Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 58 results found
Our Google Hangout is tonight, 6:30–7:30 pm (PT). The topic is "God and Morality," and the easiest way to watch and directly ask questions is to join the Hangout, but we'll also be streaming it here and on YouTube.
I was recently interviewed by Jennifer, a lady from Scotland, who is writing a dissertation for her Ph.D. in religious studies. The question she is attempting to answer is, "Does rejecting God mean rejecting morality?" So she sent me a list of questions on that topic, this being the first: Do you personally believe that you can be morally good without a god? This is my answer:
Nothing is more central to the defense of Mormon scripture, Mormon doctrine, and the existence of the Mormon Church than a personal testimony. Also referred to as a “burning in the bosom” or “spiritual witness,” the Mormon testimony amounts to positive spiritual feelings about the LDS religion. At the end of the day, this personal, private, subjective experience is crucial to Mormon confidence, so you must be prepared to deal with it. In this talk, I lay down some important groundwork for understanding knowledge and then apply these insights to Mormonism.
Brett explains why our obligation to follow a moral code can only exist with God. COMMENTS Read more posts
Here's my response to this week's challenge: COMMENTS Read more posts
I want to sketch out Thomas Aquinas’ theory of natural law by distinguishing between the four kinds of law he outlines in the Summa Theologiae and then discussing his conception of the Good. Afterward, we’ll ask if Aquinas’ view is compatible with a biblical view.
Given what I’ve written in the previous posts (PART 1, PART 2, PART 3 and PART 4), I think the best model of interaction betw
In these last two posts, we will move toward the convergence of science and theology in providing knowledge of reality. However, before we discuss the proper relationship between science and theology, we must recognize an obstacle: definitions. When we talk about science and theology, we must know what we mean by each. This is no easy task.
In my first two posts of this series (PART 1 and PART 2), I laid a foundation with an epistemological account of the nature of explanations. Given that account, let us move to a more specific question: What constitutes a scientific explanation?
Yesterday, I began a series of posts aimed at demonstrating how science and religion converge to explain reality. I began by exploring the nature of explanations. Today, I will continue that exploration and then lay out the benefits of my account.