John Lennox is always a treat, here in a video in reply to the God Delusion thesis: Food for thought and comment, starting with, what is a delusion and then pivoting on the power of agent explanation. What do we think, why? END
Fair warning to the regular readership. Typically I like to cover intelligent design and evolution-related issues, but I trust I may be permitted a bit of a detour. There have been a couple of interesting posts recently by Sal, vjtorley and Barry about issues of a more philosophical bent. vjtorley’s OP, in particular, quoted parts of an essay from Professor Jerry Coyne. I would like today to share some thoughts on point. With apologies to those not of the Judeo-Christian tradition, my comments will focus in part on the Bible, given that the Bible and the God of the Bible have been the brunt of many new atheist attacks recently, including Coyne’s. Similar points, no doubt, could be made with Read More ›
Here. (HT: VJT, also, Charles Babbage.) Video: [vimeo 17960119]
You wake up after what you thought was minor surgery and … … it’s not just that it doesn’t feel like your body, it actually isn’t. Oops. Bureaucratic oversight at the hospital. They say it never happens. Okay, well, sometimes. Actually, it seems there is an investigation going on but … oh, get over yourself! … Actually, the subject of brain implants was seriously discussed recently in the Wall Street Journal (where benefits are identified, along with risks): Many people will resist the first generation of elective implants. There will be failures and, as with many advances in medicine, there will be deaths. But anybody who thinks that the products won’t sell is naive. Even now, some parents are willing to Read More ›
I think that sometimes, it helps to pull back a bit and reflect on the meta . . . philosophical . . . issues connected to design, mind, being, cause and effect, what it would mean to be a necessary being, etc. I have also been thinking in that context, that the modern, modal ontological argument championed by Plantinga (and with some roots in Godel etc) is a good place to begin from, and so, I have blogged on that here, beginning: __________ >> Perhaps the most controversial of the major arguments pointing to God is the ontological argument. Many think it is little more than verbal trickery, and are highly dismissive. Others are fond of parodying and dismissing it. But, Read More ›
I just checked the most popular tables and saw how VJT’s UD James Tour article got 30,000 or so hits within a few days. Why? Reddit and Facebook etc atheists are suddenly screaming (and don’t seem to know that Dr Tour DID meet with someone for private discussion and . . . by implication, has not found a satisfactory answer) — per Groovamos at 9, this was a mis-impression on my part) but, again, why? Then Google popped up: VJT has republished the article at Science News on Feb. 18. [–> He was credited as author, it seems there has been an auto-publishing.] We are getting the back-wash of that spreading publicity. All to the good. Let those who would Read More ›
This was such a non-news item at the time because the movie bombed so badly most didn’t even realize there was a movie. It hit theaters November 29, 2013. ‘The Unbelievers,’ With Richard Dawkins Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss on a triple-continent series of public engagements, Gus Holwerda’s unforgivably superficial documentary is too busy drooling over its subjects to flesh out their body of work.…Too slight to persuade, “The Unbelievers” is also too poorly made to entertain. The rational roots of atheism deserve a much better movie than this. Total Worldwide Gross = $14,000 😯 HT Mike Gene
The section of interest starts at 12:30 where Dawkins is asked, “what would it take to make you believe in God.” Short answer by Dawkins, “nothing”. He presumes if he saw a miracle it would be a hallucination or technologically advanced aliens. This is a change from his previous claim that his mind could be changed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNcC866sm7s NOTES 0. Dawkins response reminds me of some of the Darwinists at UD responding to questions about 500 fair coins. Even if they saw credible evidence of design, they’ll find a way to disbelieve it, whereas by contrast they’ll rush to accept the most flimsy explanation in defense of mindless evolution and mindless OOL. 1. Regarding hallucinations, HT selvaRajan for finding the answer Read More ›
I have felt it useful to blog on the Nye-Ham debate at my personal blog, here. I trust the thoughts there will be helpful for onward discussion. My conclusion, in light of say the life and career of this notorious Creationist ignoramus, and blundering incompetent at scientific fields . . . NOT: . . . is: That [the focal] issue is first to resolve a false and toxic accusation [promoted by Nye], then to reasonably address the actual weight of the evidence in front of us on its merits, without question-begging a prioris. For those who missed the debate here it is courtesy ABN and YouTube: Bottomline, one way or another, we are at a kairos — a decisive point Read More ›