Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 118 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.
"Is God subject to human knowledge?" is the way the question usually goes. It's actually backwards. "Is man subject to God's logic?"  Yes.  Logic is an objective, necessary feature of the universe, of minds. It's not a contingent fact of this created world.  It's the way human minds function because we're created in God's image and it's the way His mind functions.  So God isn't subject to human logic. Humans are subject to God's logic.
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.
I've been watching a new TV show, Perception, on TNT.  It's the latest variation of one of my all-time favorties, Monk, where the main character's disability gives him a unique edge in solving crime.  The character Dr. Daniel Pierce is an accomplished professor of neuroscience who struggles with schizophrenia himself.  And he makes a mistake that expresses a logical fallacy common in science today.
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?
Sam Harris is attempting to offer a "scientific" explanation for morality. He's responding to the grounding challenge for naturalism - where do moral values fit in a purely material, physical world? This is a significant challenge for naturalism and atheism since morality is something human beings universally know is real. So any worldview has to be able to account for it or else it's a fatal flaw of that worldview. Harris attempts to explain how science can account for moral values.
Richard Dawkins says no.  “We don’t need to get morals from our religions … We don’t want to find morals from the holy books. We can have our own enlightened secular values.”
Did you notice the cover of the current Newsweek magazine for the article "Can You Build a Better Brain?"  The cover reads:  Grow Your Mind: The Truth about How to Boost Your Brain's Performance.  Equating the mind and brain - assuming the immaterial is only operations of the physical. Greg wrote about this tendancy for equivocation here.
One of the smartest men I know of, Robert P. George from Princeton University, with Sherif Girgis and Ryan T. Anderson have written an argument for the traditional definition of marriage.  You can download the PDF and digest it.  The summary reads: