Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 23 results found
The goal of this essay is to present a comprehensive picture of the Transhumanist movement. We will examine the history of the assumptions and principles behind Transhumanist thought. Then we will analyze it within the standard framework of ideological thought. We will also discuss why it matters and see its growing influence in popular culture, politics, science, and even in big business. Finally, we will propose a balanced Christian response. Definition
If they can, does this refute Christianity? I had an interesting question asked of me last week. It had to do with what philosopher's call the mind/body problem. I answered that question with an illustration and I have gotten a response in the mail to the question that was raised. I want to spend some time responding to this because it really helps us to work through this issue. It helps to make a case, I think, for the existence of the soul, which is very important.
Can science disprove the existence of the soul? Here Greg deals with advances in computer science and neurology, and the limitations of science.
Alan's monthly letter for June 2011 Dear Friend, Atheists like to fancy themselves as rational people. They claim they aren’t encumbered by holy books or divine doctrine. They’re free from the shackles of religious belief so they can follow the evidence where it leads. When a new scientific discovery is made, atheists claim they can welcome it without passion or prejudice. The only problem with this self-assessment is that it’s not entirely true.
Greg shows that Darwinism is driven by philosophy more than science. I'm mystified by the opening sentence of an article in Friday's Union Tribune (October 25, 1996). It says, "In his most comprehensive statement yet on evolution, Pope John Paul II insisted that faith and science can co-exist."
Those who choose to believe in determinism or physicalism don't choose to believe at all - they believe because of prior physical conditions. I want to talk about a concept that I've been rolling around in my mind. In fact, I've talked to you about it before, but it has come to the front of my mind because I've started to take classes again in my master's program over at Talbot under J.P. Moreland. It's a class on metaphysics dealing with naturalism.
Philosophy and math must come before you can do any science. Science depends on the tools of other disciplines.
“It is not necessary to invoke God to…set the Universe going,” concludes Stephen Hawking in his latest book, The Grand Design. Denying God is old hat, but this comes from a world-class theoretical physicist. That’s why Christians are unnerved by his bold claim. A statement from a scientist of his caliber commands attention. But it turns out there is no reason for concern. Everything Hawking has written in his book can be dismissed as irrational. Everything. Let me tell you why.
Alan's monthly letter for August 2010 Dear Friend,
Greg shows that Darwin's General Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with science. I'm mystified by the opening sentence of an article in Friday's Union Tribune (October 25, 1996). It says, "In his most comprehensive statement yet on evolution, Pope John Paul II insisted that faith and science can co-exist."