"The General Theory of Relativitty, Hubble's redshifts, Penzias's and Wilson's universal background radiation, black holes, quantum cosmology, inflationary theory, and a host of other ideas and discoveries have led to a grand scheme of universal origins called the "Big Bang theory." In the view of many physicists, this remarkable cosmological theory points to a creation event as well as an ordered unfolding of the universe."
From -- New Proofs for the Existence of God -- Spitzer
Again let us note that it is only being said that the evidence seems to point to a creation event and an ordered unfolding of the universe. No claim for Christian theism is made.
I do believe that the creation event was ordered by the God disclosed in Christian theism. Now that is something else all together but it can be argued that it can flow from the claims made by the evidence.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Quote #1 from New Proofs for the Existence of God
"Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly improbable accident, the onservations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural paln."
-- Nobel-prize-winning physicist Arno Penzias
Page 13 of New Proofs for the Existence of God -- Spitzer
I do not know if this man is a Christian theist and in the end it is not important. Unless I am thoroughly mistaken; is he not suggesting that the physical evidence suggests something?
Please in your replies if any, do not suggest I am saying that all or most physicists are theists. I am saying that some physicists are saying what Penzias is saying.
-- Nobel-prize-winning physicist Arno Penzias
Page 13 of New Proofs for the Existence of God -- Spitzer
I do not know if this man is a Christian theist and in the end it is not important. Unless I am thoroughly mistaken; is he not suggesting that the physical evidence suggests something?
Please in your replies if any, do not suggest I am saying that all or most physicists are theists. I am saying that some physicists are saying what Penzias is saying.
Quotes from What I believe is a Good Book
Some recent conversations at some blogs both intriques me, confirms some things and discourages me about the state of conversations on the Web.
I know the observations of some cultural observers who cite the deepening of the autonomy of the self descriptor idea of how people act and for me it certainly comes into focus with the increasing bitterness of the attacks of some against traditional Christian ideas. I am not surprised by it rather sad about the passing of respectful conversation in theology, politics, ....
The autonomy of the self at its heart proclaims the wisdom of the individual to decide upon what is true and have little respect for what has gone on before.
This statement that I decide what is true is combined with a disdain for the idea that some might know things beyond their field of specialization.
This is said to the end that I am going to provide what I believe to be very good material from a very good book on Physics and Proofs for the existence of God.
I simply ask the reader of these quotes to judge the evidence provided.
This is not a personal attack but a statement. The atheists demand that we follow the evidence. I am providing evidence for them to follow. Not the whole book. I don't have the time to do that. But quotes that I think should be thought provoking.
Those who would say non-physicists cannot comment on physics are being in the end intellectually arrogant. If the quotes are wrong then show me.
I know the observations of some cultural observers who cite the deepening of the autonomy of the self descriptor idea of how people act and for me it certainly comes into focus with the increasing bitterness of the attacks of some against traditional Christian ideas. I am not surprised by it rather sad about the passing of respectful conversation in theology, politics, ....
The autonomy of the self at its heart proclaims the wisdom of the individual to decide upon what is true and have little respect for what has gone on before.
This statement that I decide what is true is combined with a disdain for the idea that some might know things beyond their field of specialization.
This is said to the end that I am going to provide what I believe to be very good material from a very good book on Physics and Proofs for the existence of God.
I simply ask the reader of these quotes to judge the evidence provided.
This is not a personal attack but a statement. The atheists demand that we follow the evidence. I am providing evidence for them to follow. Not the whole book. I don't have the time to do that. But quotes that I think should be thought provoking.
Those who would say non-physicists cannot comment on physics are being in the end intellectually arrogant. If the quotes are wrong then show me.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Some comments on the Onging Atheist Christian Debate
The following was prompted by repeated insistence over at Debunking Christianity, that arguments against their positions in one of their latest publications, are not worth responding to if the opponent does not have a PhD.
IS it interesting to note that some of the Former Belivers have a Fundamentalist Background? It has been my conviction that someone with a Fundamentalist background often swings very hard against their beliefs when their wooden belief structure comes crashing down and no longer allows then to live in this world.
I suspect my posting at Debunking Christianity will avail little but the claim to superiority because of having a PhD, does irk me.
I shall carry on with the reading and as always hope to find interesting and respectful conversations to engage in. With believers and atheists alike.
Shalom
My response:
Part of what I find amusing and sad in the overall tone of this debate is the repeated insistence that without a PhD you are unqualified to speak to a matter.
First -- that is intellectual arrogance which I have little respect for. The overall erosion in standards at universities since 1997 especially, calls into question claims of expertise just because you have a PhD.
Second -- a PhD qualifies you to make the statement that you have studied a subject. The statements you then go on to make regarding that subject or other ones reveals if you have gained any wisdom.
Right now I am enjoying immensely (perhaps too much), David Berlinski's The Devil's Delusion. He convincingly demonstrates over and over again that scholarly qualifications (having obtained a degree) is no license to claim you are wise, as he deftly skewers those in the scientific community who think they can make short work of religion by linking their atheism and their arguments with science.
To not believe is what some will do. Please, spare me the intellectual arrogance of just because I don't have a degree, I don't or cannot understand the issues at hand.
7/29/2010 7:25 AM
IS it interesting to note that some of the Former Belivers have a Fundamentalist Background? It has been my conviction that someone with a Fundamentalist background often swings very hard against their beliefs when their wooden belief structure comes crashing down and no longer allows then to live in this world.
I suspect my posting at Debunking Christianity will avail little but the claim to superiority because of having a PhD, does irk me.
I shall carry on with the reading and as always hope to find interesting and respectful conversations to engage in. With believers and atheists alike.
Shalom
My response:
Part of what I find amusing and sad in the overall tone of this debate is the repeated insistence that without a PhD you are unqualified to speak to a matter.
First -- that is intellectual arrogance which I have little respect for. The overall erosion in standards at universities since 1997 especially, calls into question claims of expertise just because you have a PhD.
Second -- a PhD qualifies you to make the statement that you have studied a subject. The statements you then go on to make regarding that subject or other ones reveals if you have gained any wisdom.
Right now I am enjoying immensely (perhaps too much), David Berlinski's The Devil's Delusion. He convincingly demonstrates over and over again that scholarly qualifications (having obtained a degree) is no license to claim you are wise, as he deftly skewers those in the scientific community who think they can make short work of religion by linking their atheism and their arguments with science.
To not believe is what some will do. Please, spare me the intellectual arrogance of just because I don't have a degree, I don't or cannot understand the issues at hand.
7/29/2010 7:25 AM
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
All Things Considered -- Religion and Science
Going to do some reading and posting comments from books I have had the opportunity to read over the past few months.
Starting with The Devil's Delusion:Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions. By David Berlinski. He holds a PhD from Princeton, and has taught at unversitities in the United States and France. This work is all the more fascinating as it is written by a person who is not a believer in God.
I would commend it to anyone.
From pg. xiv:
"While science has nothing of value to say on the great and aching questions of life, death, love, and meaning, what the religious traditions of mankind have said forms a coherent body of thought. The yearnings of the human soul are not in vain. There is a system of belief adequate to the complexity of experience. There is recompense for suffering. A principle beyond selfishness is at work in the cosmos. All will be well.
I do not know whether any of this is true. I am certain that the scientific community does not know if it is false."
The yearnings of the human soul .... reason one among many for me why Atheism fails to satisfy emotionally and intellectually.
Shalom
Starting with The Devil's Delusion:Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions. By David Berlinski. He holds a PhD from Princeton, and has taught at unversitities in the United States and France. This work is all the more fascinating as it is written by a person who is not a believer in God.
I would commend it to anyone.
From pg. xiv:
"While science has nothing of value to say on the great and aching questions of life, death, love, and meaning, what the religious traditions of mankind have said forms a coherent body of thought. The yearnings of the human soul are not in vain. There is a system of belief adequate to the complexity of experience. There is recompense for suffering. A principle beyond selfishness is at work in the cosmos. All will be well.
I do not know whether any of this is true. I am certain that the scientific community does not know if it is false."
The yearnings of the human soul .... reason one among many for me why Atheism fails to satisfy emotionally and intellectually.
Shalom
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Quotes To Remember
Lewis’s book, Studies in Words. Here is an Excerpt which rewards the careful reader:
Adverse criticism, far from being the easiest, is one of the hardest things in the world to do well. And that for two reasons. When we try to define the badness of a work, we usually end by calling it bad on the strength of characteristics we can find also in good work. . . . The novel before you is bad—a transparent compensatory fantasy projected by a poor, plain woman, erotically starving. Yes, but so is Jane Eyre. . . . An author betrays shocking indifference to all the great political, social, and intellectuals upheavals of his age; like Jane Austen. The solution of the problem is, I suspect, still far away. . . . The other difficulty lies within. . . . Reviews filled with venom have often been condemned socially for their bad manners, or ethically for their spite. I am not prepared to defend them from either charge; but I prefer to stress their inutility. . . . Automatically, without thinking about it one’s mind discounts everything [the venomous critic] says, as it does when we are listening to a drunk or delirious man. The critic rivets our attention on himself. When we get to the end we find that the critic has told us everything about himself and nothing about the book. Thus in criticism, as in vocabulary, hatred over-reaches itself. Willingness to wound, too intense and naked, becomes impotent to do the desired mischief.
Of course, if we are to be critics, we must condemn as well as praise; we must sometimes condemn totally and severely. But we must obviously be very careful. . . . I think we must get it firmly fixed in our minds that the very occasions on which we should most like to write a slashing review are precisely those on which we had much better hold our tongues. The very desire is a danger signal. . . . The strength of our dislike is itself a probable symptom that all is not well within; that some raw place in our psychology has been touched, or else that some personal or partisan motive is secretly at work. . . . If we do speak, we shall almost certainly make fools of ourselves. Continence in this matter is no doubt painful. But, after all, you can always write your slashing review now and drop it into the wastepaper basket a day or so later. A few re-readings in cold blood will often make this quite easy.
Adverse criticism, far from being the easiest, is one of the hardest things in the world to do well. And that for two reasons. When we try to define the badness of a work, we usually end by calling it bad on the strength of characteristics we can find also in good work. . . . The novel before you is bad—a transparent compensatory fantasy projected by a poor, plain woman, erotically starving. Yes, but so is Jane Eyre. . . . An author betrays shocking indifference to all the great political, social, and intellectuals upheavals of his age; like Jane Austen. The solution of the problem is, I suspect, still far away. . . . The other difficulty lies within. . . . Reviews filled with venom have often been condemned socially for their bad manners, or ethically for their spite. I am not prepared to defend them from either charge; but I prefer to stress their inutility. . . . Automatically, without thinking about it one’s mind discounts everything [the venomous critic] says, as it does when we are listening to a drunk or delirious man. The critic rivets our attention on himself. When we get to the end we find that the critic has told us everything about himself and nothing about the book. Thus in criticism, as in vocabulary, hatred over-reaches itself. Willingness to wound, too intense and naked, becomes impotent to do the desired mischief.
Of course, if we are to be critics, we must condemn as well as praise; we must sometimes condemn totally and severely. But we must obviously be very careful. . . . I think we must get it firmly fixed in our minds that the very occasions on which we should most like to write a slashing review are precisely those on which we had much better hold our tongues. The very desire is a danger signal. . . . The strength of our dislike is itself a probable symptom that all is not well within; that some raw place in our psychology has been touched, or else that some personal or partisan motive is secretly at work. . . . If we do speak, we shall almost certainly make fools of ourselves. Continence in this matter is no doubt painful. But, after all, you can always write your slashing review now and drop it into the wastepaper basket a day or so later. A few re-readings in cold blood will often make this quite easy.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Quotes To Remember
Charles Spurgeon:
"Remember, sinner, it is not thy hold of Christ that saves thee - it is Christ; it is not thy joy in Christ that saves thee - it is Christ; it is not even faith in Christ, though that is the instrument it is Christ's blood and merits; therefore, look not to thy hope, but to Christ, the source of thy hope; look not to thy faith, but to Christ, the author and finisher of thy faith; and if thou doest that, ten thousand devils cannot throw thee down." (The Forgotten Spugeon, Iain Murray, 42.)
"Remember, sinner, it is not thy hold of Christ that saves thee - it is Christ; it is not thy joy in Christ that saves thee - it is Christ; it is not even faith in Christ, though that is the instrument it is Christ's blood and merits; therefore, look not to thy hope, but to Christ, the source of thy hope; look not to thy faith, but to Christ, the author and finisher of thy faith; and if thou doest that, ten thousand devils cannot throw thee down." (The Forgotten Spugeon, Iain Murray, 42.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
