Friday, December 18, 2009

Reconciling Science & Scripture MP3 Audio by J.P. Moreland

In this talk entitled Reconciling Science & Scripture, Philosopher J.P. Moreland talks about the relationship between faith and science and covers 8 areas where science has supported a biblical view of the world. Originally found here.

Full MP3 Audio here. (90 min)


[HT: Dan at Apologetic Junkie]

What was last year's post? See here.


Anonymous said...

The originals are huge! I like yours better, except the sound didn't work.

Brian said...

The original audio file has been fixed.

Ex N1hilo said...

While Dr. Moreland does make a number of good points, for example, on the irrationality of scientism, this lecture demonstrates much of what, in my opinion, is faulty in Christian apologetics today.

Largely, what Dr. Moreland is doing is making appeal to current scientific theory as an authority which validates his proposition - that it is far more likely than not that a deity exists.

He demonstrates the over-reliance of current popular apologetics on appealing to empirical evidence to convince people of the existence of a deity. Such an appeal is not necessarily a bad thing in itself. However, it becomes a main focus. It becomes the necessary prerequisite which must be established before we can give lost, hell-bound sinners the law and the gospel; before we can even think of wielding the sword of the Spirit. But scripture tells us they already know God. They actively suppress this knowledge in their unrighteousness.

Instead of taking every thought captive to make it obedient to Christ, the idea seems to be to take every though captive to the big bang, thereby making it obedient to the big-banger. Now, the God of scripture may or may not be the "Big Banger". That depends on whether the big bang turns out to be an accurate view of the creation of the universe. Current science favors it, but science changes. That is its nature. The written word of God never changes. We ought to ground our defense of Christianity in it, not in the fallible theories of men.

Is it wise to put so many of our eggs in the big bang basket? What happens 20 or 50 years down the road when the big bang theory falls out of favor? Might this not tend to overthrow the "faith" of some, who were convinced by appeal to this theory to acknowledge that some sort of creator exists?

What of the message of the eternal inerrant word? Of the sinful, lost, condemned state of man? Of the gospel of Jesus Christ? Should this not be our focus?

Moreland makes much of the fact that evidences from the sciences convinced Antony Flew that a cosmic designer exists. This is fine as far as it goes. Sadly, Flew still rejects the gospel of Jesus Christ today. The existance of the Designer is something everyone knows. But they fail to accept Him as their Lord and Judge. That's the problem. And it's a problem that the "Big Banger" and similar approaches fail to address.

Ex N1hilo said...

After an hour of talking primarily about secular science and philosophy and how they support the existence of a deity, when Dr. Moreland finally deals with a text of scripture, it is to say that "Nobody has a clue what Genesis 1 through 3 is saying. Nobody. Period." Why does he say this? Because there are many different interpretations of it among scholars. Somehow this fact implies that it could mean anything, and we can have no real clarity about its meaning! And while his primary point in this discussion of the opening chapters of Genesis relates to the age of the earth, it is not difficult to see how his hyper-skepicism about the clarity of this important text, if applied consistently to this text, could overthrow the existence of Adam and Eve, the fall, and the promise of a coming Redeemer as historical facts.

Since the fallen condition of man and the promise of a redeemer are grounded in these three chapters, would it not follow from Moreland's view of Gen 1-3 that nobody has a clue about those subjects? Indeed, when Jesus addressed these subjects in the gospels - certainly He knew what He was talking about - but, hey, nobody else has a clue what he was saying. After all, there are so many differing interpretations of the texts He was referring to.

Dr. Moreland goes on to say, "I'm not an Old Testament scholar, so if you ask me what do Genesis 1, 2, and 3 teach, I'm going to tell you, 'I don't have the foggiest idea; I have no clue.' All I know is that somebody wants to say it's six literal 24-hour days, they are out of their stinking minds. They're crazy."

So, Dr. Moreland has no clue what Genesis 1 -3 teaches, and yet, he does know for sure that those who hold the 6/24 view are nuts. Can you blame me for suspecting that this self-contradictory conclusion was arrived at for reasons other than exegesis of the text? For suspecting that it may be based on a prior commitment to big-bang cosmology, which he brings to the text, and through which he views it?

I do not know whether the big bang theory is correct, nor whether it will stand the test of scientific scrutiny for the next 50 or 100 years. But I do know that it is improper to allow current scientific theory to dictate the exegesis of the text of scripture. I found this lecture disappointing. While Dr. Moreland makes some very good points contra scientism and materialism, his presentation on the text of Genesis 1-3 is atrocious and his misuse of science to validate generic theism misses the whole point of apologetics, to give a reason for the hope that is within us.

BTW, I do appreciate this site. It has many useful, God-honoring resources.

Post a Comment

Thanks for taking the time to comment. By posting your comment you are agreeing to the comment policy.

Blog Archive