Monday, December 7, 2009

To Mahdi, To Madhi...

Check out this article. Could it be any more evident that there are not many tomorrows left? Do I hear singing on the wind (or maybe the airwaves)? "...To Mahdi, to Mahdi, I love ya, to Mahdi, you're only a day away!"


Anonymous said...

Hello SLW

This was prompted by the title of your previous post.

One of our Christian radio stations played the audio of a debate with Richard Dawkins on the panel. He was asked why he refuses to debate with William Lane Craig, a noted Christian philosopher and writer. Here is his reply:

“I have always said that when invited to do debates that I will be happy to debate a Bishop, a Cardinal, a Pope, an Archbishop; indeed I have done both. But I don’t take on creationists and I don’t take on people whose only claim to fame is that they are professional debaters. They’ve gotta have something more than that; I’m busy”.

The Youtube clip is helpful in that it shows the acrid contempt in Dawkins' voice.

Yes, good ol' British snobbery is alive and well. Of course, Dawkins is yer typical public-school-educated man, who is only familiar with the Anglo-Catholic High Churchism of his upbringing. How fortunate for him that Jesus was not so squeamish about associating with the lower orders. In contrast, we Christians are called in I Pet 3:15 to "be always ready to give an answer to every man that asketh..."

PS I refuse to debate a man who lists four ranks in the RC church and follow that with "both". I'm picky.

Anonymous said...

that should be "follows that with "both"


SLW said...

Dawkins won't debate Creationists, because they win every debate they're in with atheists. Those debating hold PhDs from reputable institutions and are every bit as smart and learned as Dawkins, if not more so. He lets his belief system (atheism) color his viewpoint and argument every bit as much as he claims the creationists do for theirs. I suppose we should note that creationists do not hold a monolithic viewpoint of the creative process: there is much variation and debate within their camp as well.

Belief in or understanding of God will never come by sight (which is the realm that science actually deals with), but only by faith. Faith is able to percieve God in the things that can be seen, whereas unbelief voluntarily closes itself off from that realm (see Hebrews 11:1-6). It's truly a disingenuous argument to say "I cannot see it" when one has put a blindfold over his own eyes before looking.

I do not begin to understand how faith presents a barrier to following evidence where it leads in the realm of sight-- so arrogant unbelievers insisting on squelching what science cannot truly deal with anyhow strikes me as ludicrously bigoted. I have not found scientific discovery in any field I've looked into as antagonistic to biblical faith, with the possible exception of geology. Admittedly, that is a very limited scope, and experienced as audience rather than performer, but facts and reason are not the unique bailywicks of the formally educated, nor understood by them alone. So, intrepidly, I am about to set my sights on that field to try and see for myself where fact ends and speculation begins.

Regardless, for me, the world begins and ends in this-- Jesus rose from the dead. That is a purported historical fact that when believed remakes a human soul. Having experienced that, I'm not likely to see any evidence in a way that would countermand it.

Anonymous said...

Well said, SLW. I also find it sad that academic specialism in recent centuries has led to one branch of learning being held up as the supreme arbiter of what is real, good and necessary. Why science? In the past a really clever person tried to have a grasp of a range of disciplines. And a really clever person. I'm studying the 1600s with our son and we looked at the life of Blaise Pascal. Now *he* was a brainbox.