Skip to content
November 30, 2011 / compassioninpolitics

Faith in the wisdom of the Bible (vs. Atheism)

I see Turner’s argument as a more varied:
1. Everyday = miracle.
2. Existence = miracle.
3. He summons the notion of “beyondness”
4. Why something and not nothing?
I think that ultimately leads into:
5. How something and not nothing?

One and two are basically the same, but articulate slightly different ideas. I’m not sure he uses the word miracle, he may use something like “awe inspiring.” I think these arguments can be developed along the ideas of the cosmological argument–which leads into talk of multiple universes in order to rationalize how order and the apparent design could have come about. Perhaps not “miracle” but miracle-like. I think even scientists get this feeling when they look at the night sky, into a cell, systemic living organization, the Northern lights, or even the flight of the bumble bee or hummingbird.

The idea of beyondness isn’t articulated, although it does hint at fingerprints of something bigger and infinite.

The discussion of 4 & 5 ends up with some discussion of asking such questions “ad infinitum.” I think that misses the point–its just that faith offers a better solution to such problems. Contrarily, atheism and alternatives lack an answer.

While I’m glad that he included 1 viewpoint contrary to probably a dozen others (I’m not sure at the moment). Its a bridge of sorts, but a bridge with one destination.

I think you’re all to easy to let Flew’s conversion off the hook. Nietzsche wasn’t exactly the stablest of guys either–that doesn’t mean I can undermine all his ideas with one fatal swoop.

I haven’t read all of Strobel (I think he has 8 to 10 books), but I will say that his Case For Christ at least draws on a small range of Christian experts on the question. In other words, he allows experts to talk. The video, left me a bit wanting. I’m not sure what your criticism of William Lane Craig is. I get that he’s dramatic, but I read somewhere atheists who felt he was a great arguer. His systemic method of rationalism combined with excellent cross-examination makes him an opponent of skill. He, unlike Mr. Hitchens, doesn’t resort to name calling & other parlor room tactics, which may be entertaining or amusing to the audience, but don’t necessary advance the cause of Truth.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: