Posted On Saturday, February 12th, 2011 By admin
Carl Sagan, the popular science writer, wrote about a man that claimed an invisible Dragon lived in his garage. The owner of the house seeks to demonstrate the existence of the Dragon to his neighbour. The Dragon being invisible and otherwise undetectable means that its existence is impossible to demonstrate. Consequently, Sagan suggests that the scepticism is the correct attitude to take in regard to the Dragon’s existence. This story is a reference to theists’ claim that God is invisible and undetectable, suggesting that if the claims made about God were made about anything else, one would naturally be sceptical. How is the Christian to respond to this claim? The most popular way is to demonstrate that God is some sort of First Cause and that the universe requires him. (Creationism being the worst example of this idea). The atheist, justly, in my opinion, replies that to fill the vacuum of our ignorance with the intellectual baggage that come with our, or any other, notion of God is disingenuous. Any attempt to demonstrate God’s existence must be deemed a failure. However, this attempt must not be rejected simply because it is impossible, rather because it is theologically unwarranted. In trying Continue Reading
Posted On Sunday, March 7th, 2010 By admin
Richard Dawkins website was recently in the news a lot with may members of his forum being upset at the change. This little storm in a tea cup is not really a big issue and merely highlights the importance and strength of internet atheism. How to we account for the resurgence of this confident modern atheism. There are, to my view, three main factors. Firstly, the attack on the Twin Towers; secondly, the Evangelical Right in America and its cohabitation with the Republican Party; Thirdly, the explosive growth of the internet. The first two have a common thread in that they refuse to accept the enlightenment split between religion and politics. As a Atheist relative of my wife commented, ‘I keep going back on forth between the belief that religion is mostly harmless and something dangerous.’ Modern Islamic terrorism and Evangelical attack on the ideals of western liberal ethics and politics, prove beyond doubt, to the modern atheist, that religion is not simply a benign tumour or a harmless oddity. Until such events the modern atheist was probably inclined to leave religionists to their own devices. The internet is a non-reactionary cause in the rise of modern atheism. The internet Continue Reading
Posted On Tuesday, February 9th, 2010 By admin
The blog too is a work in progress. But hopefully should be fully operational soon. I’ve nabbed the content from my old blog which should give you something to read.
Posted On Wednesday, December 12th, 2007 By admin
Hi everyone this is the first in my review of books on the atonement. This english in this review is probably a bit choppy but I felt if I didn’t publish it now it wouldn’t get done. So if there is any sentences that particularly grate let us know and I’ll update accordingly. _________ To add to the recent flurry of books defending, or rejecting, the penal substitutionary doctrine of atonement Stephen R. Holmes has added his contribution with The wondrous cross. Having read his other work Listening to the Past, I was very much looking forward to Holmes’ take on PSA. The book is not his usual academic orientated work, rather it is an attempt to reach the wider evangelical world. The core argument of the book is that the Cross is something is such a basic concept that language fails to explain it adequately. Consequently, Holmes argues that different ‘stories of atonement’ are needed to explain what has happened. Thus far, this is not too controversial argument, except for those who believe in a dominant atonement model that all others are merely subsidiaries thereof. This argument sets the stage for his assertion that Penal substitution, while not the Continue Reading
Posted On Sunday, October 28th, 2007 By admin
At lot has happen since I lasted blogged. I now have a full time job and am no longer studying theology ( sad face). In response to this it is my intention to start blogging once a week. For the most part it will be small version of books on the atonement that I have read.
Posted On Tuesday, March 6th, 2007 By admin
I know its a strange topic to post on after ages…… I went to hear William Lane Craig talk today about is life without God absurd. Interestingly, it is this suggestion by Craig that John Humphrey’s found disconcerting. His case was essentially that with out God there is not point of reference to judge morality by and thus it becomes objectively meaningless. He went through various atheist philosophers to make the point that they to reached this conclusion. I did wonder if they would have agreed in exactly the way they were being used. He continued by showing various non-theistic attempts to construct a morality and showed how they failed. Overall it was an enjoyable talk and the mainly christian crowed enjoyed it. Unfortunately, there was not much coherent atheist objections. The “that was the whole point of the argument” answer was quite funny, but showed that some atheists hadn’t really understood it. And the “how did you obtain a personal relationship with Jesus” question was cringe worthy in the extreme. I also asked a question, much to my friends embarrassment. I questioned that If we need and objective source of morality does God not need the same. And if Continue Reading
Posted On Wednesday, December 13th, 2006 By admin
Have been very quiet but have responded to adrian, and wayne grudem, here. Worth a read
Posted On Saturday, November 4th, 2006 By admin
No not really just to let you know that i have started another blog called occasional theology papers.
Posted On Tuesday, September 12th, 2006 By admin
I am sitting here in the sun. Having gone whale watching. The whales thought it was fun to put there tails up in the water! Also saw babbons today. They were quite cheeky.
Posted On Monday, July 10th, 2006 By admin
It late and time for bad poetry: We connect so slowly, when the information passes so quickly. The substantive but infidecimal element of human existence becomes subsumed in the mass of contradiction. The multiplicity of voices allow the belligerent to be all. When the words increase the dialogue dampens to a whimper.