It is has never been more important to carefully examine what one believes and why they believe it. If you do not carry out this work, you may end up being nothing more than a useful idiot of the worst sort: directly bringing about the goals and ends of those you specifically repudiate as wicked and evil… condemning the communists, nazis, and eugenicists, while carrying out their work.
if anyone is actually concerned about the plight of the poor and oppressed and the abuses by corporations, banks, and politicians- no doubt inspired by genuine concerns arising within a decent heart- I would challenge them to rely on more than their hearts and emotions, which can and do deceive and will co-opt the mind if it needs to. We must use our brains. We have to be thinking people. And we must be thinking people within the proper boundaries and context for thinking, that is… our thoughts must actually conform to reality the way it is.
All else may very well simply be self-deception.
Just as Aristotle argued that an actual infinite regress of cause and effect was just plumb impossible, necessitating a causeless cause, so too is a never-ending chain of moral ‘causation.’ In order for the term ‘moral’ to have any meaning at all- and even the amoral atheists behave as though it does- we must come to a point where we must allow that there is an entity which makes moral pronouncements because those pronouncements are good in themselves AND the grounding of the goodness of those pronouncements resides entirely within that entity. That entity, we call ‘God.’
In a recent post, I talked about Richard Dawkins’ discussion in his Delusion about why children gravitate towards fantasy and myth, etc, and alluded to GK Chesterton’s arguments about the ‘thought that ends all thought.’ This sentiment emerges in Chesterton’s book Orthodoxy in a chapter appropriately called The Suicide of Thought. The previous post was …
The ministry hosting this website (sntjohnny.com) also puts on an online apologetics academy. The fall session is coming up. Dr. Gary Habermas will be guest lecturing on the historical Jesus and the evidence for the Resurrection. It is possible to attend these lectures without being enrolled in the academy. Those enrolled in the academy, regardless …
Posted to The ChristianPost.com Religious leaders are well aware of the vulnerability of the child brain, and the importance of getting the indoctrination in early. The Jesuit boast, ‘Give me the child for his first seven years, and I’ll give you the man,’ is no less accurate (or sinister) for being hackneyed. The above quote …
A Defense of the Integrity of Antony Flew’s “There is a God” From His Own Letters
Several years ago, word came out that Antony Flew had rejected his atheism. What he accepted was in doubt and in dispute. In a conversation with Dr. Gary Habermas, I was informed that Flew was very disappointed with the introduction to “God and Philosophy” which was to have addressed his views. Concerned that Flew might die before he had a chance to set the record straight, I asked for and received Flew’s mailing address. I contacted him, urging him to settle things. To my surprise, he replied…
‘New’ arguments would actually serve to put into doubt humanity’s epistemological foundations. Better- it isn’t a question of ‘new’ evidences or ‘new’ arguments, but a new perspective on what weight we give old evidences and arguments. I think that is a mark of sanity and maturity; I for one would view any ‘new evidence’ or ‘original argument’ or ‘innovative idea’ with great suspicion, especially if it implies we were all off our rockers before it was offered.
I don’t hate atheists. I don’t like arguing for the sake of arguing and don’t have a ‘thing’ about winning a debate. I discourse with atheists because I love them, and because I believe that I am right in my belief that God is going to call this world to account and if we do …
The media knows that they have a significant role in shaping public opinion. They know that if they don’t report the ‘minority’ position you, my dear reader, will likely never hear it. If you are lucky enough to ever hear it, they can count on you to dismiss it without further thought, “If it was a valid viewpoint it would be in the papers” “This flies in the face of the scientific consensus, you idiot! They said RIGHT ON THE BBC that this is the SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS!” or “Why would the governments of the world be pushing this way if it weren’t true?”
But this article allows one to pull back the curtain, just a shade, to see the truth. They are manipulating you. You are being manipulated. You are a regular reader of the news and keep abreast of current affairs by watching the nightly news. You think you are informed. You aren’t. You are a gullible dolt being led by the nose by the powers that be to believe just whatever it is they want you to believe right now. At least, that is what the media thinks, and this article implies. And why would they think that way if it weren’t true?
When a Christian apologist invokes ‘revelation’ it is often understood by atheists and skeptics to refer to the “writings of the flawed goat herders of a bygone era that have been shown by modern science to be outdated, outmoded, and absolutely in error. Certainly not the stuff we can think of as ‘divine revelation.’” This …