There is a common misconception that most if not all scientists are atheists, and that the vast majority of atheists are brilliant thinkers. True, there are some very smart people who call themselves atheists. But most of these people remain willfully ignorant of any potential information that might upset their apple-cart of a worldview. For some people, it is enough for them to simply say they don't believe in any sort of a God. Others, namely antitheists, actually hate the concept of supernatural intelligence so much that they campaign to eradicate the idea among the general public. Some of these antitheists constantly lurk on the internet, hoping to evangelize their lack of faith and lead some of the sheeple astray. I cannot tell you how many times one of these antitheists have threatened to "educate" me on the alleged scientific evidence, only to demonstrate in subsequent conversation that they know even less about the science involved than me. Most recently, one of these intrepid atheists at a Facebook forum called The Battlefield directed me to read Victor Stenger's paper titled "A Scenario for a Natural Origin of Our Universe," presumably to convince me that our universe did not have a supernatural origin. Before going any further, it should be clearly stipulated that I don't know nearly as much about physics as Dr. Stenger. However, after reading a bit of his work, I'm fairly well convinced Dr. Stenger doesn't really know much more about the origin of our universe than I do. His "natural origins" paper, found in the Cornell University … [Read more...]
Contemplating the crucifixion and resurrection
Unless these are the first words I've written that you've ever read, you probably know that I'm not particularly shy about admitting that I consider myself a Christian. By that, I mean specifically that I believe Jesus really lived roughly two thousand years ago, and was crucified and died on a cross. Furthermore, I believe that God raised him from the grave, and Jesus ascended into heaven, just like the Bible says. And today is Easter Sunday, the holiest day on the Christian calendar. In my opinion, it's not a bad idea to contemplate the resurrection on an Easter Sunday. On the basic points concerning Christian beliefs, I believe it is safe to say that the vast majority of other people who considers themselves a Christian would agree with me about the divinity of Jesus, and that his resurrection really happened. Where we may or may not agree is on the question of why Jesus suffered, died, and rose again. Those who, on faith, accept the Bible is literally true, and without error will assert the answer is original sin -- in other words, it's Adam and Eve's fault for listening to Satan, and partaking from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. I will admit that I have my doubts about that particular belief, but I will explain why in a moment. My approach to reading the Bible is rather straightforward -- I assume that what I am reading is true. The problem with that approach, of course, is the content of the Bible itself. How do you reconcile when two accounts contradict each other? There are clearly instances where the same story is told … [Read more...]
Face Palm Sunday
Yesterday was Palm Sunday. The face palm moment came early. Before church, I visited a place on Facebook called The Battlefield. The group consists of theists and atheists who are interested in (more or less) cordial debate. I felt compelled to respond after one of my atheist friends asserted if Sir Isaac Newton were alive today, he would reject Young Earth Creationism and more than likely be an atheist, according to these statistics. Several replies came to mind. Naturally, I responded with all of them. First of all, such speculation is both silly and irrelevant. Newton has been dead almost 300 years. It's impossible to say what he would be like today. And it seems rather foolish to assume modern science would be anywhere close to where it is today if Newton hadn't lived and accomplished what he did, when he did. The issue of Young Earth Creationism is semantic, and especially for this argument. It can help divide Christians from each other, but does not separate theists from atheists, the more important point of contention in that forum. Secondly, historically speaking, the polar opposite has been true in regard to the relationship between super-intellect and spiritual beliefs. Polymaths like Newton, da Vinci, and Emmanuel Swedenborg were if anything uber-religious people, and most certainly not atheists. Modern polymath Michael Guillen has three PhDs, and he's a Christian. The appeal to modern authority falls flat because Newton was the authority of his time. If he were alive today, it would be reasonable to assume that Newton would still be an authority … [Read more...]
Mel Maguire to appear on Sean Hannity’s radio show
Be sure to listen to Sean Hannity’s radio show later today. My friend Mel Maguire will be speaking with Sean today, April 8th, about her excellent commentary regarding the forced resignation of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich. Mel represents a small but very brave minority – gay conservatives unafraid to speak against political correctness, in favor of freedom. Be sure to listen! It seems like Mel always has something interesting to say... … [Read more...]
