Omnipotent means the power to do any possible thing. Christians, for example, say that God “became man and suffered for us under Pontius Pilate.” So the answer to McGinn’s questions (“does he have the power to sneeze or digest food or pick his nose”) is yes, though it requires incarnation in a human body.
Atheists have also grown from 1.6% of the adult population to 3%, which is a significant increase. But the smaller the starting number, the easier it is for any increase to be significant. It;s the mushy middle that is shrinking.
It sounds as though the Darwinian biologist is confusing “religion” with “theism”.
Maybe the cosmologists who don’t like the theistic implications of the Big Bang can overthrow the current universe and appoint another one?
British physicist John Polkinghorne thinks that biologists see a more disorderly universe: I think two effects produce this hostility. One is that biologists see a much more perplexing, disorderly, and painful view of reality than is presented by the austere and beautiful order of fundamental physics. . . . There is, however, a second effect […]
Karsten Pultz: The book is a great read for all interested in ID, Christianity, and the connection between the two.
Media personality and author Eric Metaxas interviews philosopher of science Steve Meyer, author of Darwin’s Doubt and Signature in the Cell: According to a nationwide survey, more than two-thirds of atheists and one-third of agnostics believe that “the findings of science make the existence of God less probable,” while nearly half of self-identified theists believe […]
Wayne Rossiter: If the first story was one a religious kid would trust because it involves a known biblical character (Joseph) and God’s miraculous work, that will affect subsequent stories about Joseph.
She smartened up when she realized she wasn’t that smart. In the world of Chaitin’s number, we hope people will start to be more careful. Onward!
Tapscott: What are the most difficult questions to answer? Solid candidates are those which by virtue of how they are posed eliminate the only logical and correct answers. (Introducing mathematician John Lennox)
I am not aware (and I’ve thought long about this) of a single conflict between faith in God and experimental science.
Graham McAleer: This book should put to rest the canard that atheism is free thinking, and oh so much more broad-minded and gentle than what is on offer from the dull and cramped-spirited God-fearing types.
Actually, it’s not surprising at all. Pure naturalist atheists are not that common once you get off campus and a safe distance from the raging Woke. Most people would rather you think they were creationists (provided you don’t push it too far), which likely accounts for the drop in the second set, when a clear alternative for theists is provided. Some of us think this change in question is long overdue.
A naturalist atheist’s problems are not just with religion but also with philosophy. we can’t believe that our brain is shaped for fitness, not truth, and still expect to have a chance at discovering truth.
Coyne is right. Atheists got hold of science. But the atheists’ opponents have traditionally been theists who are scientists who believe that truth is important. And much that is claimed to be “science” in Coyne’s own field is questionable but is defended because it supports atheism. But now, along come the social justice warriors…