Calvin and Thomas

Our wisdom, in so far as it ought to be deemed true and solid Wisdom, consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves. But as these are connected together by many ties, it is not easy to determine which of the two precedes and gives birth to the other. For, in the first place, no man can survey himself without forthwith turning his thoughts towards the God in whom he lives and moves; because it is perfectly obvious, that the endowments which we possess cannot possibly be from ourselves; nay, that our very being is

Read more

Christianity Hinders Scientific Progress

It’s truly a tired mantra. Under the pretense that they own a corner on the Market of Reality while ignoring the fact that they are merely presuming upon the efforts of their relatively recent philosophical parents (many of whose principles are derived from the truths of Christianity), the New Atheists, evangelizing from their Holy Bible of Naturalistic Science and Witless Retorts written by their own venerated prophets, proclaim loudly and often, “Christianity hinders scientific progress.” And of course, as is commonly the hazard of religious discourse, there’s a good bit of nuance to hack through.

First, what is meant by …

Read more

A Response to Jeremiah Bannister (paleocrat)

I will be responding to this post  – http://jeremiahbannister.com/?p=154 – which is written in response to my post here – https://choosinghats.org/2012/11/canon-and-roman-catholicism.

Justin Scheiber of Reasonable Doubts recently linked to one of my posts on the canon of Scripture. I do not really have a way of following Justin, although I did notice an announcement that he is available for speaking engagements and debates. Perhaps one day he will debate me, but I am not holding my breath. In any event, Justin linked to me, and Jeremiah Bannister followed that link. Bannister is better known as “paleocrat.”

Some of you …

Read more

A Biblical Foundation

Thomists are always trying to add rooms onto houses with bad foundations. Some foundations are cracked. Others are too small.

As an example, think of the popular idea that people should only hold beliefs that are based upon empirical evidence. (Empirical evidence is evidence we access through the five senses.) This is a foundational idea for many unbelievers. Yet this idea is not itself based upon empirical evidence. So the idea – which we might also call a belief – is inconsistent with itself. The foundation is cracked.

Moreover, there are many aspects of science and common sense that likewise …

Read more

Atheism and Intelligence: an Inverse Relation?

Suddenly, I buy into the science that says the number of atheists is increasing:

http://news.yahoo.com/humans-becoming-less-intelligent-173400651.html 

What makes me chuckle (already) is the level of scrutiny to which this link will undoubtedly be subjected, and by the very same people who show the smallest interest in properly interpreting any text of the Bible. Of course, I’m the one reading the article wrong. But that’s what they all say, right?

Trollolol.…

Read more

Bill Nye and his Pie in the Sky

In a video entitled “Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children” released on YouTube by bigthink on August 23, 2012, Bill Nye, known most popularly for his hosting of a children’s science-themed TV show (“Bill Nye the Science Guy”), shares his thoughts on Evolution and, specifically, deniers of evolutionary science. It doesn’t seem to be scripted, and it lasts only 2 minutes and 32 seconds. The video has gained immense popularity in the few days since it was released (“Bill Nye” was #1 in Yahoo!’s search terms when I watched it, almost a week later), and it has been …

Read more

Bill Nye on U.S. Denial of Evolution

Bill Nye made some comments concerning evolution that have since gone viral.

There are a lot of questionable claims in Nye’s comments. He believes that the “denial of evolution” is a “world view” that not only will “harm young people” but “hamper scientific progress.”

The first problem is that Nye never defines for us what he means by “evolution.” He does note that, “Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology,” but again, he does not define what this idea is. He also lists a string of entities he apparently thinks evolution includes, …

Read more