Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 28 results found
I read Martin Short’s autobiography this weekend. I’ve had the impression that Short is one of those celebrities who seems like a regular guy; he’s led a pretty normal life despite his celebrity. A family man, married for 30 years. I enjoyed reading the book.
As I listen to many of the subjects in debate today in our culture - the dialog between secularists and Christians - there's a fundamental difference in perspectives that I think we need to be aware of if we're going to try to be persuasive. Faith and religion have been relegated to the realm of wishful thinking and personal preference. For many we're talking with and in the public discourse, it has nothing to do with reality. Religion is a personal taste, like ice cream, so it's bizarre to them that we're trying to get them to like the same flavor we like.
James Sire describes naturalists as monistic materialists who deny the existence of immaterial entities and their ability to act in this world. Though naturalism can be characterized in broader term, which I will address briefly later in this paper, Sire's characterization is really of materialism. Ontological or metaphysical naturalism is defined in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy as the view that everything is composed of natural entities constructed of properties as the sciences allow.
Hume offered this challenge in "Of Miracles" in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.
Scott Smith, from Biola, has written an important book you may never read, but the ideas are very important in understanding the debate over reason between atheists and theists.  There's a fatal flaw in atheism's worldview that undercuts their claim to know reality.
A caller to the radio program asked Greg whether belief is mere fantasy, wishful thinking, or actually knowledge.  Here's Greg's answer: What Is Belief?
I mentioned the other day that Stephen Hawking's pronouncement in his upcoming book that God didn't create the universe - that it was the inevitable result of the laws of physics - was an example of a brilliant man saying a dumb thing.  The reason smart people can say foolish things is because their presuppositions blind them.  And in Hawking's case, his commitment to materialism blinds him to alternative explanations.
Do extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence?Hume offered this challenge in "Of Miracles" in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.
I attended a discussion last night between David Berlinski and James Underdown about Darwinism sponsored by the American Freedom Alliance.  (There are more events scheduled.)  I tweeted the highlights during the event, but I have a few overall thoughts the I concluded after thinking over what I heard last night - and previous similar engagements.
An increasingly more common stance toward the Christian claims is skepticism.  I've heard and read this kind of position more and more.  The position seems to presume that belief requires a burden of proof that hasn't yet been met.  Sometimes the kind of evidence asked for - or the amount of evidence requested - is unreasonable and the wrong kind of standard.  Some skeptics seem to take their posture as not requiring justification itself, but that's not so.  At some point, in the face of evidence, skepticism itself needs to be justified.  Skep