Apologetics
Why is it that Christians are always on the defensive when it comes to scientific propositions, atheistic inquiries, etc? It seems that it is on the Christian agenda to equip Christians to battle with philosophers and atheists who challenge their faith. At least this is the impression that "Dr. Craig" employed when he talked about his book concerning God (which is a dialogue concerning the views of a Christian and an Atheist). Being knowledgable is of course important when debating issues...but to term the world a battle ground seems awkward to me.
I do have a few questions concerning Craig's comments:
In various arguments he accuses his debating partner of being to speculative on issues and that seems to be a form of avoiding other arguments...religion is just as speculative (to a certain extent). Revelation is speculative...Thus his book could mostly consist of speculation and not help equip Christians with holy grenades (for you Monty Python lovers)?
There is a rising and falling of disbelief throughout history which correlates with the corruption and reform of the church according to Alister McGrath, who presents a very interesting historical sketch in his Twilight of Atheism, published a year or so ago. Perhaps instead of viewing the world as a battle ground for defending the faith against 'the other', we should be looking for discrepancies within? We're not perfect afterall.
Many of the classical atheistic arguments that are cited and talked about in the book seemed dated to me.
The topic of Scripture I found to be unrealistic because the atheist (in the book) was not a man who had any expertise on Scripture and for some reason did not think it an important historical work. But I know offhand that this point of view is not shared by all disbelievers (in Christianity that is). Many of my atheist friends find the Bible to be a great historical resource, but take it to be more of a mythology, revealing truth but absent of anything divine. The point of view of the atheist was not necessarily in the majority and so not helpful for me.
The book is informative to those Christians who wrestle with similar issues and does describe classical issues (perhaps outdated) that should be thought about, but it fails (for me) to be engaging or convicting.
Craig also talked about his certainty of a beginning to the universe and cited the Big Bang as a feasible cosmological possibility. The other day I was skimming an article in a scientific journal (I can't remember its name, sorry) based on research being done with the new deep space telescope. The research indicated that the Big Bang theory didn't add up as a create-all happening. Other scientists defended suggesting that current research has become congested with too many add-ons and amendments to the original, basic Big Bang scenario. Anyway, I found it interesting to read about...the possibility of no Big Bang...what could that mean?
The over-debated Uncaused Cause was another strong point in Craig's book...though the information was nothing new.
What stuck out to me, was Craig's emphasis on process within nature and his discussion of chaos.
Anyway...book review over...
I do have a few questions concerning Craig's comments:
In various arguments he accuses his debating partner of being to speculative on issues and that seems to be a form of avoiding other arguments...religion is just as speculative (to a certain extent). Revelation is speculative...Thus his book could mostly consist of speculation and not help equip Christians with holy grenades (for you Monty Python lovers)?
There is a rising and falling of disbelief throughout history which correlates with the corruption and reform of the church according to Alister McGrath, who presents a very interesting historical sketch in his Twilight of Atheism, published a year or so ago. Perhaps instead of viewing the world as a battle ground for defending the faith against 'the other', we should be looking for discrepancies within? We're not perfect afterall.
Many of the classical atheistic arguments that are cited and talked about in the book seemed dated to me.
The topic of Scripture I found to be unrealistic because the atheist (in the book) was not a man who had any expertise on Scripture and for some reason did not think it an important historical work. But I know offhand that this point of view is not shared by all disbelievers (in Christianity that is). Many of my atheist friends find the Bible to be a great historical resource, but take it to be more of a mythology, revealing truth but absent of anything divine. The point of view of the atheist was not necessarily in the majority and so not helpful for me.
The book is informative to those Christians who wrestle with similar issues and does describe classical issues (perhaps outdated) that should be thought about, but it fails (for me) to be engaging or convicting.
Craig also talked about his certainty of a beginning to the universe and cited the Big Bang as a feasible cosmological possibility. The other day I was skimming an article in a scientific journal (I can't remember its name, sorry) based on research being done with the new deep space telescope. The research indicated that the Big Bang theory didn't add up as a create-all happening. Other scientists defended suggesting that current research has become congested with too many add-ons and amendments to the original, basic Big Bang scenario. Anyway, I found it interesting to read about...the possibility of no Big Bang...what could that mean?
The over-debated Uncaused Cause was another strong point in Craig's book...though the information was nothing new.
What stuck out to me, was Craig's emphasis on process within nature and his discussion of chaos.
Anyway...book review over...
posted by Timcom at 1:42 PM
2 Comments:
I blame tele-evangelists, theologically uneducated Christians, pseudo-Christians...
These Christians are also proclaiming the gospel? It is very hard to lay judge when this form of Christianity is growing by leaps and bounds and the Western intellectual version is being surrounded. But granted, perhaps this can be due to an over emphasis of one aspect of the Trinity -- the Holy Spirit perhaps. Experience and feeling as the only part in the Christian life...
Post a Comment
<< Home