May 5, 2011
Yesterday I was told, if God exists he must have evolved. The “proof” that God must have evolved went something like this:
1) We evolved
2) We are intelligent
3) Therefore intelligence can only form due to evolution
4) If God is intelligent he must have evolved.
(3) doesn’t seem to logically follow. It’s that little word ‘only’ which seems all wrong. Pointing out a specific example doesn’t make a general rule.
I mention this, because although it seems like faulty reasoning to me, after Dawkins it is a popular thing for atheists to repeat. Maybe some of my atheist commenters would like to point out what I’m missing.
The only real response I was given by the guy offering the proof was that I am “too stupid to be an atheist”.
December 17, 2009
How can a Christian understand Jesus? How can Jesus be both man and God at the same time? As the church spread East into Asia, this question became one of great importance. The church was split into two main camps: The Nestorians, and the Monophysites. It all sounds like Syriac to me, so I had to look up what these terms meant.
This is the belief that Jesus existed as two separate persons. One of them is divine – the Son of God. The other is human.
On this view, Jesus had only one nature. It wasn’t a fully divine nature, and it wasn’t a fully human nature. Instead it is a combination of the two: like a mixture of ink and water, so that the elements of both natures are modified to create a new one.
Just in case you’re wondering, the standard Christian view, for protestants, Catholics and Orthodox is to affirm that Jesus one person, who is truly God and truly man. This was spelled out by the leaders of the church who met together in 451 near Constantinople, in Chalcedon. Unlike the Nestorians, the church leaders said that Jesus was only one person,
Indivisibly, inseparably… concurring in one person and one subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons.
And unlike the Monophysites, they said that Jesus had two natures:
to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably… the distinction of the natures being preserved.
June 19, 2009
There an interesting article written on June 10, by biologist Kenneth Miller which is relevant to the relationship between science and religion. He hits back at Jerry Coyne who has been publicly both misrepresenting and critisizing him.
Kenneth Miller is a catholic and a well known critic of intelligent design. But apparently for the atheist Coyne that’s not enough. Coyne is vitriolic at anyone scientist considering philosophical or theological issues, apparently unless that is done in favour of atheism. As Miller elloquently puts it: “The tragedy of Coyne’s argument is the way in which it seeks to enlist science in a frankly philosophical crusade — a campaign to purge science of religionists in the name of doctrinal purity. ”
Throughout his vision of the relationship between science and religion was clear:
The true vow of a scientist is to practice honest and open empiricism in every aspect of his scientific work. That vow does not preclude the scientist from stepping back, acknowledging the limitations of scientific knowledge, and asking the deeper questions of why we are here, and whether existence has a purpose. Those questions are genuine and important, even if they are not scientific ones, and I believe they are worth answering.
Check it out here.
June 18, 2009
Yesterday William Lane Craig’s debate appeared on youtube, and he repeated some of this at a lecture in Cambridge. In it he offered a particular picture of how God relates to people, and God’s possible motives for allowing evil in the world. Specifically, he suggested that this world is the one in which most people can come to find God. It is an answer, but is it the right answer?
Alpha and Omega ministries say no. Check it out.
June 17, 2009
Hitchens and Craig had a recent debate at Biola University. For anyone who doesn’t know, Hitchens is the author of “God is not Great”, in which he explains why he thinks that religion is responsible for a large amount of the evil in the world. William Lane Craig is a philsopher and Christian apologist who has debated (and won) against many of the world’s most prominent anti-Christian thinkers. So this was a very anticipated debate.