Dear all,
We're going to have our second meeting this Saturday at my place, aka, "The Green Rhino". I'll be sending individual email reminders around. Also, please spread the word by word of mouth. We'll meet at noon.
I'm planning to start at the beginning: Genesis 1 and 2. We'll go through these two chapters and discuss how Christians have interpreted them, especially in recent years in light of what we know through the study of General Revelation.
Comments are welcome!
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Can we test it?
I have always argued that we can test whether God exists or not. But can we?
Here's the problem. Some scientists (both atheistic and Christian) contend that using God as an explanation anywhere, under any circumstances, undermines the scientific enterprise. After all, if you allow God as an explanation for natural phenomena, then what's to stop you from invoking God to explain a chemical reaction? Or when studying a topic such as cell division?
Another related argument is often called the "God of the gaps" fallacy. This term refers to saying, "It was an act of God," as a causal explanation for something we don't understand. In other words, if there is a gap in our understanding, then we just say, "God did it." The problem is, further investigation may provide a perfectly naturalistic explanation. In ancient times, people would invoke God as an explanation for all sorts of phenomena that we now understand to be completely explainable by the forces of nature. That is, people used to be superstitious. In this line of thinking, then creationism is also tantamount to superstition.
So I ask the question: can we ever plausibly lift up God as an explanation for phenomena without sacrificing our academic or scientific integrity? I'll put it another way: is God ever an appropriate and convincing cause of something?
Perhaps more to come. AND...
Comments are welcome!
Here's the problem. Some scientists (both atheistic and Christian) contend that using God as an explanation anywhere, under any circumstances, undermines the scientific enterprise. After all, if you allow God as an explanation for natural phenomena, then what's to stop you from invoking God to explain a chemical reaction? Or when studying a topic such as cell division?
Another related argument is often called the "God of the gaps" fallacy. This term refers to saying, "It was an act of God," as a causal explanation for something we don't understand. In other words, if there is a gap in our understanding, then we just say, "God did it." The problem is, further investigation may provide a perfectly naturalistic explanation. In ancient times, people would invoke God as an explanation for all sorts of phenomena that we now understand to be completely explainable by the forces of nature. That is, people used to be superstitious. In this line of thinking, then creationism is also tantamount to superstition.
So I ask the question: can we ever plausibly lift up God as an explanation for phenomena without sacrificing our academic or scientific integrity? I'll put it another way: is God ever an appropriate and convincing cause of something?
Perhaps more to come. AND...
Comments are welcome!
Thursday, June 4, 2009
"Thank God for Evolution"!
The Skeptics Society, which has, in the past, been quite hostile towards Christianity, is hosting a lecture by Reverend Michael Dowd regarding his recent book, "Thank God for Evolution: How the Marriage of Science and Religion Will Transform Your Life and Our World" at 2pm this Sunday, June 7th. The lecture will be in Baxter Hall on Caltech campus (Ramo auditorium in building #77).
I am quite interested in hearing what Rev Dowd has to say about his book. Unfortunately, I won't be in town this weekend, so I encourage anyone who is interested to attend. I'd love to hear any comments about the lecture, so...
Comments are welcome!
I am quite interested in hearing what Rev Dowd has to say about his book. Unfortunately, I won't be in town this weekend, so I encourage anyone who is interested to attend. I'd love to hear any comments about the lecture, so...
Comments are welcome!
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
A high purpose
The "anthropic principle". It is an accepted idea in the scientific community. It basically says that, based on our studies of the natural world (mostly physics and astronomy), it sure seems like the universe was designed for the benefit of our existence.
The evidence for design is so powerful, it has caused even atheistic scientists to make remarks such as, "The universe in some sense knew we were coming (Freeman Dyson, physicist)."
If such design is so evident to those who study the universe, what does that mean for us? I think it means that God clearly had some very high purpose for our existence.
Atheists will commonly say things like, "How can you think that the universe was designed for us? We are so small and insignificant. There's so much more out there in the universe." Some would even go so far as to say this idea is the height of arrogance. But is it?
Think about it. One of the discoveries that gave rise to the anthropic principle is that all of the rest of the universe had to be there, in just the right way, for just the right amount of time (yes, even the age of the universe is important), in order for us to exist here on earth. So clearly, we are not cosmically insignificant. In fact, the opposite is true. The universe was designed for us to be here.
In other words, God has a purpose for us.
Comments are welcome!
The evidence for design is so powerful, it has caused even atheistic scientists to make remarks such as, "The universe in some sense knew we were coming (Freeman Dyson, physicist)."
If such design is so evident to those who study the universe, what does that mean for us? I think it means that God clearly had some very high purpose for our existence.
Atheists will commonly say things like, "How can you think that the universe was designed for us? We are so small and insignificant. There's so much more out there in the universe." Some would even go so far as to say this idea is the height of arrogance. But is it?
Think about it. One of the discoveries that gave rise to the anthropic principle is that all of the rest of the universe had to be there, in just the right way, for just the right amount of time (yes, even the age of the universe is important), in order for us to exist here on earth. So clearly, we are not cosmically insignificant. In fact, the opposite is true. The universe was designed for us to be here.
In other words, God has a purpose for us.
Comments are welcome!
Thursday, May 21, 2009
World TV premiere of Dual Revelation
Just found out that Dual Revelation is also going to show on TBN at 11pm on Thursday, May 21:
http://www.tbn.org/index.php/2/28.html?date=20090521
And also at 12:30am on Sunday, June 14. Just in case anyone who missed it wants to see it.
(Although everyone who I've invited to read this blog at this point has already seen it...)
http://www.tbn.org/index.php/2/28.html?date=20090521
And also at 12:30am on Sunday, June 14. Just in case anyone who missed it wants to see it.
(Although everyone who I've invited to read this blog at this point has already seen it...)
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Our first meeting
Well, we had our first meeting last Saturday at my house. We had about nine people show up, and we introduced ourselves, hung out for a bit and then watched "Dual Revelation", the RTB docudrama:
http://www.dualrevelation.com/
Being our first meeting, I was just feeling out the interest level and how people wanted to participate in this group. I think we generated some good discussion in a short period of time.
We decided to meet again on Saturday, June 13th at noon, my place again.
Comments are welcome!
http://www.dualrevelation.com/
Being our first meeting, I was just feeling out the interest level and how people wanted to participate in this group. I think we generated some good discussion in a short period of time.
We decided to meet again on Saturday, June 13th at noon, my place again.
Comments are welcome!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)