Wednesday, September 16, 2020

The Question of Excellence

"The question of excellence inevitably involves a consideration of the standards required to evaluate what is good, and this leads to profound questions about the essential nature and purpose of human life. It is precisely at this point that modern society reveals its moral confusion. Because we have abandoned the concept of absolute divine standards, moral statements have been reduced to mere preferences.  The result is moral statements which lack any real content.  Obviously, a society which lacks any supreme values other than those of pluralism and moral relativism will find it almost impossible to rouse itself to the pursuit of excellence.  What cannot be defined cannot be readily pursued!"


Gary Inrig: A Call to Excellence- Understanding Excellence God's Way

Thursday, August 20, 2020

Video- On Behalf of a Molinist Perspective by William Lane Craig



A great talk here by Dr. William Lane Craig on Molinism.  The Q and A is quite fun as well!

Enjoy!

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

Related Post

Video: What is Molinism?

Tuesday, August 18, 2020

Why Philosophical Proofs for God Are Better Than “Scientific” Proofs by Brian Huffling

Here is a great article by philosopher Brian Huffling.  One of the most interesting parts are his comments about whether or not the question of God's existence is a scientific one. 

He writes:

The question of God’s existence is inherently philosophical. But is it a “scientific” question as well? Yes, in a way. I have used the word ‘scientific’ in quotes for a reason. Historically, following Aristotle, a discipline was considered scientific if it could demonstrate its conclusions through a rational process (logical argumentation) and from first principles (such as the law of non-contradiction). If such a demonstration could take place, that is, if there was a rational move from premises to a conclusion and the body of knowledge could be arranged systematically along with this demonstration, the body of knowledge was said to be scientific. Since philosophy can demonstrate its conclusions from rational demonstration, historically it has been thought to be scientific (as was theology . . . the queen of the sciences). However, the notion of something being scientific nowadays usually means that it is identical with natural science. Further, many think that science is the only domain that provides knowledge. This view is called ‘scientism’. Notice that the claim that “only science conveys knowledge” is a philosophical claim, not a claim demonstrated by natural science. It is a claim about the nature of science (philosophy of science) and the nature of knowledge (epistemology). In short, since philosophy is a science in this broader sense, the issue of God’s existence is a scientific one, just not in the sense of the natural sciences.

Checkout the entire article here.

You can find more of Huffling's work here.

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

Related Posts

Book Preview: Scientism and Secularism by J.P. Moreland

Article: What is Thomism? by gotQuestions.org

What is Philosophy?

Should Christians Not Study Philosophy?

Sunday, August 16, 2020

Review of J.L. Schellenberg, "Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason," by Daniel Howard-Snyder

Philosopher Daniel Howard-Snyder reviews J.L. Schellenberg's Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason here.

Philosopher Randal Rauser also has a thoughtful review of Schellenberg's work, The Hiddenness Argumenthere.  Schellenberg responds to Rauser here.

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

Related Posts

Video: Why Does God Seem So Hidden? by Sean McDowell

R. Douglas Geivett on the Hiddenness of God

Why Does God Hide?

Saturday, August 15, 2020

Video: Christianity and the Challenge of Hinduism


A great talk on Hinduism!  

Enjoy!

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

Sunday, August 02, 2020

Gary Habermas and Mike Licona Answer the Claim that, "There is a Huge Mountain of Probability Against an Event Ever Being an Act of God."

In their helpful book The Case for the Resurrection (pictured), Gary Habermas and Mike Licona address the above claim.  While they address it in the context of Jesus' resurrection from the dead, their answer is helpful in addressing any claim that deals with the miraculous being the least probable explanation.

Their response is as follows:

"The critic says, 'Even before investigating a claimed miracle, we know that there is a huge mountain of probability against it ever being an act of God.'  To say that corpses stay dead much more often then they come back to life is a wild understatement.  In short, the world we inhabit does not make room for the miraculous.  It is simply not that kind of universe.  So even if we cannot explain what happened to Jesus after his crucifixion, this reasoning would insist that there could not have been a resurrection.  The technical name for the issue that is being raised by this sort of objection is antecedent probability.  Even before an investigation, miracles are so improbable because of the evidence against miracles from past experience, that they are considered highly unlikely, if not practically impossible.

This mindset seems to make sense and is a thoughtful approach, but it has serious problems.

First, if the sort of God described in the Christian Scriptures exists, there is no reason to reject the possibility of miracles as the explanation of well-attested events for which no plausible natural explanations exist.

Second, to say that we should deny Jesus' resurrection, no matter how strong the evidence, is to be biased against the possibility that this could be the very case for which we have been looking.1

Third, the entire foundation on which this objection is based is fatally flawed.  We learn about the nature of this world by our experience of reality.  Our knowledge of the world around us is gained by gathering information.  When we cast our net into the sea of experience, certain data turn up.  If we cast our net into a small lake, we won't be sampling much of the ocean's richness.  If we make a worldwide cast, we have a more accurate basis for what exists.

Here is the crunch.  If we cast into our own little lakes, it is not surprising if we do not obtain an accurate sampling of experience.  However, a worldwide cast will reveal many reports of unusual occurrences that might be investigated and determined to be miracles.  Surely most of the supernatural claims would be found to be untrustworthy.  But before making the absolute observation that no miracles have ever happened, someone would have to investigate each report.

It only takes a single justified example to show that there is more to reality than a physical world.  We must examine an impossibly large mountain of data to justify the naturalistic conclusion assumed in this objection.  When data relating to the supernatural are examined, unwanted evidence is cast aside.  This point does not claim that we actually have such evidence.  Rather it is simply a straightforward challenge to naturalistic methods.

Evidence exists that there have been (and perhaps still are) supernatural phenomena.  Although not as well-attested as Jesus' resurrection, to the extend that they can be confirmed, they should significantly change our ideas concerning the natural world.  Consequently, not only would the backdrop for the entire naturalistic objection disappear, but also it would actually turn the subject in the opposite direction.  If other miracles do occur, then the Resurrection is far more plausible."

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

Footnotes:
1. Their case for the resurrection is included in the aforementioned book.  Dr. Habermas summarizes their case here.
2. Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection, p. 143-146.

Related Posts

Common Objection #32- "The hypothesis 'God rose Jesus from the dead' is miraculous. Therefore, it is the least probable."

Common Objection #5- "Belief in God is Unreasonable or Delusional."

Craig Keener on Miracles

On Miracles and Historiography: Can The Supernatural Ever Be The Best Explanation? by Jonathan McLatchie