Scientific Materialism and Woke Ideology | Reasonable Faith Podcast

Dr. Craig reviews an article by William Dembski on the relationship between Scientific Materialism and Woke ideology.

We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:

[elgatofelix]

Even Richard Dawkins has finally come out and admitted that woke ideology is a religion.
Except he'll probably never admit it's a religion his militant atheism helped foster.

[williammcenaney]

Some people believe that standard, grammatically correct English is racist. Many dark-skinned African Americans will tell others that they're too white when they speak correctly and write that may. If people of other races and other ethnic groups say that incorrect English makes people seem stupid, that can reinforce racism.

I got cerebral palsy when my lungs collapsed at birth. Since cerebral palsy can cause mental retardation. Some waitresses have assumed that I was stupid. So they asked my lunch companions what I wanted to order. Naturally, my companions replied, "Ask him." That's partly why I believe that minority members should demolish stereotypes.

Some people with same-sex attraction have a similar problem. They want to be accepted, respected and treated well. But pride parades and other narcissistic events attract too much attention to what makes those people unusual.

From what I can tell, only my handicap makes me stand out. But I want other people to ignore it. I'm not my CP. It's a property I have. I loathe wokeness, politically correct language, and affirmative action. The language demeans people, and affirmative action suggests that a person's merits aren't good enough to get her hired or admitted to a university.

If you're a minority member, show others you can exceed their expectations. Don't let others demean you.

[PiousPriest]

Anyone looking for how things are interconnected should take a look at some of Neil Shenvi's work as someone from a Christian Worldview. One of the best from an Agnostic but Christian Friendly is James Lindsay.

[trevconn]

It would be fascinating to hear an interview between Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Graham Priest.

[marvolo]

I see Bill was finally able to get back at Krauss for calling him a liar live on stage all those years ago. Go Bill! 😋

[truthovertea]

I had no idea Krauss was an accused sex offender. Especially for a guy who so ardently attacks the Bible from a moral perspective 😂

[mikejurney]

It may be easier than that. Materialism assumes certain physical entities as brute facts such as spacetime, matter, and energy. And as brute facts they have to assert that there is no further reason for them. And thus in effect they are saying these brute facts defy all logical explanation, that they are in essence illogical. The only alternative is to say that there are logical reasons for everything. In other words, there is an abstract power of reason that controls all facts that exists everywhere at all times and determines everything. And this is just another description of God. So either there is a God or there is illogical nonsense. They have chosen nonsense.

[fbcpraise]

Goodness at the trolls. Don’t y’all have somewhere to be?

[michelangelope]

The Quran has not been memorized, not between all muslims in the world, and I will explain why. Image one book with 100 pages and each page with 10 verses of the word of God. Each verse is infinite and perfect wisdom. If your aim is to memorize the perfect book in case all the copies of the original are destroyed, would you organize and prepare a plan and test if the Quran has been truly memorized? How do you know if the Quran has been memorized if you don't test the claim? All should witness if the Quran has been truly memorized, the exam is for all. If there were 1 million muslims in the world would it be easier to obtain a memorized copy of the Quran if 1 million muslims tried to memorize the whole 100 pages of the book or if 1 million divided by 1 thousand verses muslims memorize just 1 verse?. I am a psychologist, not a charlatan looking for attention, and I have discovered atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t. I am censored for obvious reasons. I don't know much, but I know what I know, and I have lived long enough to know Nobel Prizes are given to friends and family and people don't care. Time is running out, not much is left, and is eternal. Is not the end of atheism and religion and peace what you have always wanted? I am a poet and artist searching for beauty and the rationalist philosopher Spinoza discovered centuries ago the nature of God, that I have rediscovered. How many people have to understand God is necessary and is literally everything that exist before humanity change their minds?. Humanity have to understand only one reality and truth exists. Our existence is eternal and we have to live well because we have to survive. It is easier to survive living well being happy, content with the experience. We live for the experience, to feel part of something infinitely greater than ourselves. The whole is infinitely more important than the parts, the parts can sacrifice for the whole. We are mortal organs of the eternal Body, and Mind. Could the liver die for the stomach? The philosopher Giordano Bruno died burning alive to get published his work. What did he say? Was what he said tampered? Obviously if he was sentenced to die burning alive what he said upset many people enormously. He was tortured for what he said. If I and you don't know what Giordano Bruno said, the whole book, explained, is because he is censored. People are not interested in what a person who decided to die burning alive to try to end religion with knowledge, instead of just forget and surrender and let the bad guys win, has to say. Knowledge is good for you, all future generations. Thank you.

[captainzappbrannagan]

Reasonable faith is an oxymoron. There is no god. Grow up.

[tonygoodkind]

Feels like bad arguments.

A. "Woke" is a hopelessly vague term. Evidence of that being: just watch how many ideas Craig adds to the guy's starting definition. Everyone you ask will have a different definition. Why is this a problem? Because arguing against vague concepts isn't a meaningful, actionable argument.

The worst part is the vague definition includes more precise concepts, like "political correctness" (though that's still _slightly_ vague). We'd expect a rational person to want to take each specific topic and make the rational argument for/against it. (And in the case of political correctness, I think there's a very reasonable argument against many forms of it.) We wouldn't expect someone with good arguments to want to make things ultra-vague by lumping correctness in with a bunch of other topics.

B. Platinga's argument is terrible because scientists aren't relying on just their own minds, but rather the sum total of all humanity's observations of what arguments are reliably true or not (logic) and also independent observation. If a group is guilty of relying just on their own minds, it's theists, who are more likely to believe based on feelings rather than evidence. (The ones who do believe on evidence don't have _reasonable_ evidence. It's all illogical arguments so far.)

[NeedSomeNuance]

Bill is so irrelevant by now. Christianity is dead

[TheJesusNerd]

Primordial soup>Monekys/Apes>Cave men hunter gatherers>modern humans/homo sapiens>transhumanism/AI cyborgs/Robots 😂