Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Atheism’

Christianity’s Uniqueness

September 22, 2014 1 comment

In reply to the critics who claim Christianity was just a copy-cat religion among the ancient religions, it’s helpful to take a look at how an ancient adherent of these pagan religions viewed Christianity. The inherent uniqueness of Christianity was a scandal to many. Not only would Jesus’ followers not worship other gods, they rejected the layers of intermediary deities. Christianity taught that we could approach God directly in Jesus Christ. This was utterly unique in the ancient pantheon of gods.

This passage from David Bentley Hart’s book Atheist Delusions, recounts such reaction and makes an interesting parallel to one of the most common contemporary objections.

“In such a world [the polytheism and syncretism of ancient Rome], the gospel was an outrage, and it was perfectly reasonable for its cultured despisers to describe its apostles as “atheists.” Christians were – what could be more obvious? – enemies of society, impious, subversive, and irrational; and it was no more than civic prudence to detest them for refusing to honor the gods of their ancestors, for scorning the common good, and for advancing the grotesque and shameful claim that all the gods and spirits had been made subject to a crucified criminal from Galilee – -“

 

Read the entire article here.

Advertisements

Science of Uncertainty

September 22, 2014 3 comments

by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell on September 8, 2014
“Science Is Not About Certainty” a noted theoretical physicist writes. For many people that might be a startling claim.

Dr. Carlo Rovelli—one of the originators of “loop quantum gravity theory”—recently published an article discussing the nature of science. The piece, called “Science Is Not About Certainty,” makes some points that biblical creationists have been pointing out for a long time.

Physicist Rovelli is an evolutionist and does not in the piece explore his personal religious beliefs (though he does disparage religious claims regarding certainty and truth), but he makes some refreshingly honest points about science. For one thing, Rovelli makes clear that the essence of science is gathering data and interpreting that data in ways that are often insufficient, limited, and changeable:

“We have observations, we have data, data require organizing into theories. So then we have theories. These theories are suggested or produced from the data somehow, then checked in terms of the data. Then time passes, we have more data, theories evolve, we throw away a theory, and we find another theory that’s better, a better understanding of the data, and so on and so forth.”

The data scientists observe must be interpreted, and Rovelli makes clear that a scientist’s philosophy will affect the interpretation. “Since theories change, the empirical content is the solid part of what science is,” he says. After bombastic statements by so many evolutionists—such as Bill Nye in the Nye-Ham Debate or representatives of the National Center for Science Education, who declare that students should never be taught that “theories” like molecules-to-man evolution and the big bang are at all controversial—the admission that scientific interpretations of data are fallible, changeable, and influenced by philosophical understanding is refreshing.

“The deepest misunderstanding about science,” Dr. Rovelli writes, “is the idea that science is about certainty. Science is not about certainty. Science is about finding the most reliable way of thinking at the present level of knowledge. Science is extremely reliable; it’s not certain.” He then makes a statement that runs contrary to the declarations of many evolutionary drumbeaters and media pundits:

“The very expression “scientifically proven” is a contradiction in terms. There’s nothing that is scientifically proven. The core of science is the deep awareness that we have wrong ideas, we have prejudices. We have ingrained prejudices.”

Dr. Rovelli indicates that a scientist’s preconceived notions—prejudices about the nature of reality—typically not only influence but even limit his interpretation of data, even causing him to overlook important scientific truths, including undiscovered major scientific principles.

 

Read the entire article here.

Kant’s Moral Argument – Defending Your Faith Part 23

September 15, 2014 1 comment

God Of The Bible Vs God Of Philosophy – Defending Your Faith Part 22

September 8, 2014 1 comment

Necessary Being – Defending Your Faith Part 21

September 1, 2014 1 comment

Self Existence – Defending Your Faith Part 20

Self-Creation (Part 2) – Defending Your Faith Part 19

August 18, 2014 1 comment