Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 103 results found
It takes some imagination to grasp how radically different ancient worldviews were from our Western perspective. Much of what we now take for granted as being common sense was not actually common throughout human history.
Well, this is the most literal playing out of Romans 1:18-21* I’ve ever seen. From David Klinghoffer:
Cosmos (a new version of Carl Sagan’s series) has begun, bringing with it discussions across the Internet about Giordano Bruno, who is often wrongly hailed as a martyr of science.* From Jay Richards:
Bill Pratt responds to atheists who claim that the sub-optimal design of biological organisms argues against the existence of the Christian God:
Stephen Meyer’s response to the charge that Darwin’s Doubt makes only a negative “God-of-the-gaps” argument (i.e., “We can’t explain it, therefore God did it”) is helpful in concisely explaining why this isn’t the case:
Though philosopher Bradley Monton does not believe God exists, in a book titled Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design, he opens with this: This book is not providing a full-fledged endorsement of intelligent design. But intelligent design needs to be taken more seriously than a lot of its opponents are willing to.
Lawrence Krauss will be challenging you this week via a quote from his "Has Science Buried God?" debate with William Lane Craig in Australia: There’s a lot we don’t know about the universe—a lot more we don’t know than we do. That’s the wonder of science; that’s why I’m a scientist. But it is intellectually lazy to just stop asking questions and stop looking for physical explanations and just say, “God did it.” That’s lazy.
In an article titled “The Heretic,” Andrew Ferguson tells the story of how and why atheist Thomas Nagel’s book Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False upset materialists who believe that most of what we experience in life is an illusion. Colors, sounds, our sense of self, free will, morals—all illusions. We’re just “molecules in motion,” “nothing but a pack of neurons.”
This week's challenge is a graphic (click on it to get a closer view). Your friend posts this on your Facebook page...what do you say? How can you turn this into a good conversation? What points is this graphic intended to make? How would you counter those points? Leave your ideas in the comments below, and then check back on Thursday to see Alan's response. [View Alan's video response.]
The New Republic has published an excellent review of atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel’s book, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False, by Alvin Plantinga. Here are excerpts from the review listing the four areas where Nagel objects to materialist naturalism as being reasonable: