This is an open forum for any new topics to be discussed. When a new comment is written by visitors, I'll tailor the post heading to match.
Start something good!
Political FiliBlustering
I recently received a forwarded email that constituted little more than propaganda against President Obama. In that email (which I have included in the first “comment” on this thread), our President is accused of canceling a long-standing National Day of Prayer event as well as praying with Muslims and declaring that our nation is “no longer a Christian nation.” In a moment of unfortunate (?) indignation, I dared to hit “reply all” to point out this ill-conceived email’s fallacies. I could have predicted it, but this was apparently the invitation that one person, Jeff Stoker of Michigan, was looking for to initiate an emotionally laden diatribe in support of his Conservative political agenda. Our conversation started as a Facebook thread among the original recipients of the Anti-Obama propaganda, but I know how annoying unsolicited “reply-all” arguments can be, so I moved my objections to Jeff’s position to a private message format. However, Jeff apparently couldn’t tolerate the idea of keeping a private conversation private, so he re-posted all of my messages to him in the original forum even though I told him previously that he did not have my permission to do so.
Normally, I do my best to honor people who send me private messages by keeping them private or at least asking them for permission (if I can) before I post their writings in a public format. I consider this common courtesy. However, if they expressly tell me NOT to post things they have written, THEN it becomes an issue of integrity. Apparently such integrity is foreign to Jeff Stoker. Nevertheless, in this case I actually don’t mind that he re-printed my words in a more public setting against my wishes, for contrary to my expectations, Jeff actually posted my words to him verbatim, and I remain confident in my criticisms of the political propaganda he has come to believe in so strongly.
Not that anyone is particularly interested in reading yet another political argument, but to accord Jeffry the same courtesy he extended to me, I have also decided to post our conversation in a more public format. Except for protecting the name of the friend who first sent me the propaganda, all posts are unedited and in their original sequence. I leave it to anyone bored enough to read through them to decide who has made the better case regarding the accusations made against our Commander in Chief.
As always, thank you for reading.
-C. Lambeth
Normally, I do my best to honor people who send me private messages by keeping them private or at least asking them for permission (if I can) before I post their writings in a public format. I consider this common courtesy. However, if they expressly tell me NOT to post things they have written, THEN it becomes an issue of integrity. Apparently such integrity is foreign to Jeff Stoker. Nevertheless, in this case I actually don’t mind that he re-printed my words in a more public setting against my wishes, for contrary to my expectations, Jeff actually posted my words to him verbatim, and I remain confident in my criticisms of the political propaganda he has come to believe in so strongly.
Not that anyone is particularly interested in reading yet another political argument, but to accord Jeffry the same courtesy he extended to me, I have also decided to post our conversation in a more public format. Except for protecting the name of the friend who first sent me the propaganda, all posts are unedited and in their original sequence. I leave it to anyone bored enough to read through them to decide who has made the better case regarding the accusations made against our Commander in Chief.
As always, thank you for reading.
-C. Lambeth
Atheist, Sam Harris' Wheelbarrow
Recently I read a comment originating with the atheist popularizer, Sam Harris, deriding Christians for believing accounts of Christ that come from the Bible:
“The Bible, it seems certain, was the work of sand-strewn men and women who thought the earth was flat and for whom the wheelbarrow would have been a breathtaking example of emerging technology.”
This can be found on page 45 of his book, "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the future of Reason."
I understand that for some people (apparently Sam Harris), this might appear to be an appropriate criticism, but the logic is more than a little muddled. Harris’ argument seems to hinge on the idea that people whom WE consider to be technologically primitive are incapable of perceiving events as they actually occurred and equally unable to report them with fidelity to anyone else. Mr. Harris is welcome to place his faith in such dubious conclusions, but there are a few things the rest of us should consider before converting to his beliefs. Read on in the comments attached.
-CL
“The Bible, it seems certain, was the work of sand-strewn men and women who thought the earth was flat and for whom the wheelbarrow would have been a breathtaking example of emerging technology.”
This can be found on page 45 of his book, "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the future of Reason."
I understand that for some people (apparently Sam Harris), this might appear to be an appropriate criticism, but the logic is more than a little muddled. Harris’ argument seems to hinge on the idea that people whom WE consider to be technologically primitive are incapable of perceiving events as they actually occurred and equally unable to report them with fidelity to anyone else. Mr. Harris is welcome to place his faith in such dubious conclusions, but there are a few things the rest of us should consider before converting to his beliefs. Read on in the comments attached.
-CL
The Weakness of "Weak" Atheism (continued)
This post's comments section is an extension from an earlier post on the issues surrounding both "weak" & "strong" atheism and my thesis that both incorporate a LOT of faith, just not faith in Jesus. The conversation partners are myself and an anonymous writer who goes by the handle, JStreeter.
As always, thank you for reading!
-CL
As always, thank you for reading!
-CL
How Long?
We are so precious and unique in the cosmos; why do we spend ourselves destroying each other?
May we never be lulled into thinking that all is well in the world.
John 10:10
Make sure your speakers are on, but be patient; the audio doesn't begin until about 2:30 into the video.
I created this video montage for a George Fox Seminary project.
My video can be seen in a larger format on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fwik90jhQM0
May we never be lulled into thinking that all is well in the world.
John 10:10
Make sure your speakers are on, but be patient; the audio doesn't begin until about 2:30 into the video.
I created this video montage for a George Fox Seminary project.
My video can be seen in a larger format on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fwik90jhQM0
Steven Hawking's Premature Proclamation
In his latest book, renowned astronomer Stephen Hawking has boldly proclaimed that God did not create the universe. An introductory article can be found at the Wall Street Journal on-line at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704206804575467921609024244.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond.
To be fair, I have not read Hawking’s book yet. Indeed, it isn't scheduled to go on sale until Tuesday, September 7, 2010. While I am interested in astronomy and science, I would be remiss if I pretended that I could critique Hawking’s math or his astrophysics. What I can criticize however, is the fallacy and the faith that he has let befoul his science.
Hawking seems to have invested heavily in the idea that science and the God of the Bible are at odds. This has also worked its way into the now-defunct “God of the Gaps” theory, which held that whatever could not be explained by science was accomplished by God. The problem this idea would seem to pose for Christianity is that the more science tells us, the less God is left to do (or be necessary for). This is exactly what Hawking’s new book capitalizes upon. His latest theory (and it may be accurate on this point) offers that the number of universes in alternate dimensions may well be infinite. He follows this up by saying that since the possibilities for finely tuned life-giving solar systems is unlimited in an infinite multiverse, that we happen to exist isn’t particularly unique. I disagree with the statement concerning uniqueness, but this is also where Hawking stealthily (or perhaps unwittingly) inserts his own faith commitment and tries to pass it off as science.
What Hawking has in his crosshairs is the anthropic principle, which basically argues for design (or intelligent design if you are a Christian). The argument goes something like this: Since there are so many (literally hundreds or thousands) of finely-tuned facets necessary for life to exist (much less evolve), it is likely that a designer of some sort had their hand in it. Stated another way, the sheer improbability of all those categories coalescing perfectly to give rise to intelligent life is so extremely unlikely that it would essentially take more faith to believe that there is no designer than to believe otherwise. Hawking attempts to pull the rug out from this line of thinking by suggesting that life is not particularly unique in the universe(s) and that we just happen to be “lucky” enough to be in one corner of it where life has come together on its own.
Back to the God of the Gaps fallacy. The problem with the fallacy that Hawking has incorporated is that he presupposes science and Christian faith to be at odds. The argument rests on the notion that if science can show how something happened, then it means that God had nothing to do with it. I must be quick to point out that while Hawking has not proven his theory here, he may be right about an infinite universe or universes. Nevertheless, what he fails to consider is that God may have ordered all of creation (or multiverses) to operate according to what we call “scientific principles and laws.” In that sense, we might well consider science a window into the mind of God rather than his competitor. Put another way, theology can offer why God created and what our relationship with that entity might be, but science can offer how God created. This is fascinating, and it leads me to think that good science is one of the most amazing and important enterprises for humanity to explore.
For his part however, Hawking seems to believe that God’s creation can be used to demonstrate that God does not exist. This is akin to a person suggesting that the scientific method can be used to prove that the scientific method doesn't work. While I have little doubt that Hawking is a brilliant scientist, I hope that his readers (and mine) can perceive the problem with that kind of thinking. Like any other atheist, Hawking is welcome to believe that God did not create the universe, but that is little more than a faith commitment, and it stretches beyond the reach of his scientific research. I suspect that his new book makes no such admission, but I hope that I am pleasantly surprised to discover otherwise. Time will tell.
Thanks for reading me,
-C. Lambeth
To be fair, I have not read Hawking’s book yet. Indeed, it isn't scheduled to go on sale until Tuesday, September 7, 2010. While I am interested in astronomy and science, I would be remiss if I pretended that I could critique Hawking’s math or his astrophysics. What I can criticize however, is the fallacy and the faith that he has let befoul his science.
Hawking seems to have invested heavily in the idea that science and the God of the Bible are at odds. This has also worked its way into the now-defunct “God of the Gaps” theory, which held that whatever could not be explained by science was accomplished by God. The problem this idea would seem to pose for Christianity is that the more science tells us, the less God is left to do (or be necessary for). This is exactly what Hawking’s new book capitalizes upon. His latest theory (and it may be accurate on this point) offers that the number of universes in alternate dimensions may well be infinite. He follows this up by saying that since the possibilities for finely tuned life-giving solar systems is unlimited in an infinite multiverse, that we happen to exist isn’t particularly unique. I disagree with the statement concerning uniqueness, but this is also where Hawking stealthily (or perhaps unwittingly) inserts his own faith commitment and tries to pass it off as science.
What Hawking has in his crosshairs is the anthropic principle, which basically argues for design (or intelligent design if you are a Christian). The argument goes something like this: Since there are so many (literally hundreds or thousands) of finely-tuned facets necessary for life to exist (much less evolve), it is likely that a designer of some sort had their hand in it. Stated another way, the sheer improbability of all those categories coalescing perfectly to give rise to intelligent life is so extremely unlikely that it would essentially take more faith to believe that there is no designer than to believe otherwise. Hawking attempts to pull the rug out from this line of thinking by suggesting that life is not particularly unique in the universe(s) and that we just happen to be “lucky” enough to be in one corner of it where life has come together on its own.
Back to the God of the Gaps fallacy. The problem with the fallacy that Hawking has incorporated is that he presupposes science and Christian faith to be at odds. The argument rests on the notion that if science can show how something happened, then it means that God had nothing to do with it. I must be quick to point out that while Hawking has not proven his theory here, he may be right about an infinite universe or universes. Nevertheless, what he fails to consider is that God may have ordered all of creation (or multiverses) to operate according to what we call “scientific principles and laws.” In that sense, we might well consider science a window into the mind of God rather than his competitor. Put another way, theology can offer why God created and what our relationship with that entity might be, but science can offer how God created. This is fascinating, and it leads me to think that good science is one of the most amazing and important enterprises for humanity to explore.
For his part however, Hawking seems to believe that God’s creation can be used to demonstrate that God does not exist. This is akin to a person suggesting that the scientific method can be used to prove that the scientific method doesn't work. While I have little doubt that Hawking is a brilliant scientist, I hope that his readers (and mine) can perceive the problem with that kind of thinking. Like any other atheist, Hawking is welcome to believe that God did not create the universe, but that is little more than a faith commitment, and it stretches beyond the reach of his scientific research. I suspect that his new book makes no such admission, but I hope that I am pleasantly surprised to discover otherwise. Time will tell.
Thanks for reading me,
-C. Lambeth
Issues of Biblical Perfection
Traditionally this is called the issue of "inerrancy." Offer an opinion, ask a question, but please join in the discussion.
-CL
-CL
The Age of the Earth/ Universe
All readers, posters, philosophers and theologians are welcome! Join the discussion!
-CL
-CL
Timothy Paul Jones' "Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus'"
A book review. Please feel free to engage in the conversation.
-CL
Book Review: Invitation to a Journey: A Map for Spiritual Formation
I read this book by M. Robert Mulholland Jr. because a friend suggested it to me. I'd give it 3 out of 5 stars. This review is from one I posted on another site awhile back.
-CL
-CL
The Church and Homosexuality
This entry has been a long time in coming. The issue of homosexuality and the church is an extremely complicated and sensitive one, and it isn't going away. I am committed to honoring the biblical worldview, not the least of which is Jesus' commandment that we are to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. What follows is a sincere effort to explore what this means in the context of questions regarding homosexuality. Please join in this discussion. ALL are welcome.
-CL
Alternative tags: Homosexual, church, Jesus, Christian, Bible
-CL
Alternative tags: Homosexual, church, Jesus, Christian, Bible
The Shroud of Turin
Conversing with Postmodernism
Is there any insight out there into how we might approach unbelievers of a postmodern persuasion? Most apologists tread the ground of "modern" modes of thought. These are often irrelevant for postmodernism because its adherents (even if they don't know it by that name) don't necessarily care if something is true or not. They want to know how it helps them LIVE, and in that sense, they may even adopt a "useful fiction" knowingly, as long as it helps them live better. It seems like much of the debate between the newest crop of atheist authors and Christian apologists are aimed at the "modern," rational, Enlightenment thought life, and thus, people who don't think that way find the whole wide-ranging debate completely irrelevant. I'm trying to find some Christian authors who speak to and from postmodernity without trying to beat it into submission (as is the usual Xian tactic). Stanley Grenz's "Primer on Postmodernism" was fairly helpful, but I am looking for more. Any thoughts on this?
-CL
-CL
The Weakness of "Weak" Atheism
Is atheism faith in the absence of God or the absence of faith in God? Either way, my thesis is that faith is requisite in something (or someone). I choose Jesus, but I understand that others don't. What follows is an expose' of the faith that atheists include in their worldview. One atheist, Danny Ledonne (and several other "anonymous" voices he recruited), has taken up my challenge and tried to debate me on the issue. Danny posted an ad for those who might believe similarly to him to participate in this discussion on a website that glorifies the 1999 Columbine high school massacre. This alone tells me something about his worldview. Perhaps that is another issue, but interested parties should read on and see how our conversation unfolds.
This topic has also spilled over into another post on this blog, one where an oppositional voice has demonstrated greater dexterity and longevity than that of Danny Ledonne. Interested parties can find this dialog at: http://thepeakcommunity.blogspot.com/2010/09/stephen-hawkings-premature-proclamation.html
Thank you for participating.
-C. Lambeth
This topic has also spilled over into another post on this blog, one where an oppositional voice has demonstrated greater dexterity and longevity than that of Danny Ledonne. Interested parties can find this dialog at: http://thepeakcommunity.blogspot.com/2010/09/stephen-hawkings-premature-proclamation.html
Thank you for participating.
-C. Lambeth
Challenging Thesis #3: Christianity & Science
After several invitations, my brother Eric decided that he would discuss our differing worldviews (Christianity and atheism). This engendered some lengthy back and forth dialogs which can be found on this blog under various headings and theses. Unfortunately, he has ceased responding to these public threads. While he later reinitiated a separate debate with me on other issues, he has demanded that I keep those discussions in a private context, and I have honored that request. I hope that he will return to the unanswered objections I have offered on my public blog, but that remains up to him.
Because of the topical nature and my desire to allow others to take side discussions as they like, I felt that the relationship between science and Christianity merited its own space. So, the discussion on the present post was birthed from the following (public) blog entry and comments from December 2008: (http://thepeakcommunity.blogspot.com/2008/12/discussion-with-atheist-friend.html#comments)
To summarize that thread, like most atheists, Eric believes that Christianity has some inherent weakness because of its reliance on a degree of faith. I responded that “all belief systems, philosophies and religions incorporate some faith (even if they think that they do not). For example, science itself requires faith that observers’ senses are reliable. This is taken for granted, but it IS faith.”
As part of the present discussion, I would like to offer a further assessment on the relationship between science and Christianity, and it hinges on the question of whether or not the two enterprises are at odds with one another. It seems many atheists and Christians alike would answer this in the affirmative, but I disagree with such an assessment. Both science and Christianity are built on faith, unprovable and unfalsifiable beliefs, but they also make use of the same human perceptive faculties. Science, like the very first Christian witnesses, depends on sensory input or the accurate perception of phenomena in order to operate. The difference of course is that science attempts to formulate rules and laws that, at least in theory, are repeatable and have an explanatory and predictive qualities whereas events contingent upon God’s actions may be explanatory, but are not repeatable or even observable unless he chooses to make them so. So if science only works with the testable, repeatable, predictable and observable, and God does not fall neatly into these categories, then it would seem that, officially, science has nothing to say about God.
But I am dissatisfied with that idea as well, for it sounds as if the two spheres could never overlap, and this is not the case. To be more specific, Christians believe that God created the physical universe and hence all the scientific laws that humans have been able to discern, study and test. It makes no sense, therefore, to suggest that God’s creation could be used to prove that God doesn’t exist. Put another way, it would be like suggesting that we could use the scientific method to prove that the scientific method doesn’t work.
When we consider the poorly understood early moments of our universe and the equally darkened understanding of where life first came from, we can see: A) how humble we should be in proposing theories of creation, and B) that far too much speculation and various faith commitments are mistaken for (or purported as) unassailable fact. Either way, the bottom line is that Christianity is not against science and science does not lead to atheism on its own. It’s only when certain philosophical faith commitments are snuck in the door and projected onto science that it is dressed up to support atheism. We might say the same about religious believers who force the Bible to advocate for their own myopic understanding of Genesis’ early chapters and thus paint legitimate scientific discoveries as an evil ruse.
Back to my original thought, I believe it is more helpful to suggest that God has provided two revelations that we can study, test and explore: the biblical text and the text of creation. I also suggest that when they are followed with an open mind they will lead their students to the same God/ Creator. Profoundly spiritual people are asking the same types of questions as our most brilliant and reflective philosophers and scientists: Who are we? Where did we come from? Why are we here and where might we go? Of course I suggest that Jesus Christ is the one who can best help us navigate these questions. That too is a faith commitment, and it is one that I do not shy away from.
Read on.
-C. Lambeth
Because of the topical nature and my desire to allow others to take side discussions as they like, I felt that the relationship between science and Christianity merited its own space. So, the discussion on the present post was birthed from the following (public) blog entry and comments from December 2008: (http://thepeakcommunity.blogspot.com/2008/12/discussion-with-atheist-friend.html#comments)
To summarize that thread, like most atheists, Eric believes that Christianity has some inherent weakness because of its reliance on a degree of faith. I responded that “all belief systems, philosophies and religions incorporate some faith (even if they think that they do not). For example, science itself requires faith that observers’ senses are reliable. This is taken for granted, but it IS faith.”
As part of the present discussion, I would like to offer a further assessment on the relationship between science and Christianity, and it hinges on the question of whether or not the two enterprises are at odds with one another. It seems many atheists and Christians alike would answer this in the affirmative, but I disagree with such an assessment. Both science and Christianity are built on faith, unprovable and unfalsifiable beliefs, but they also make use of the same human perceptive faculties. Science, like the very first Christian witnesses, depends on sensory input or the accurate perception of phenomena in order to operate. The difference of course is that science attempts to formulate rules and laws that, at least in theory, are repeatable and have an explanatory and predictive qualities whereas events contingent upon God’s actions may be explanatory, but are not repeatable or even observable unless he chooses to make them so. So if science only works with the testable, repeatable, predictable and observable, and God does not fall neatly into these categories, then it would seem that, officially, science has nothing to say about God.
But I am dissatisfied with that idea as well, for it sounds as if the two spheres could never overlap, and this is not the case. To be more specific, Christians believe that God created the physical universe and hence all the scientific laws that humans have been able to discern, study and test. It makes no sense, therefore, to suggest that God’s creation could be used to prove that God doesn’t exist. Put another way, it would be like suggesting that we could use the scientific method to prove that the scientific method doesn’t work.
When we consider the poorly understood early moments of our universe and the equally darkened understanding of where life first came from, we can see: A) how humble we should be in proposing theories of creation, and B) that far too much speculation and various faith commitments are mistaken for (or purported as) unassailable fact. Either way, the bottom line is that Christianity is not against science and science does not lead to atheism on its own. It’s only when certain philosophical faith commitments are snuck in the door and projected onto science that it is dressed up to support atheism. We might say the same about religious believers who force the Bible to advocate for their own myopic understanding of Genesis’ early chapters and thus paint legitimate scientific discoveries as an evil ruse.
Back to my original thought, I believe it is more helpful to suggest that God has provided two revelations that we can study, test and explore: the biblical text and the text of creation. I also suggest that when they are followed with an open mind they will lead their students to the same God/ Creator. Profoundly spiritual people are asking the same types of questions as our most brilliant and reflective philosophers and scientists: Who are we? Where did we come from? Why are we here and where might we go? Of course I suggest that Jesus Christ is the one who can best help us navigate these questions. That too is a faith commitment, and it is one that I do not shy away from.
Read on.
-C. Lambeth
Faith Discussion/ Commentary
This thread was initiated by EL as a commentary on our various discussions.
-CL
-CL
The Moral Argument
This is an ongoing discussion over morality and its usefulness (or lack thereof) in pointing people to the God we find in the biblical text. We didn't set out to discuss the moral argument per se, but it quickly got steered in that direction. The discussion partners are myself (C. Lambeth), and a close personal friend (EL).
Thanks for reading.
-CL
Thanks for reading.
-CL
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
