The website Truthincontext.org has a number of good resources. Among them are number dealing with apologetics. Here you will get a glimpse at who some of these personalities are, their works, and links to audio and video resources:• Scientists Worth Knowing
• Philosophers Worth Knowing
• Historians Worth Knowing
• Apologists Worth Knowing
Be sure to browse the site for some other helpful items.
Enjoy.
12 comments :
Among the given Scientists I would include Alister Mcgrath and Ernest Lucas, both of whom earned doctorates in Chemistry and doctorates in Theology.
Among the given Philosophers I would include Alasdair MacIntyre and Nicholas Wolterstorff.
Among the given Historians I would include Edwin Yamauchi and Richard Bauckham.
Among the given Apologists I would include Vinoth Ramachandra (from Sri Lanka).
Thanks for those excellent recommendations, Jeremiah.
"Kurt Patrick Wise is one of the United States’ leading Creation Scientists"Now THAT is a bad start...
Why no Ken Miller on the Christian hitlist?
Oh, it's because he isn't a creationist :-)
I don't think I need to read on.
Brian, tell me you are not a young Earther?
Lee
Lee,
If you're a theist, wouldn't you automatically be a creationist? Perhaps not a YEC, but still a creationist.
Anyway, why is listing Kurt Wise a bad start?
Also, Lee, this is the second time I've seen you shirk off an entire link because of one thing. That kind of thinking doesn't seem very free to me.
Hi Leslie,
If you're a theist, wouldn't you automatically be a creationist? Perhaps not a YEC, but still a creationist.Of course you are right, but I was using the term creationist as I think Ken Miller would use it to a general audience I suppose, i.e. Young Earth and all that.
Anyway, why is listing Kurt Wise a bad start?It wasn’t the name, I’ve never heard of him – it was “leading Creation Scientist” that made me feel sick :-)
No such thing in my book, creationism isn’t science.
Happy to discuss further if you like
Also, Lee, this is the second time I've seen you shirk off an entire link because of one thing. That kind of thinking doesn't seem very free to me.Time is short – I’ve been down the path and looked into ‘creationist science’ before, do you think I will learn anything new from this site?
So I am free to waste my time else where - unless you would like to sell the merits of the website to me and I will give it another go.
Always happy to be shown wrong, and more than happy to change my mind :-)
Lee
I think it is better to use 'young earth creationist' for Kurt Wise and and other like minded Christians. I think 'creationist' should be for all Christians. That is less confusing.
Hi Jeremiah,
"I think it is better to use 'young earth creationist' for Kurt Wise and and other like minded Christians. I think 'creationist' should be for all Christians. That is less confusing."Fair enough - I just thought the term 'creationist' was a little, erm, insulting?
Though to be honest, I don't really like labels of any kind since they say little about someones beliefs - I call myself an atheist just as a short hand, it certainly doesn't say what I believe.
The same is true for 'Christian', it gives me an idea but everyone is different.
Take care
Lee
Hi Haecceitas,
RE: "And my reply would be to ask White to define ‘exist’ which I think was the point being made by Barker."My answer would be that to exist is to bear properties. OK – that’s seems somewhere to start.
So what do you mean by ‘properties’, can you please give me some examples of these properties for your God?
However, Barker's definition does seem to lead to a contradictions, so I'm not sure why he would make a point by giving a definition that leads to a contradiction.Which contradiction?
You mean infinite regress?
Isn’t that just a play on words and a failing of our language and understanding?
What actual is ‘infinity’ – don’t your issues just fall into paradoxes like the examples I linked to…
This means it is our understanding that is wrong, not the universe.
You wish to assert God as your answer, but you really have not justification for this apart from we don't understand something.
God of the gaps I think this is called.
Operating within the domain of philosophical theismThis is a new one to me, what is ‘philosophical theism’?
I'd minimally define God as "a person that has pure, limitless intentional power"OK - but don’t you fall down on the first hurdle I think… ‘a person’.
My definition of a person, my common everyday understanding of the term, cannot possible include a god.
Then you mention ‘pure’… does this equate to ‘perfect’?
(My understanding of the word against leads me this way)
Then you have another problem, why would a perfect being/person need to create something ‘not perfect’, or less perfect than themselves (i.e. the universe and us in it - we are not gods are we, so are not perfect)
Doesn’t this lessen this person’s ‘perfection’ or ‘pureness’?
I say yes - making something not perfect is a failing.
I also have an issue with ‘limitless’ since this causes contradictions.
Then I have questions on ‘intentional’ - since this implies thought and pre-planning. It begs a few questions based on the observations I see in the universe
What’s left – oh yeah, power… “the rate at which work is performed”, this doesn’t make sense based on the earlier statements, in particular ‘intentional’
Nope, I need a little more help than on understanding this.
And one last thing… how do you know this?
As a Christian, I'd also add a Trinitarian perspective to that basic definition if the context is specifically that of Christian theism (and I think those two are compatible).You will really have to explain how you went from one definition to another – they really do not follow. Even IF I could accept your first, it does not lead to the second.
If you are saying that paradoxes and infinite regressions don't matter, I think you've just destroyed at least one of the arguments that Barker probably used in this debate.When it comes to understanding where the universe came from, invoking/asserting arguments that hint of any ‘infinity’ or ‘regression’ nonsense is just that.
Nonsense.
We are taking about unknowns, so it is meaningless to assign anything to it without good reason and evidence (and if we could do that, it would not be unknown)
Take care
Lee
I put my last comment on the wrong post - Oops.
Oh well...
Lee
Hey ya'll, I'm one of the editors for TruthInContext.org, so I'm happy to see some discussion regarding our articles on leading Christian intellectuals. A couple follow-up comments:
Lee: It's not supposed to be a list of Young Earth creationists: half are, half aren't. I moved Wise down and started with Polkinghorne to hopefully clear that up a bit.
Duomai: You're write about the terminology; creationist is ambiguous. I ammended the article as you suggested.
Also, the general idea of the articles is to create a list of the top four or five Christians in each field. Do you think it was successful? If not, who would you list?
Thanks for reporting us, Brian. The site's months young; visit us in a few more, and we'll have twice as much content.
Thanks Luke. I look forward to more updates on the site.
Hi Luke,
”Lee: It's not supposed to be a list of Young Earth creationists: half are, half aren't. I moved Wise down and started with Polkinghorne to hopefully clear that up a bit.Glad to hear it – I saw the first two names (one young Earther, and one Behe) and it was enough for me to think there was nothing for me to see.
No one, and I mean no one, can call themselves a young Earther and scientist and be taken seriously by anyone apart from the faithful.
It would be like calling yourself an astronomer and think not only is the Earth the centre of the solar system - but is also flat. A bit of a joke really.
Anyway, sorry about my first comments. I react pretty quickly to such things, but don’t worry – I doubt I am your target audience anyway :-)
Also, the general idea of the articles is to create a list of the top four or five Christians in each field. Do you think it was successful? If not, who would you list?Erm… as I just hinted – I’m on the ‘other team’ so I don’t think I am the one to ask.
I would certainly thought you should have had Ken Miller, a well respected evolutional biologist (I hear) and Roman Catholic – and being on the same list as Behe would be rather funny.
Being on debates with Christians a lot, I am also normally given the name Francis Collins (though I cannot understand why, wouldn’t have a clue about the biology myself, but his reasons for converting to Christianity are just silly) Oh, and Paul Davis, but I don’t think he is much of a Christian, I think he is just a deist.
Take care and good luck with the site.
Lee
PS
Apart from Polkinghorne, the rest of the names are a bit of a joke in terms of science. Behe (in the Dover trial) pretty much said by his own definition of science that astrology would be a science... GGGgggrrr.
I said enough about the young Earthers already.
Post a Comment
Thanks for taking the time to comment. By posting your comment you are agreeing to the comment policy.