psalm123

I had a little debate a few weeks ago on this topic. There are those who believe that the natural world is all there is and that we should only believe what can be scientifically proven. Can a person with this type of worldview bear the necessary burden of proof to validate their beliefs? Is this a coherent worldview? Here is a debate I found from 1998-99 with Christian philosopher and apologist, Dr. William Lane Craig. I have heard various clips from the debate but not the whole thing.

Can you feel the holiday love? Those militant angry atheists are at it again. In regards to religion, what this particular breed of atheist wants is a country that in no way represents what our founding fathers had in mind.


"Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, said that militant atheists attempt to do through the courts what the Taliban by force had done to Afghanistan: removing all the symbols of the country's national heritage."

WARREN, Michigan, October 26, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Christmas culture wars for 2009 have now begun and ground zero is the Detroit suburb of Warren, which for 63 years has hosted a privately maintained nativity scene set at the crossroads of the city.

The Nativity display had been maintained by Warren city resident John Satawa and his family for most of the municipality's history until the Macomb County Road Commission this year ordered the display removed because it "clearly displays a religious message" in violation of the "separation of church and state." 

The Road Commission had informed Satawa of its decision upon receiving a letter in December 2008 from the Freedom from Religion Foundation, which purported to act on behalf of a complainant in the city of 134,000 residents, saying the display violated the Constitution.

However, on Friday the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Satawa against the Road Commission, arguing that its decision violates the Establishment Clause by disfavoring religion.

Satawa's legal counsel hopes to obtain a court order permitting the nativity display along with a declaratory judgment that the Road Commission's actions were unconstitutional.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, said that militant atheists attempt to do through the courts what the Taliban by force had done to Afghanistan: removing all the symbols of the country's national heritage.

Thompson added that nowhere in the US Constitution appears the phrase "separation of church and state"; nevertheless, every Christmas those words become a "means of intimidating municipalities and schools into removing expressions celebrating Christmas, a National Holiday."

"Their goal is to cleanse our public square of all Christian symbols. However, the grand purpose of our Founding Fathers and the First Amendment was to protect religion, not eliminate it."

( Read more... )

Here is a good video that may be of help when discussing some basic arguments for the existence of God. Here Dr. Craig goes through 3 or 4 basic arguments (there are many others) you can use when discussing the reasonableness of Christianity. How often had you had your faith attacked as being "a blind faith in a cloud god" or something to that affect?  It's important to be able to articulate reasons for your faith using logic and reason. Of course this is only one aspect of the faith but it is important to be able to defend your beliefs reasonably against an increasingly hostile anti-Christian atheist movement.

The reason I like posting Dr. Craig's work is that he can take complicated philosophical principles and articulate them in a way that almost anyone can follow. At the same time you don't lose too much depth of the content.

This is a short response to merenaturalism  and the comments he/she left about my last post. My words are in regular type.

First, you didn't answer my questions.

How do we get from 'science alone doesn't have all the answers' to 'only science alone can have all the answers?' What makes the last statement true?

"The last 300 years of shared human experience demonstrates the overwhelming superiority of the various methods of science for answering questions about how the world works."

If anything, the last  300 years have shown us that science alone is not sufficient to answer the greatest questions of mankind. Thus great debates have occurred in the past and continue today. Science properly understood has many answers to explain how things work to be sure. No informed Christian would deny this. There is no need to deny this. Science when understood properly is shown to have limitations. Acknowledging those limitations with intellectual honesty helps you open up to other means of inquiry when empirical science has no say. Science alone can be an adequate way to solve a problem or answer a question but not always. It depends on what problem you are trying to solve and whether or not the question is beyond the scope of empirical science. The last 300 years has also shown us that science is not infallible and can be wrong. 

"As far as I know, WLC has no arguments which hinge on the premise "God did it". Rather, that is his conclusion. But such a move seems to me not any kind of explanation because he is answering one mystery with another mystery."

This is a misrepresentation of how William Lane Craig defends his beliefs. He uses logic and deductive arguments. If the premises of his arguments are true then you cannot deny the conclusions. The conclusions follow with logical necessity from the premises.

"Theologians have been in full retreat from the hammer blows of science."

This assertion makes me laugh every time I hear it. To point out the complete absurdity of this statement first I will ask...what Theologians are you talking about!? You aren't engaged in a discussion right now with a fundamentalist who takes every word of the Bible literally or some new agey practitioner of some self-made feel good 'religion'  that shuns any knowledge that can't be found in some form of 'holy scripture'. Secondly, it's a mere google search to look up the major discoveries/ contributions that Christians both laity and clergy have made in the history of science and continue to make in the present day. The "hammer blows of science"  seem to be more like love taps from God encouraging His faithful to continue on in their exploration of science rather than a reason to retreat from their faith.

Since the tone of your answers have been more civil than what I am used to when engaging atheists, I'll  go off the board a bit and answer the rest a bit differently than what I am usually forced to do.

My Catholic faith is completely in tune with modern science. Scientific inquiry fits in perfectly with the Catholic worldview. We see the world as having reason behind it. The world for a Catholic reflects the nature of the being that created it. Thus we see reason, rationality and order that can be studied. It was this type of Christian worldview that set the stage for scientific endeavors. You really have to be blind to not see the hand-print of design all around us.

You know, as Catholic school kids, we did learn science.  Believe it or not, that education in science continued all the way through Catholic high school!! Interestingly, I don't recall ever running across these "hammer blows of science" that would cause me to retreat from my faith.

Off to college I went. Yes sir with an interest in a medical career, I took it upon myself to dive into a whole lot of science courses. Oh yeah...lots and lots of Biology and Chemistry. Not to be confined to just two disciplines of science, I studied a bit of just about anything that ended in "ology"  anthropology, psychology, zoology, physiology, sociology.... Surely, having studied all that science in public colleges and universities, I would have eventually been forced to confront these "hammer blows of science" that would cause me to retreat from my faith. It never happened.

It's a curious thing that I never seemed to run into these "hammer blows of science" that would cause me to retreat from my faith. Today I am studying Theology and I still have not been hindered in my studies by these "hammer blows of science" you speak of that would cause me to retreat from my faith. You know why that is? It's because there is no conflict between science and religion for me or any Catholic who knows their faith. You can try all day to push a false dichotomy between faith and reason or science and religion but its complete bunk. The atheist has to push the idea that science and religion are in conflict for many of their arguments to hold any merit. I think that's why a lot of so called 'new atheists' pick on easy targets ( fundamental Bible literalists...)  The more science progresses and explores the extreme complexity of the human body, the planet, the universe, the apparent fine tuning and design found just about everywhere.......the more it leads to what believers have been saying all along. Just ask the former 'pope' of atheism for 40+ years Anthony Flew.

"Philosophers are now overwhelmingly naturalists."

First, this is an appeal to numbers. The number of philosophers who are 'naturalists' has no bearing on whether what they believe is true or not. Secondly, I have no idea how many Christian V Naturalist philosophers there are but Dr. Craig has a take on this (the video). I'm not posting it because he calls out the "new atheists" but because he addresses your contention about naturalist philosophers.

Lastly, your "thought experiment" is quite irrelevant.  I think I know where you want to go with it. I will answer it shortly when I have some free time.

"Just because science has a gap in its knowledge, that doesn't entitle you to turn to any other particular alternative"  -Richard Dawkins

Why not Mr. Dawkins?  Because you say so? I'm puzzled here.  What scientific principle leads you to say this with such supposed authority? So, science alone doesn't have all the answers, and nobody other than a "scientist" should have a say in the matter? Seriously, get over yourself. Scary stuff. I would think that any intellectually honest atheist  would disagree with Dawkins here. I am  sure the founding fathers of the United States would disagree with the direction the so called "new atheists" want to take this country. 

How about science AND Philosophy? How about science AND Philosophy AND Theology? That's what an informed Christian does.  Bring on the science Richard, we have nothing to fear from the world of science. Just don't limit yourself to science alone because of your own personal aversions to religion or philosophy that places a burden on your worldview.

* I don't know the full context of the short video clip. I'm just going by what was said. Deal.... Also, this video is not officially endorsed by William Lane Craig.

Here's an interesting little article. Now, I don't always agree 100% with what Bill Donohue says and I know he is actively promoting a book here, but you have to at least look into this so called "safe school czar" fellow.  The following quote is very telling.   Here we see rationalization of ones actions and a very distorted and superficial understanding of God and what He has "promised" humanity. With an understanding of God based on this type of flawed thinking, it's not difficult to see why so many people with similar ideas, believers and non-believers alike say "screw you buddy"  to their false version of Christ. These are the people I would love to try and help better understand some things.


" I decided I had done nothing wrong: He had, by promising to ‘set you free’ and never delivering on His promise. What had He done for me, other than make me feel shame and guilt? Squat. Screw you, buddy—I don’t need you around anymore, I decided.”


OBAMA SCHOOL CZAR SAYS “SCREW YOU” TO GOD

September 23, 2009

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the appointment of Kevin Jennings to be President Obama’s Safe School Czar:

Kevin Jennings, the man selected to be the Director of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, has a history of promoting homosexual conferences wherein unsafe sex practices are sold to underage kids. He is also a former drug user. As a counselor, he failed to notify the authorities of a sexual encounter between an adult gay man and a high school kid. And, not to be outdone, he has a history of bashing Christians.

Jennings, raised a Baptist by his minister father and non-believing, anti-Catholic mother, is known for lecturing the Catholic Church about its teachings on sexuality. He has also railed against the “hard core bigots” whom he says make up the “religious right.”

Jennings’ hatred of religion began at the age of 17, right after he masturbated at the thought of watching two “hot guys” take off their shirts in his home. We know this because this is exactly what he wrote in his book, Mama’s Boy, Preacher’s Son: A Memoir.

Following his masturbatory experience, Jennings revealed what happened next: “I developed a new attitude toward God as a result. Before, I was the one who was failing God; now I decided He was the one who had failed me.” Continuing, he wrote, “I decided I had done nothing wrong: He had, by promising to ‘set you free’ and never delivering on His promise. What had He done for me, other than make me feel shame and guilt? Squat. Screw you, buddy—I don’t need you around anymore, I decided.” [His italics.] He ends by saying that for many years he “reacted violently to anyone who professed any kind of religion.”

It just doesn’t get much more perverse than this. If this doesn’t prove the thesis of my new book, Secular Sabotage: How Liberals Are Destroying Religion and Culture in America, nothing does.

Contact Secretary of Education Arne Duncan: arne.duncan@ed.gov

To be fair, here is atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett responding to Dr Craig and the Cosmological argument. I'm not sure what the context is of this audio clip. It might have been an atheist conference or something. Here Mr.  Dennett takes a crack at the Cosmological argument but there is no refutation. This appears to be an impromptu response rather than a planned rebuttal. He's a pretty decent speaker and easy to listen to.  When it comes to listening to philosophers talk, ease of listening is very important!

I don't think Dr. Craig has debated Dennett. That would be interesting. Dennett's argument here is pretty weak. If I as merely a first year philosopher can see the problem with the argument,  it's a good indication that  Dennett needs to go back and refine it.

New astrophysical discoveries leave little to no room for Atheism, expert says

Nothing new here but it's good that there is going to be an effort to bring this information to average Catholics like me who aren't astrophysics geeks.

Fr. Spitzer explained that, what we know from the most recent scientific evidence is that “the universe is not the universe of Mr. Newton anymore, it is not infinite, it is finite, it started at some point, and is in constant expansion.”

He then explained the complexity of the universe, saying it is based on “an incredibly delicate balance of 17 cosmological constants.  If any of them would be off by one part of a tenth at a forty potency, we would be dead and the universe would not be what it is.”

Denver, Colo., Sep 30, 2009 / 03:35 pm (CNA).- Contemporary astrophysics hold the scientific key to prove the existence of God, but unfortunately very few know the scientific facts, said Fr. Robert J. Spitzer, S.J, PhD, during a conference delivered on Sunday at the John Paul II Center for the New Evangelization in Denver, Colorado.

The Honolulu-born Jesuit is the past president of Gonzaga University and is also well-known philosopher and physicist who is involved in bringing science and theology together.

Fr. Spitzer is currently engaged in an ambitious project to explain the metaphysical consequences of the latest astrophysical discoveries, mainly, the existence of a Creator.

The conference in Denver was sponsored by John and Carol Saeman as well as the California Catholic philanthropist Timothy Busch.

“The arguments of Fr. Spitzer are addressed to every honest human being who is trying to reach to God through science,” said Mr. Busch, during the introduction.

“Atheism and pop culture have had a significant impact on Theism and it has to be confronted especially because Secularism and the negation of God are becoming pervasive,” began the 57 year-old priest.

“Theism, in fact,  can be better explained by contemporary science and modern philosophy better than ever before,  but particularly interesting is what is happening in the field of astrophysics ... to the point that  I can't imagine why agnosticism and Atheism are still popular,” Fr. Spitzer said. 

“That is why we need contemporary ‘translators’ that are capable of bringing today's science to regular people, and especially, to bring the astrophysical response to atheism,” he added.
 

( Read more... )

 

This is a cool less than 2 minute video. It takes on the philosophical/ Theological concept of evil not being a positive reality but a privation (of good).

"religion is knowledge too"

A facebook friend posted this today.


Padding the Case for the New Atheism

September 23rd, 2009 by Mark Shea  Print This Article ·ShareThis

Recently there has been a flurry of books from the “New Atheists.” Such figures as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens have been holding forth to state . . . well, not anything new.

The reason there is nothing new to say is that there cannot, by the nature of the discussion, be anything new to say. When it came to the question “Does God exist?,” St. Thomas could only think of two reasonable objections in the whole history of human thought.

Objection 1: It seems that God does not exist, because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word “God” means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.

Objection 2: Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God’s existence.

Every reasonable atheistic argument is a restatement of one or both of these basic points.

Objection 1: The Argument from Evil is a rich treasure trove for the New Atheists, providing as it does multiple opportunities to bang on about how Religion Poisons Everything and brandish the usual rap sheet of evils done by theists. And, best of all, should some theist timidly observe that 20th-century atheists shed oceans of blood dwarfing anything ever achieved by theists, the New Atheist can then rail against the uncaring and immoral God who lets innocents suffer and die. It’s win/win! If you are as quick-witted as Hitchens, you can even try to reclassify communism and Nazism as “religions.”

This last ploy may not pass the laugh test with most people, but it’s still workable with the Chattering Classes. All the New Atheist need do is hope that his reader won’t inquire too deeply into just how he arrives at certitude about what “good” or “evil” is without smuggling in all sorts of transcendent categories from a supernatural worldview.

For the New Atheist is full of moral prescriptions and proscriptions: We should be teaching children about Darwin. We should not be teaching children religion. We should have greater tolerance for sexual diversity. We should not be subjecting infants to circumcision. We ought to be doing X, we ought not to be doing Y, etc.

The problem is this: Trying to derive a moral universe — any moral universe at all — of Should from a purely materialistic universe of Is turns out to be impossible. The perfectly just outrage of a Hitchens at some crime by a theist turns out — if you grant the New Atheists’ materialism — to be just one more biochemical reaction. And privileging a biochemical reaction merely because it is a lot more complex than, say, combustion is as crude a mystification as bowing down to a rock because it’s really really big.

In the atheistic universe of Is the biochemical reactions going on in the piece of matter called “Adolf Hitler” can have no greater or lesser Oughtness than the biochemical reactions going on in the piece of matter called “Martin Luther King Jr.” They just Are. Attempts to impose meaning or value judgments on these biochemical processes are, in the final materialist analysis, simply one more sample of the human brain’s innate tendency toward pattern-making — which, according to Dawkins, is the source of the God Delusion. As the real modern atheist, Richard Rorty, pointed out, there is no universally valid answer to moral questions such as, “Why not be cruel?” Quoth Rorty:

Anybody who thinks that there are well-grounded theoretical answers to this sort of question . . . is still, in his heart, a theologian or a metaphysician. He believes in an order beyond time and change which both determines the point of human existence and establishes a hierarchy of responsibilities.
 

( Read more... )
 

 

I was hoping this debate would happen. I would look forward to hearing it. This video is from a Dr. Craig fan.

Dr Craig's website. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer

Here is the debate that took place a few months ago between "new atheist" Christopher Hitchens and protestant apologist Dr. William Lane Craig. From what I have heard, Dr. Craig was the clear winner of this debate. This isn't a big surprise, Dr Craig has been debating and defeating atheists for 20+ years. For a guy who is so arrogant as to write a book titled "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" and is well known for his anti Christian rants,  I would expect a better performance from Hitchens. In Hitchens case, it's style over substance.

Edit* I listened to the debate and Dr. Craig was the clear winner. It wasn't even close. 

taken from http://catholicaudio.blogspot.com/

Sunday, September 6, 2009

Craig vs. Hitchens Debate - Existence of God

Here's a much-discussed debate between two of my faves -- William Lane Craig (Protestant apologist) and Christopher Hitchens (self-styled "New Athiest"):
 

*Audio hosting courtesy of long-time acquaintence and fellow debate junkie Phil Porvaznik, with a hat tip to denzkyy!

Protestant Philosopher Dr. Craig briefly points out the problem with logical positivism. I have run into this kind of thinking when dealing with hard core atheists who refuse to accept the truth of anything that cannot be empirically verified. It would behoove them to study David Hume and Immanueal Kant in order to help take this philosophy to it's logical end and see it's limitations. Empirical science alone does not hold all the answers and is only part of the bigger picture. Good science, good Philosophy, good Theology.... all play a role in understanding the whole picture.

This is something I would be interested in listening to. Dr. Craig has been debating atheists for decades, so you can't tell me that Richard Dawkins has never heard of him. C'mon now Richard.

This might be interesting. They really should add Dr. Peter Kreeft and Dr. William Lane Craig to the lineup. Although not Catholic, Dr. Craig is one of the best Christian apologists out there that I know of when it comes to debating the so called "new atheists."  It's not like the new atheists offer much in the way of new arguments but some people get roped into the negativity of the 'culture of doubt' and thus events like this can be beneficial.

I'll keep an eye out for the audio of this event.

Charlotte, N.C., Jun 7, 2009 / 07:20 pm (CNA).- The Envoy Institute of Belmont Abbey College will host a three-day apologetics conference this July to address atheism and the “culture of doubt.”

The conference, titled “Answering Atheism and the Culture of Doubt,” will be held from Friday, July 10 through Sunday, July 12 on the campus of Belmont Abbey College. The campus is about 15 minutes from downtown Charlotte, North Carolina.

Speakers include Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid, chastity speaker Dawn Eden, Catholic evangelist Héctor Antonio Molina, Jr., and Msgr. Stuart W.Swetland, a Catholic convert who is now a professor at Mount St. Mary’s Seminary.

Prof. Edward Feser, author of “The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism,” will also speak.

Further information is available at http://envoyinstitute.net/events/2009/new_index.as

Those silly silly atheists. They spend so much time trying to prove "problem passages" in the Bible. A little hint...The Catholic Church put the Bible together. We know the passages are there!  With no Theology to apply toward the scriptures, people often try and make any particular passage say what they want it to say and mean what they want it to mean. Sorry folks, it's not that easy. Not even close. If it were that easy, what the heck am I doing at the seminary trying to learn this stuff?!  I still consider myself a beginner (maybe advanced beginner;)  when it comes to interpreting sacred scripture and I can assure you many parts of the Bible are quite complex theologically.  There are more than a few things to consider when interpreting sacred scripture. How about .....How does the Church that put the Bible together and has taught sacred scripture for thousands of years interpret things? Makes sense doesn't it? How about maybe asking a Jewish scripture scholar? Now which interpretation of scripture should I pay attention to, the atheist or the Catholic Church and Jewish scholar? Pretty easy question to answer. The New Testament authors were Catholic. Why not ask the author of the book (Catholic Church) what the book means? Sounds reasonable.

I love studying Sacred Scripture and I am sure there are many folks that don't realize everything that is involved in interpreting correctly the compilation of gospels, psalms and letters we call the Bible.  How about learning Hebrew and Greek?  Well, thankfully the work of translation has already been done for us by The Catholic Church throughout the ages.  It would be wise to learn a bit of Church history and Theology before trying to tackle the concepts contained in scripture. Theology often uses language and concepts that need further developing beyond what appears on the surface level. This can't be emphasized enough. Even very intelligent atheists can sound quite foolish when tackling Theological issues in which they obviously have little understanding of.

You have to understand the words of the Bible in the light of the meaning the authors intended to convey. You can make up your own 21st century version of what the scriptures mean but there is no authority in that. It's really quite foolish to go about things this way. There is a proper way to interpret scripture. To do this you have to understand the historical context that the authors were writing in. You need to understand the Theological themes they were writing about. The audience that the authors were writing to is important. For example, St Paul might quote from the Old Testament when preaching to the Jews and then use philosophical arguments and language when speaking to a pagan audience. If your personal interpretation of scripture is different than the Church that put that scriptures together, you are simply wrong. If your personal interpretation of scripture is different than the Church Fathers and how they understood it, you are simply wrong. The Church Fathers were the first Christians (Catholic) that sat at the feet of the apostles or disciples of the apostles. 

There are several ways in which the Catholic Church interprets Sacred Scripture. It's not merely literal interpretation from Genesis to Revelation. No no no. There is the literal interpretation but there is also allegorical and spiritual. Knowing which method to apply to any particular book, author, or passage of the Bible takes study.  You need to consider the many different literary devices being used by the various authors of scripture. You need to study the different cultures and societal frameworks that existed at the time the scriptures were written. These are just some of the basic principles involved in studying scripture properly.

The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ Himself  The scriptures of the new testament were written by the first Catholics under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Outside of the authority of the Catholic Church, any personal interpretation of Sacred Scripture is mere opinion.  Who wants opinion?  I would rather learn to interpret sacred scripture the way it was intended to be interpreted as taught by the Church who has the historical claim of authority over it.

peace.

So it's random article time.

By NICOLE WINFIELD – 10 hours ago

 

ROME (AP) — A Vatican cardinal said Tuesday that the Catholic Church does not stand in the way of scientific realities like evolution, though he described as "absurd" the atheist notion that evolution proves there is no God.

Cardinal William Levada, head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, reiterated church teaching about faith and science at the start of a Vatican-sponsored conference marking the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species."

Speaking on the sidelines of the conference, Levada said the Vatican believed there was a "wide spectrum of room" for belief in both the scientific basis for evolution and faith in God the creator.

"We believe that however creation has come about and evolved, ultimately God is the creator of all things," he said.

He said that while the Vatican did not exclude any area of science, it did reject as "absurd" the atheist notion of biologist and author Richard Dawkins and others that evolution proves there is no God.

"Of course we think that's absurd and not at all proven," he said. "But other than that ... the Vatican has recognized that it doesn't stand in the way of scientific realities."
 

( Read more... )

The flying spaghetti monster. Is it real?  Tomorrow in the first hour we discuss the origin of the universe and its relationship to the supercomputer. Are we its offspring?   Second and third hours are open lines.



Description:

"Although Dr. Lewis Wolpert did not use the word "flying spaghetti monster", he used "special computer" in  place of it. As a result, Wolpert refuted himself!"


http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=52929779