true. I am persuaded that there really is a rational basis for the Christian faith, and it is my hope that, over time, you will agree, even if you choose not to become a Christian.  
      
      There is much we do not know, and if an obvious answer to any question is not forthcoming, then we must simply say we do not know - for now. Further investigation, more questions, more discussion are necessary, but that's not embarrassing, it's stimulating and challenging and all part of the great quest of trying to find the answers.
       
      There is no greater and more invigorating quest than the quest for truth. You are correct in stating that we must withhold commitment to a propostion until we have investigated the evidence sufficiently to come to a conclusion. However, we must be reasonable in our expectations regarding how much and/or what kind of evidence is sufficient. When it comes to establishing a posteriori truth claims (that is, truth claims based on evidence), we can never have exhaustive evidence, and, in an imperfect world, we can never have absolute certainty.
      
      There will always be some element of uncertainty, however small. This should not deter us from accepting a propostion as true when the quality and/or the quantity of the evidence commends such acceptance. We do not have 100% certainty for the atomic theory, but the probability of its truth is so high that it is unlikely that it will be overturned accept by a mega-dose of contradictoy evidence. This cannot be said for the belief that the universe was not caused to come into existence. This belief stands on very precarious evidential grounds.   
      
      I look forward to future discussions. 
      
      Blessings,
      
      Arnie    
      
      SongBird
      Reply to this

1. 1/11/2010 2:21 PM Michelle wrote:
   Sounds like Protagoras was in the business of training politicians, not very different from the ones we have today.
   Reply to this
   1. 1/11/2010 8:56 PM Arnie Gentile wrote:
      Yup...there is nothing new under the sun... Thanks for you comments, Michelle. I appreciate your participation!
      Reply to this

1. 12/18/2009 12:46 AM Joel wrote:
   I had that same question when I was reading on this site and other sites when referencing Paul's revelation. Very good answer Arnie, very helpful!
   Reply to this
   1. 12/18/2009 4:49 PM Arnie wrote:
      Thanks for participating, Joel. I'm glad this was helpful. It is truly remarkable how much agreement there is among historical critics, both believing and unbelieving, regarding the evidence for the resurrection. Failure to take the final step and believe is not a matter of the evidence anymore, but a matter of the heart.
      
      Blessings,
      
      Arnie
      Reply to this