Another difficulty with religious language (and hence, Christianity) that non-religious people have concerns itself with “falsifiability,” or the aspect of any claim which states it must, in principle at least, be capable of subjecting to certain scientific criteria by which it can conceivably be proven false, in order to be considered meaningful. Like Verificationism, Falsificationism assumes an empiricist worldview, and so is subject immediately to some of the criticisms of Verificationism, including for instance, the seeming arbitrariness of the foundational principles undergirding it. Falsificationism was articulated as a way to circumvent the problems inherent in Verificationism. While Karl Popper …Read more
Why do we expect the future to be like the past?
“Because in the past, the future has always been like the past.”
This response begs the question. It assumes the very point to be proven. In the past the future has always been like the past, yes, but why do we expect that in the future the future will be like the past?
“We don’t know for certain that the future will be like the past.”
This response misrepresents the question. It assumes the question is asking about certainty with respect to the future. But the question …Read more
“‘This is the first testable signature of such an idea,’ Savage said. ‘If you make the simulations big enough, something like our universe should emerge.'”
“[I]f energy signatures in our simulations match those in the universe at large, there’s a good chance we, too, exist within a simulation.”
“Interestingly, one of Savage’s students takes the hypothesis further: If we stumble upon the nature of our existence, would we then look for ways to communicate with the civilization who created us?”
To be sure, this article was listed under a section entitled “Odd …Read more
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
Suddenly, I buy into the science that says the number of atheists is increasing:
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?
Friend of the blog Jeffrey Park debated Nina George over the resolution: Is the Triune God of Scriptures a Force for Good?
Opening statements and rebuttals: Jeffrey Park and Nina George
Cross examine: Jeffrey Park/Dean Crossley and Nina George/Raynald Losier
Closing statements: Dean Crossley and Raynald Losier.Read more
The Gospel Coalition is running a slightly interesting series called “Reading for worldviews” that I had hoped would prove very insightful. It has, however, been a little bit of a disappointment. The writers seem to reach for more complexity instead of grabbing the book by the horns. The exercise is a good one and one that we as thinking Christians should do as we strive to take every thought captive to Christ and His Lordship. An exercise I have tried to do for years now is watch for worldviews where I will try to keep an eye out for statements …Read more
Dr. James Anderson has a lecture available for free titled “The Atheist’s Guide to Intellectual Suicide” on iTunesU. Click through Dr. Anderson’s website for the link.
Also available here on YouTube.