Theism has an idea of what a god is.  It then turns to look at the world and finds its idea more or less confirmed.  Atheism has an idea of what a god is.  It looks at the world and finds its idea more or less unconfirmed.  Theism and atheism are two sides of the same coin . . . → Read More: reason coin & revealed christ]]> The reason coin:

Theism has an idea of what a god is.  It then turns to look at the world and finds its idea more or less confirmed.  Atheism has an idea of what a god is.  It looks at the world and finds its idea more or less unconfirmed.  Theism and atheism are two sides of the same coin – matching up an idea of god with what is seen in the world.

The revealed Christ:

Rather than humans projecting an idea of what a god is like onto observations of the world¹, in Christianity, God reveals himself to us fully and finally in Christ.  This revelation is surprising.  Our logical ideas of god (powerful, glorious, etc.) are shattered by the dying, bleeding, weak, self-sacrificing, humiliating, suffering-with-us God of Christ and His Cross.

“crux sola est nostra theologia” (the cross alone is our only theology) – Martin Luther

1. natural theology – whether theistic or atheistic in conclusion

…namely that there is indeed an uncreated ‘thing’ which cannot be questioned, caused, created, ‘got behind’, etc.

The . . . → Read More: uncreated thing]]> Those who hold that all things (the universe/multiverse/whatever) began to exist and were created (by an ultimate Creator or First/bottom Cause), and those who hold that all things (the universe/multiverse/whatever) ‘have always existed in some form/state’ agree on (at least) one point…

…namely that there is indeed an uncreated ‘thing’ which cannot be questioned, caused, created, ‘got behind’, etc.

The former call this uncreated ‘thing’ God – and the latter call it Nature.

The essays are comprised answers to ‘big questions’ from a variety of perspectives – theist, atheist and agnostic.  They make for interesting reading whatever your beliefs are.

Two of the ‘big questions‘ essays were of particular interest to . . . → Read More: ‘big question’ essays]]> Cheers to Bryson for directing me to an essay, which I discovered was one over several over at The John Templeton Foundation.

The essays are comprised answers to ‘big questions’ from a variety of perspectives – theist, atheist and agnostic.  They make for interesting reading whatever your beliefs are.

Two of the ‘big questions‘ essays were of particular interest to me: “Does the Universe Have a Purpose?” and “Does Science Make Belief in God Obsolete?“.

Some other bits which may be of interest to some readers include:

• “Does Evolution Explain Human Nature?“
• Debates between contributers to the Science/Belief essay (Christopher Hitchens v. Ken Miller; Jerome Groopman v. Michael Shermer; and Steven Pinker v. William D. Phillips).
• A Brief interview with (physicist/cosmologist) Paul Davies concerning multiverse theory
• assorted video content (look for it)

…for a friendly, respectful, engaging and thoroughly enjoyable conversation about life, god, the universe, morality and all the rest.

Most of the appreciative and complementary feedback has been email or verbal.  As for the less-appreciative feedback, unfortunately it’s been more public.

First, the Christian newspaper “Challenge Weekly” published a (to say it kindly) selective and less-than-inaccurate piece entitled “Conference fuels Controversy” (which can be viewed here – scroll . . . → Read More: mixed responses]]> The Christian response to the ‘Faithful Science’ day-conference have been mixed.

Most of the appreciative and complementary feedback has been email or verbal.  As for the less-appreciative feedback, unfortunately it’s been more public.

First, the Christian newspaper “Challenge Weekly” published a (to say it kindly) selective and less-than-inaccurate piece entitled “Conference fuels Controversy” (which can be viewed here – scroll down about half way), which, among other things, made the bizarre and out-of-left-field claim that some of the presenters held views more like Deism (which was anything but the case).

Predictably, the “letters to the editor” section in subsequent issues have been spotted with a handful of  readers who were concerned/shocked by the conference.  And, also not a surprise, a fresh write-up by CMI (Creation Ministries International) was subsequently published (here), entitled “Genesis not a Myth”, warning against a roadway to “spiritual disaster”.

The CMI article is also up here at their own website in very similar format, though more specifically targeting the Faithful Science conference.

I’ve offerred a couple of responses to Challenge, hoping to a) correct factual errors, b) help to clarify relevant issues, and c) challenge (no pun intended) readers to be more patient, and not assume what “those christian evolutionists” actually believe.  Also, I’ve responsed to the CMI article and am hoping for some positive interaction there.

Also, I’ve had some dialogue (which is absolutely exemplary in terms of tone, patience, etc.) with an I.D. advocate who is a member of my church and attended the conference.

Here’s to (hopefully!) fruitful dialogue and interaction in the next… however long. 

At the site related to the book, there are summaries of the (as the site says) “six improved arguments for atheism”.

Now, I’m terribly sorry, but if these are ‘improved’ arguments for atheism, then . . . → Read More: illogical atheism]]> Ken Perrott recently drew attention to a new book called The Six Ways of Atheism: New Logical Disproofs of the Existence of God by Geoffrey Berg.

At the site related to the book, there are summaries of the (as the site says) “six improved arguments for atheism”.

Now, I’m terribly sorry, but if these are ‘improved’ arguments for atheism, then it would be embarrassing to see the ‘unimproved’ ones!   I’ve only taken an intro to philosophy class, and have never taken any classes in logic, etc., but these are poorly stated arguments, which would no doubt be embarrassing to proper atheist philosophers.

I’ve done a quick response in PDF format: 6 atheist arguments – quick response.  Enjoy.

(p.s. – I can give some time to responses to this, but I’m entering another busy semester, so don’t have time for too much.  Yes, I’m aware that these were ‘summaries’ and that the book would ‘unpack’ them further, but I still say they are poorly stated as is.)

I’ve been blogging with atheists (among others!) for at least 2 years now (I first ‘met’ Ian and Ken over at Frank Ritchie’s blog on a provocative post he did back in June 07).  Blogging is an interesting phenomenon.  We put up words that we think are worth reading.  I started . . . → Read More: blamentations]]> Blamentations (pronounced: Blah-men-tay-shins; combining the words ‘blog’ and ‘lamentations’).

I’ve been blogging with atheists (among others!) for at least 2 years now (I first ‘met’ Ian and Ken over at Frank Ritchie’s blog on a provocative post he did back in June 07).  Blogging is an interesting phenomenon.  We put up words that we think are worth reading.  I started my very first blog as a way of keeping in touch with family back home in the U.S., and have had various blogs since then.  ‘By-default’ was a kind of ‘spiritual musings’ blog, which then changed title to ‘Fruitful Faith’, when I moved to wordpress.com.  Then I was able to get my own domain and have been here at fruitfulfaith.net.

More and more over the last couple years, I’ve been posting more and more posts related to science and faith issues, due (no doubt) to the on-going interaction with atheist bloggers.  I’ve seen this very much as a good thing, but often sense that it isn’t productive.  Every now and then, I wonder if I should just blog about Jesus, faith and following Him.  But then I consider the lack of helpful interaction there so often is between theist and atheist, and I think to myself (perhaps foolishly and/or arrogantly!?), “But Dale, you can help –in some small way– to make conversations more helpful and constructive, and less of a ranting shouting match.”

Now, I’ll just say that I reckon it’s a lot easier to see unproductive blogging when you’re not one of the bloggers involved.  I’m quite sure I’ve engaged in conversations where I wasn’t listening or communicating as clearly as I could.

To add to this, I’m busy.

I work.  I study.  I have a family that needs my time and attention (which I love giving to them!).  I’m in a band that practices and plays gigs (and is putting out an EP soon   ).  I’ve also joined the pastoral leadership track at Carey, so there’s that as well.  Plus we’re moving to a cheaper and more-well-suited-for-family-with-a-6-month-old kind of house (Glenfield) this month…

I don’t have to blog (in general), and I don’t have to blog with atheists (in particular).

But…

I honestly do think it’s a good and helpful thing.  Putting your thoughts into words and organising them helps you immensely to shape your thinking and learn to communicate (please disregard this rambling post as an example!).  And at times, there can even be somewhat fruitful interaction with atheists.

So in the interest of the most effective use of blogging-time that I have, I’m interested in arriving at a “theist+atheist blogging prolegomenon” (before-word or ‘foreword’) of sorts.  A kind of “discussion about how to discuss”.

Many/most of the interactions I see and/or take part in can be characterised by what I’d call “speaking past eachother”.  This can take the form of jargon or unsimplified technical terms, or just plain-old mockery and sarcasm.

(Note: if you find yourself calling another blogger names like ‘dork’, ‘stupid’ or ‘idiot’, then you need to chill and not blog for a month or so.  And dangit, it sure would be nice to see theist correcting theist and/or atheist correcting atheist when such language bubbles to the surface!)

If there’s anything at all that’s needed, it’s patience.  IF (and it’s a big if!) theist and atheist are to get anywhere in the conversations, they must realise that it won’t  happen quickly.

The first goal for me is to strive toward ‘mutual understanding’.

This is not ‘mutual agreement’.  This is not ‘winning’/'losing’.  It’s an agreement on the nature of the disagreement.  Only from here can a conversation really get anywhere.

This post is VERY rambling in nature.

I’m off to bed now, but two final thoughts about patience.

First, we have to be patient (and avoid sarcasm or name-calling or judging) about the use of words.  It is not engaging to simply write-off the way the other person is using a word.  If you don’t like the way someone is using a word, then ask them about it patiently.  Don’t assume they are trying to evade the issue or cloud a conversation with mystery.

Second, we have to be able to be patient most of all when we are most tempted to lose control and get frustrated.

Anyway, it’s getting late.  Just a few “blamentations” before bed.

A one-day Science & Faith conference – coming August 1.

Speakers and topics:

DALE CAMPBELL – Science & Faith: Key Issues YAEL KLANGWISAN – Reading the book of Genesis NICOLA HOGGARD CREEGAN – Evolution and Evil MYK HABETS – A Scientific Theology JEFF TALLON – Physics and Faith MATT FLANNAGAN – Does Evolution Make Belief in God . . . → Read More: faithful science]]> Announcing “Faithful Science“…

A one-day Science & Faith conference – coming August 1.

Speakers and topics:

DALE CAMPBELL – Science & Faith: Key Issues
YAEL KLANGWISAN – Reading the book of Genesis
NICOLA HOGGARD CREEGAN – Evolution and Evil
MYK HABETS – A Scientific Theology
JEFF TALLON – Physics and Faith
MATT FLANNAGAN – Does Evolution Make Belief in God Untenable?
GRAEME FINLAY – The Glorious Ape
NEIL BROOM – Is there Transcendence in Nature?
GRAHAM O’BRIEN – Evolution & Purpose

Organised by TANSA…

Hosted by Northcote Baptist.

PDF flyer here.

Y’all come now ya hear?