craig cooke debate: impressions

With expectations low (but not low enough to keep us away!), Damian and I headed to the debate  (link to series here) tonight between William Lane Craig and Bill Cooke.

I think we both left having heard little or nothing we hadn’t heard before, but nonetheless having enjoyed watching it all unfold.

What follows is not a full, detailed review of the debate, but (in all truthfulness) rather various impressions I’ll share (on my way to bed)… Continue reading “craig cooke debate: impressions”

Craig-Cooke debate

This just in…

* * *

The Tertiary Students Christian Fellowship
&
The New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists

present a debate between

Atheist Historian *Bill Cooke*

and

Christian Philosopher *William Lane Craig.*

Adjudicated by *John Bishop*, head of Philosophy Department, Auckland University.

*Moot: Is God a Delusion?*

7PM, Tuesday the 17th of June 2008
Lecture Theatre OGGB5, 12 Grafton Road, Auckland University

* * *

Of course, this kind of thing is only one of hundreds of its kind. The apparent -or ‘felt’- ‘winning’ of either ‘side’ will not, of course, be (directly or indirectly) indicative of the superiority of that position. Debates are like that. But it will be entertaining, interesting and a better use of time than watching most of the nonsense which will be on television at the same time (not that I watch much television anyway). So do come.

good question

I’ve enjoyed the few articles I’ve skimmed at this blog called “Just Thomism”.

(Thomism designates the study of the life and work of St. Thomas Aquinas)

I found this post having to do with atheism, theism, evolution and science(s) of particular interest.

Here’s a quote…

It is mere historical chance that popular theism did not end up insisting that God could only exist in an evolutionary world, where all matter had been developing to the point where man could emerge at last- At last! man! prepared for by all the ages! Who all creation leads up to, just as it says in the book of Genesis!

This is one of many interesting philosophical reflections (and certainly not necessarily the best) in basically each and every post. We often don’t think about how we think; observe how we observe; ponder how we ponder; distinguish how we distinguish; wonder how we wonder; know how we know; ‘etc.’ how we ‘etc.’

:)

Happy browsing… (and thinking)

is anything significant?

This question (‘Is anything significant?’) can be fleshed out a bit…

We could ask, “Is everything equally in-significant?”, or we could ask, “Is everything equally highly-significant?”

What makes something (an event or object [which can quite rightly be said to be ‘events’ in themselves]) significant, and another thing not so?

Continue reading “is anything significant?”

wisdom

For some reason, I respect people the most when they obviously are very smart, but are ever-concious that they don’t know everything.

Matter of fact, it seems that the more you know, the more you become aware of all the things you don’t know.

Ehrman and Wright ‘blogalogue’

WrightEhrmanBart Ehrman and N.T. Wright have agreed to ‘blog’ through the issue of Suffering and God over at Beliefnet. You can follow their discussion here.

Bart Ehrman (author of ‘Misquoting Jesus‘, ‘God’s Problem‘ and other titles) and Tom Wright (author of ‘Evil and the Justice of God‘, ‘Suprised by Hope‘ and other titles) are both recognised scholars. Ehrman is currently an ‘agnostic’ and is open about his slow departure from the Christian faith. Wright is Bishop of Durham.

I look forward to following their contributions and interaction with one another.

beliefs undergirding science

In another interesting article over at Thinking Faith, Guy Consolmagno posits three things all scientists must ‘believe’. He calls them “three axioms of science that must be taken on faith before you can do science.”

  1. “You have to believe that the physical world actually exists – I am not just a butterfly, dreaming that I am a scientist, in an imaginary universe.”
  2. “You have to believe, ahead of time, that the physical world actually does have rules and regularities – well hidden ones perhaps, but something that eventually you’ll be able to figure out.”
  3. “…you have to believe that the physical universe is worth studying. Think of it… if your religion says that the goal of life is to meditate yourself out of this corrupting universe onto a higher plane, you’re not going to be a physical scientist.”

The article can be found here, (PDF version) or by clicking the link in my RSS for Thinking Faith in the sidebar…

Thoughts?

overlapping magisteria?

My last post touched (if only in passing) on the relationship between two realms: the philosophical/religious and the scientific. Among other things, I was suggesting that there is both a distinction and an inter-play between the two.

We are all –to an extent, of course– both scientists and philosophers. We engage in the stuff of science; for at various levels of skill, we figure out how things work, what makes things tick. We also engage in philosophical reflection; for we all navigate our way through life based on an understanding (either assumed or deeply worked out with much reflection) of what is good, etc.

Continue reading “overlapping magisteria?”

scientific knowing and life-change

Science fascinates me.

I’m not sure which I love more; the answers we’ve got or the remaining questions we hope to answer. Science is such an important thing to support. It has given us so much.

We humans should value science as an invaluable tool in life. But how does this tool work? Are there ways in which we can mis-use the powerful tool of science?

I’m reminded of a quote from the film Jurassic Park. Dr. Ian Malcolm: “Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.” Continue reading “scientific knowing and life-change”

the abc’s of tolerance

Tolerance…

The topic of tolerance came up in the comments of my last post, so I thought I’d re-post them here to offer a focussed discussion of them…

This t-word is used in interesting ways. I think it’s used far too loosely. You tolerate things (certain actions or persons whose identity is defined by those same actions) which you don’t agree with or like. If you agree with and/or like some action (or person affiliated with it), then you –by definition, I insist– cannot ‘tolerate’ it. Therefore, it should be obvious that you can only ‘tolerate’ things (or persons) which you disagree with or don’t like. Continue reading “the abc’s of tolerance”