Posts Tagged by Faith
|September 12, 2011||Posted by Anthony under Antony Flew, apologetics, atheism, Blog, General, Secular Humanism|
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…
|July 13, 2011||Posted by Anthony under apologetics, atheism, Blog, evolution, General, Holocaust, human rights, Jesus, Love, Malthusians, morality, philosophy, Secular Humanism, theism|
|March 27, 2011||Posted by Anthony under apologetics, atheism, Blog, Creationism, evolution, politics, science, scientism, Secular Humanism|
if one applies a higher standard of inquiry against claims that they might deem extraordinary, then claims they find to be ordinary will ordinarily be accepted- without demonstration at all. Here again we see skepticism turned on its head: the skeptic is not skeptical about the things he is prepared already to believe. It is only the things he deems unlikely that he is skeptical about- God alone knows how the skeptic determined something was ‘unlikely.’
It is a fact of human nature, I think, to quickly accept things that one is already prepared to accept. If I am told tomorrow that some Democrat in high office has failed to pay his taxes- again- I will pretty much accept it as a fact because I have become accustomed to Democrats doing such things (eg here, here, here, and here). We should expect nothing less from the people who believe that we should all pay higher taxes; by ‘we all’ it is known they mean us all. I am prepared to believe it as a pretty ordinary claim in the realm of things and therefore will demand very little evidence to support it. So you see, I am not exempting myself from this human tendency.
|March 25, 2011||Posted by Anthony under Blog, intelligent design, Knights of Contention, literary apologetics, philosophy|
At the last ‘Knights of Contention’ discussion this last Tuesday we began by talking about faith, evidence, atheism, and Christianity, of course and ended up talking about Rob Bell and hell. Naturally. Here is a link for viewing that discussion. It was about 2 1/2 hours long. There will not be a discussion the second…
|March 18, 2011||Posted by Anthony under apologetics, Blog, Creationism, evolution, General, intelligent design, scientism, Secular Humanism|
This ministry hosts a regular online round table discussing matters of substance and controversy. Christians and NonChristians are invited but it is not necessarily an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ debate. Past topics have included matters of controversy only amongst Christians and due to the flexibility of the discussion, topics can change on a dime. UPDATE: With…
|March 1, 2011||Posted by Anthony under apologetics, atheism, evolution, intelligent design, Knights of Contention, philosophy, science, scientism, theology|
This ministry hosts a regular online round table discussing matters of substance and controversy. Christians and NonChristians are invited but it is not necessarily an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ debate. Past topics have included matters of controversy only amongst Christians and due to the flexibility of the discussion, topics can change on a dime. The next…
|March 1, 2011||Posted by Anthony under apologetics, atheism, Blog, Christianity and Culture, General, Jesus, literary apologetics, scientism, Secular Humanism|
Over the last three hundred years unbounded skepticism has been applied to religion and Christianity especially. Atheist philosopher David Hume was one of the prominent voices calling for stringent criteria in evaluating miracle claims, and the like. Not everyone thought very highly of this criteria. One such person was the Reverend Richard Whately, who skewers Hume’s reasoning by showing how if it were applied consistently, one could not be reasonably certain that Napoleon existed- a public figure that was said to be alive and roaming Europe even as he spoke!
This playful little book is not a treatise by any means, but it provides a glimpse into the conversations of the 1800s and challenges the ‘enlightened’ skeptics to decide: If they won’t apply their principles thoroughly and consistently, but choose only to apply them to certain claims (and how did they choose which ones?), are those principles worth their salt?