My last post was five months ago. You know, the one that I called “Part 1” and promised a “Part 2” follow-up post?
So, Seth, what gives?
Well… ever feel like you’ve bitten off more than you can chew? Or that you have so much to say about something, but don’t want to publish a novel on your blog since no one would probably read it? Yeah, I know the feeling.
So, check this out: I make a promise to my readers to compile and discuss (in a single post, mind you) all the evidences that I believe exist for the Christian faith. Yeah yeah, I hear you skeptics chuckling out there — I can hear you thinking, “Well, that should be a short article!” Go ahead, have your moment… I’ll give you a minute or two to enjoy your cleverness…. (more…)
I owe you all an apology. (No, it’s not for my long absence — I’ve been spending pretty much all my spare time with my son, and I have no regrets! 😀 )
I just finished reading this book about a week ago, and I highly recommend it. However, it knocked me squarely on my butt and showed me an area about which I have been wrong for so long. And I would like to apologize. (more…)
Boy, you guys have been tearing it up in thediscussiondepartment lately! It’s been a lot of fun spectating the various conversations, and interjecting a point here and there. I love this sort of thing! Thank you all for adding legitimacy to my blog by lending your time, efforts and points of view — and, above all, for keeping it civil (may this serve as a friendly reminder to all — I think a good rereading of this community’s ideals and guidelines would be beneficial for everyone) 😉
One of the things that has come up in these discussions seems to be the extent to which we should trust scientific authority. The question was specifically brought up in the context of dating methods to determine the age of the earth. After being posed the question by Ark, Nathanael replied with an explanation of his reluctance to trust the word of scientists when he hasn’t himself come to a reasonably coherent understanding of their methodology. At one point he states: (more…)
Now, I have full respect for The Poised Atheist, and I actually applaud what the writer is doing in this blog by going critically through the Bible, actually reading what is in there and thinking it through methodically. How could this not be a good thing? However, in the spirit of full disclosure, the style of rhetoric the writer employs is not really my cup of tea — I liken it to a machine-gun, putting out a fast barrage of talking points without necessarily going into the deeper issues and logic behind the stated conclusions, but rather regarding them as self-evident. Nothing wrong with that, it’s a matter of preference and style — for my computer nerds out there, I’m just more of a depth-first guy than a breadth-first guy.
So, I’d like to unpack some of the logic implicitly employed in this writer’s reasoning, and go a little deeper into what the premises may be that would lead to the stated conclusions. The following quote from this post is pretty characteristic of the writer’s response to each cited event from the applicable Bible passages (specifically such instances as Moses’ staff turning into a snake, his hand becoming instantly leprous, and water turning into blood): (more…)
As a follow-up to my recent post (and the discussion that came from it), I have decided to illustrate how I view our two main sources of information (Knowledge and Revelation) and their relationship to Reality. To do this, I have come up with the following diagram — feel free to use it if you wish:
Ah, tildeb, you’ve done it again — you’ve raised such an incisive point that I have no choice but to devote an entire post to my reply 🙂 Thanks, as always, for the inspiration!
Now, I for one highly recommend my readers to take the time to go through the entire discussion (it actually starts back here, then jumps to here) — but, since this may be a tall order for people who already live rich and busy lives, I’ll set the stage by saying, simply, that the discussion thus far has been characterized by tildeb offering critique of my methods in arriving at the truth about God. I have provided evidence of both subjective and substantive natures, but all were rejected because, at the end of the day, my metaphysical worldview boils down to faith — I cannot know definitively that what I believe is the truth, because none of my conclusions can be independently verified in ways consistent with the naturalistic method of attaining knowledge. (I think this is an accurate picture of our discussion thus far, tildeb, but I am of course open to correction.)
So, now the rest of this post will be a direct response to tildeb: (more…)
I have been incredibly pleased and delighted at the discussions that spun off from my last post about naturalism — in fact, my involvement therein can serve as a kind of explanation for my recent absence from writing, for the discussions have been engaging and taxing (in a good way!). Deep thanks to both tildeb and Gino for raising the quality of this blog by weighing in with such incisive and insightful discussion!
And I’m not just blowing smoke, either — I am always most thrilled when met with individuals who are both capable and willing to engage in civil, rational discussion about something as divisive and provocative as religion — such individuals, in my experience, are rare, and I’ve has the immense privilege and honor to have engaged with several such individuals during my short course as a blogger. My hat’s off to all of you!
I found these discussions and points about naturalism especially fruitful, so I thought I’d devote another post to summing up the results of these discussions. I shall try to be as fair as possible when representing my opponents’ positions, and I give either of you full permission to castigate me vehemently if I misrepresent you 😉 (more…)