I recently managed to get a Panasonic Lumiz TZ7 camera -which has HD movie capability.So as a stroke of genius or madness I present to the world my 2 year old Labradore Sam, all 40kg’s of Him, using the TZ7 -(it is slightly over exposed something I have now remedied)
The late theologian Francis Schaeffer talks about the Trinity amongst other things as a means of overcoming the problem of particulars verses universals.
He defines the problem as:
‘In the area of knowledge you have particulars , by which we mean the individual “things” that we see in the world.
At any given moment, I am faced with thousands, indeed, literally millions of particulars, just in what I see with the glance of the eyes. What are the universals which give these particulars meaning? This is the heart of the problem of epistemology and the problem of knowing’
With the Trinity we have a model for universals and particulars in that there is both personal unity and personal diversity within the relationship of the Father,son and holy spirit.
This communication between the three persons of the Trinity, is the model for family, the model for marriage, the model for mans need to be part of a community, the model for communication –as Schaeffer say ‘The reason we know anything is that he is not silent’.
The Trinity also answers the problem of consciousness as expressed by Ayn Rand :
‘If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something.’
Prior to the creation event God was totally alone with nothing else existing then he could not be conscious of anything except himself.
The answer to this problem is that prior to anything existing apart from God -God was in relationship with the members of the trinity-The Father is not the same person as the Son; the Son is not the same person as the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is not the same person as Father.The Trinity has particulars and universals they are three distinct persons; yet, they are all the one God.
Forget global warming, the recession, the Taliban,over population,rising crime,
Run screamming into the streets!
Protect your children… I’m coming to get them …here I come …who’s that knocking at the door ?…those heavy footsteps upon the stair are they the boots of the evolutionist deniers ?…apparently yes according to Richard Dawkins latest article in the Times!
Isn’t it great that this debate can be painted by Dawkins in such broad simplistic strokes; there are the good guys (the evolutionists of course ) there are the bad guys ( the creationists) …thats it!
To foster that simplistic approach nowhere in the article is the theory of evolution or the term creationists defined, perhapse the choir know the words to this song already ?
Nowhere in this article is a single scientific fact regarding evolution expounded upon, thats ok though as this isn’t a scientific article.
What there is plenty of from Dawkins is the use of the argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundium) should I take note of senior clergy -sadly with the state of the authorised version of the church I think not.
The arugment from authority like his other favoured method of attack, the ad hominem argument against the character of his oponents; apart from providing an echo chamber for the Dawkins faithfull proves exactly nothing and contains no scientific arguments.
Equating evolution with historical facts such as the holocaust elevates evolution from a theory to a fact that cannot be challenged unless your one of those nasty Islamic fundies or one of the uninformed Christian laiety on a par with holocaust deniers- who should be pitied,patted on the head and told to go away.
Equating those who question a purely naturalistic approach to evolution with holocaust deniers -history deniers will do wonders for encourgaing scientific discourse… thats the way to create healthy debate !Way to go Richard!Science is served -I think not!
Richard continues his name calling :
‘Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust. It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips . . . continue the list as long as desired. That didn’t have to be true. It is not self-evidently, tautologically, obviously true, and there was a time when most people, even educated people, thought it wasn’t. It didn’t have to be true, but it is. We know this because a rising flood of evidence supports it. Evolution is a fact, and [my] book will demonstrate it. No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it. ‘
Intelligent design theory is very catholic in that it encompasses both those who believe in a metaphysical reality and those who don’t.
The theory is defined as :
‘The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.’
Intelligent design proponents, which, despite Dawkins efforts still exist (that is a fact in the same sense as it is a fact that Paris is in the northern hemisphere) allow for evolution but not for a completely closed universe where all the complexity and funconatlity we see in nature was caused by unguided accidents.
As a broad church, Id proponents some of which have no issue with common descent for instance -all agree however that the complexity and functionality found in the cell are beyond the power of multiple accidents to produce.
What remains to be proven is that the breathtaking complexity that the cell for instance is unfolding before us -was caused by purely naturalistic process.
Still we can stifle that discussion by name calling and demonising.Here I come Muhahahaaaa!!!
There are some fundamental ideas that point away from a exclusively materialistic closed universe, towards a universe existing as a result of intent.Current evidence based thinking supports the idea of the universe existing from the moment of a singularity;described by Hoyle mockingly as the ‘Big Bang’.Either the universe had a initial agency cause or it has existed eternally there are no other options available as far as I can see.An eternal universe has several problems -one that is new to me is the idea of heat death as expounded by William Lane Craig – :
‘According to the second law of thermodynamics, processes taking place in a closed system always tend toward a state of equilibrium. Now our interest is in what implications this has when the law is applied to the universe as a whole. For the universe is a gigantic closed system, since it is everything there is and no energy is being fed into it from without. The second law seems to imply that, given enough time, the universe will reach a state of thermodynamic equilibrium, known as the “heat death” of the universe. This death may be hot or cold, depending on whether the universe will expand forever or eventually re-contract. On the one hand, if the density of the universe is great enough to overcome the force of the expansion, then the universe will re-contract into a hot fireball. As the universe contracts, the stars burn more rapidly until they finally explode or evaporate. As the universe grows denser, the black holes begin to gobble up everything around them and begin themselves to coalesce until all the black holes finally coalesce into one gigantic black hole which is coextensive with the universe, from which it will never re-emerge. On the other hand, if the density of the universe is insufficient to halt the expansion, as seems more likely, then the galaxies will turn all their gas into stars and the stars will burn out. At 10[30 ]years the universe will consist of 90% dead stars, 9% supermassive black holes, and l% atomic matter. Elementary particle physics suggests that thereafter protons will decay into electrons and positrons, so that space will be filled with a rarefied gas so thin that the distance between an electron and a positron will be about the size of the present galaxy. At 10[100] years some scientists believe that the black holes themselves will dissipate into radiation and elementary particles. Eventually all the matter in the dark, cold, ever-expanding universe will be reduced to an ultra-thin gas of elementary particles and radiation. Equilibrium will prevail throughout, and the entire universe will be in its final state, from which no change will occur.
Now the question which needs to be asked is this: if, given sufficient time, the universe will reach heat death, then why is it not now in a state of heat death if it has existed for infinite time? If the universe did not begin to exist, then it should now be in a state of equilibrium.’
The problem with an eternal universe that has always existed is that we have an infinite regress, that is we’d have an infinite series of moments to surpass in order to arrive at this moment. The infinite past would never catch up with the present so that no causality would be effected. That leaves the idea of an agent causing the universe to exist,further to this idea I came upon this idea from a guy on a forum called forhisglory which I like :
1.The universe, and everything in it, is contingent ,that is it does not have to exist (it is not certain to exist-it is not logically necessary)
2.This contingent nature of the universe gives it the potential to not exist or to change its nature .
3.Something that has potentiality is by definition an effect of some cause.
4.Contingent entities cannot cause there own existence .
5.Therefore, there must be pure actuality, that exists as a necessary being, to actualize all that is contingent. We could call that pure actuality God.
As a long time fan of U2 -I narrowly missed seeing them on there October tour heres an excelent interview with Willow Creek Pastor Bill Hybels
John Angus Campbell on the a priori assumptions of Charles Darwin :
What is most revolutionary about Darwin’s Origin is not simply his case for natural selection… or his case for evolution itself. The other, and equally important, revolution going on within his argument for species change is his case for naturalism, which slides insensibly between an innocent methodological precept and a prior metaphysical commitment… The first step in Darwin’s case for metaphysical naturalism… was taken in his flyleaf citations, all of which identified the ordinary mode of divine activity with natural laws. Implicitly and in chapter 2 explicitly, Darwin was laying the foundations for a revolutionary philosophy of science… when Darwin was having a difficult time with an explanation or when he was particularly keen on the reader’s realizing the consequences of a refusal to accept an explanation, he would sometimes draw on the reader’s partial commitment to naturalism to negotiate yet further commitments. At some points Darwin would simply equate naturalistic explanations – evolutionary case histories with the blanks filled in by an ‘it must have been’ story-line – with reality itself.
Leaning on presuppositions when the data isn’t there is natural to us all, we fill in the gaps-this though is not what science is concerned with ; Science wants objective data,wants calculated probability and to narrow the gaps empirically.
Of course there must be a naturalistic explanation to the origin of life; to the increase in information within biological systems across the phyla; to the origin of a code, a system to translate and transcribe that code and keep the fidelity of that code high, The origin of a means of replicating that code and the origin of a system of controlling expression of that code.
Recently on tv I heard some die hard evolutionists defend themselves against the claim that they were arrogant-they said ‘we are arrogant because we are right!’ Being right for them means an exclusively closed universe -with no possibility of a supernatural agent.
They presume there metanarative is correct because for them its the only game in town -nothing else is there,the same unproven presumption Campbell says Darwins gradually introduced into his theory.
Here’s a quote from G.K.Chesterton:
So far as a man may be proud of a religion rooted in
humility, I am very proud of my religion; I am especially proud of those parts of it that are most commonly called superstition.I am proud of being fettered by antiquated
dogmas and enslaved by dead creeds (as my journalistic
friends repeat with so much pertinacity), for I know very well that it is the heretical creeds that are dead, and that it is only the reasonable dogma that lives long enough to be called antiquated.
G. K. Chesterton, from The Autobiography of
G. K. Chesterton (1936)
In an age where Jesus is repeatedly reinvented and the gospel is presented in the media with, in some cases , breath taking bias ,witness the recent Channel4 program by Howard Jacobson called: ‘ Christianity: A History’.
According to this program Christians are antisemitic as the New testament is full of anti-Jewish rhetoric, encouraging hatred and antisemitic attitudes.I didn’t recognise anything in the program that in any way accurately represented Christianity as I have known it .
I found this program amazing and perplexing , I’ ve been a Christian for over 25 years and have never come across antisemitic attitudes amongst Christians in the UK,or anywhere else I have been.
In fact the situation from my point of view is the exact opposite, for instance on my bookshelf is a book by Edith Schaeffer called ‘Christianity is Jewish’ which expounds on the Jewish roots of Christianity.
Also I have several journals regarding the Jewishness of Christianity some authored by, most notably, Dr David H Stern who produced the the Complete Jewish Bible as well as the excellent book ‘Restoring the Jewishness of the Gospel: A message for Christians ( Stern is part of the Messianic Jewish movement in Israel ).
From the the Times article regarding Jacobsons Program:
‘ “That’s a wonderful way of putting it,” said Dr Karen Maitland, of the Jewish Community of Lincoln, when told by her interviewer (Jacobson) that Christianity’s relationship with Judaism was Oedipal: a younger religion in terror of a cruel parent religion.’
This Oedipal religion is not the Christianity I have known.In fact a Pastor in my old church and good friend is a Jew.
There’s no denying the historic use of the Gospel as a justification ,however tenuous, to antisemtic behaviour on the part of some, but this is not part of good news Christ brought.
Biblical Christians realise as Paul said that they have been grafted into Israel; Romans 11 :
‘I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew.’
Howard why didnt you quote this in scripture in your program ?
From Viktor Frankl by way of Richard Weikarts discovery institute paper:
“If we present a man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present man as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind-machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instinct, heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone. I became acquainted, with the last stage of that corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment–or, as the Nazi liked to say, of ‘Blood and Soil.’ I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.”
Can Viktor rest easy now these nihilistic ideas are banished or does a million copy best seller like Dawkins God delusion spell out within the west at least, an increasing tendency to accept the naturalistic narrative along with its corresponding low view of humanity ?
I recently watched Richard Dawkins on a Sunday morning BBC program expounding the awesome wonder of the world science has uncovered and how meaningful a life without pretensions to an existing Deity can be.
This is not an unfamiliar comment from an atheist-but I cannot get my little head around it no matter how many words are spilt , there remains to me a few questions that have yet to be answered:
1.Why do atheists evangelise ?
If the chief final end of man is to spend countless eons in a cold,empty, ever expanding ’nobody at home’ universe -what does it matter what a person believes, as long as they are happy for the few short years that they are alive -who cares about whats right, whats wrong, whats true whats false ? In the final analysis how will atheists promoting atheism change the end result of man one iota ?
If what we do has no effect on the fianl outcome -why does really matter what we do in the now ?
Why should atheist care ? Why should we be seeing the rise of nu-atheism, a more virulent aggressive form of the old atheism, which has spawned a whole section on its own in my local bookshop! Its a great money spinner -but is that the only motive for spreading the word, the ‘good’ news of Gods death ?
2.What has a sense of wonder to do with anything ?
Dawkins said:
‘I have a very positive, I’d almost say poetic, vision of the universe from a scientific point of view. I feel people are missing something if they content themselves with what I think of as an outdated, medieval view of the world, when they could be latching on to something much more exciting.’
I’d like to know whats scientific about a poetic view of the universe,sounds subjective to me and not the stuff of science at all ? What does it matter if you have feelings of a poetic nature -there just neurons and neural networks firing -so what ? Why should that be valued more highly such that it deserves mention more that the fact that my neck itches (different neurons firing) for example?
All this sense of awe atheists are feeling …so what ? It doesnt change the end result -with nothing that went before having any impact on the final outcome…so be good or be bad it really makes no difference -as it doesn’t impact the final final outcome for you and me of death.
Athesits talk about family and friends adding to the meaning of life-but why?
What does it matter in the end ?It doesnt matter at all.
I read this on a forum recently:
Pascal :
“We run heedlessly into the abyss after putting something in front of us to stop us seeing it.”
Phillipm (whom I couldn’t contact-sorry Philipm) wrote this :
‘Whenever atheists address the claim that without God life is meaningless, I feel like they really stop thinking about it in an objective mindset. The point is about our ultimate meaning, which is a category in everyone’s minds I think. It is not a point about your life from point A to point B, but rather is a thought about humanity’s place in the universe.’
I agree its the ultimate final outcome thats important.Within Christianity there is the notion that what is done now has eternal consequences this has the effect of making every moment charged with import and precious.
What they're sayin: