Atheism’s just simpler, isn’t it? No spirits, no souls, no angels, no miracles, no God: just Dawkins’ “blind physical forces” operating the same way on everything, always and everywhere. God is a redundancy, a violation of Occam’s Razor, a hypothesis of which we (like Laplace) have no need. Right? Modern science has regularized our view
(More)…
This summer, I thought a lot about the problem of foreknowledge and free will. If God knows what we’re going to do beforehand – as certainly seems to be the case – how can our actions truly be described as “free”? There is far too much to say about this problem in one blog post,
(More)…
(Update: My friend CDK has reminded me that C.S. Lewis wrote an essay some time ago that discusses many of the points I seek to address here.) A couple years ago, I got into a discussion with a non-Christian friend about the historicity of the Resurrection. When I recommended a few books on the matter,
(More)…
Recently I have become interested in the history of science, particularly of biology, and my wanderings in that field have led me in countless surprising and interesting directions. I have learned, for example, that the whole science of evolutionary biology owes its existence to the first primitive herbalists, that the invention of the microscope was
(More)…
Most of us have heard of “God of the gaps” arguments, arguments that argue for the existence of God from “gaps” in the scientific record. If Science cannot explain some natural phenomenon, then God exists – or so the argument goes. Such arguments have been roundly (and, for the most part, rightly) criticized both by
(More)…
In the past couple months, I have become more and more interested in the nature of the Atonement. I have read a few different articles on the subject, including a two-part series on our very own Fish Tank (see here and here) and this paper. Of course, there are several paths of inquiry concerning the
(More)…
In the most recent volume of Philosophia Christi, Erik Wielenberg assesses two similar anti-theistic arguments, one by Richard Dawkins and the other by David Hume. After considering and (very reasonably) dismissing Dawkins’s argument, which seems to presume a) that God exists contingently and b) that God is made out of matter, he moves on to
(More)…
