tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post8340483455435152850..comments2024-03-10T10:54:59.776-07:00Comments on Ben Witherington: The Debate about God's Existence Heats up in ole AlabamaBen Witheringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-86125093736110302612007-10-17T13:30:00.000-07:002007-10-17T13:30:00.000-07:00I should point out that Al Mohler probably got a k...I should point out that Al Mohler probably got a kick out of the WSJ article since it refers to him erroneously as a "former" seminary president.Jeff Catehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07210032982797709183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-76273856940774968982007-10-16T13:43:00.000-07:002007-10-16T13:43:00.000-07:00It is indeed AlisterBW3It is indeed Alister<BR/>BW3Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-21429981276167534042007-10-16T11:09:00.000-07:002007-10-16T11:09:00.000-07:00Is it Alister or Alistair, or does it matter?Is it <I>Alister</I> or <I>Alistair</I>, or does it matter?Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03336631656424940049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-42816401792792487632007-10-16T04:34:00.000-07:002007-10-16T04:34:00.000-07:00Hi Brother Presbyterian:You are only partially cor...Hi Brother Presbyterian:<BR/><BR/>You are only partially correct. In the first place almost no one in America knows what an Oxonian is, and so the term Oxfordian has often been substituted and rightly so. In the second place Alistair's wife goes by Colleen I believe. Nevertheless, I appreciate the corrections. We must all go on to perfection :)<BR/><BR/>BW3Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-57120764313646230972007-10-15T11:56:00.000-07:002007-10-15T11:56:00.000-07:00Oxonians and Joanna, not "Oxfordians" and "Colleen...Oxonians and Joanna, not "Oxfordians" and "Colleen." Why not make these simple corrections?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-28429305487112057812007-10-15T11:46:00.000-07:002007-10-15T11:46:00.000-07:00Very true; of course, that idea goes hand in hand ...Very true; of course, that idea goes hand in hand with the need of both theologians and scientists to stop dichotomizing the two, and allow them to inform and improve upon one another, respectively.Sarahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931156548697185481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-62640374544028314522007-10-15T07:37:00.000-07:002007-10-15T07:37:00.000-07:00Thanks for these reflections Sarah I think you are...Thanks for these reflections Sarah I think you are on the right track. The NT suggests in fact that God sustains creation in existence moment by moment, so actually theology comes into it at all points frankly.<BR/><BR/>Ben W.Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-89389248122904798382007-10-15T04:49:00.000-07:002007-10-15T04:49:00.000-07:00You bring up some good points, Dr. Witherington. I...You bring up some good points, Dr. Witherington. I actually spent a good portion of last semester thinking through the sorts of issues that arise from the science and theology debate (for a pneumatology and nature seminar), and this sort of question, perhaps, interested me the most.<BR/><BR/>Or rather, amazed me the most, haha, if only because it strikes me as being one of the more effective illustrators of how truly limited scientific positivism can be. Truly, as much as some people (atheists and theists alike) would like to dichotomize science and theology into their own respective corners, a closer look reveals that, clearly, both are both indispensable constituents of any given worldview. <BR/><BR/>John Polkinghorne actually makes a great point in his book, 'Science and Theology' where, after citing Richard Dawkin's "scientific" claim that creation is nothing more than a tale “told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing,” he points out that Dawkins has unwittingly made an almost purely theological claim, seeing as how he is interpreting otherwise neutral data in terms of his presupposed belief in the impossibility of God’s existence. <BR/><BR/>It would seem, then, that rather than undercutting from the importance of establishing a sound theological groundwork for scientific endeavor, the apparent (albeit misguided) theological basis of his conclusions actually reiterates the interdependency of each upon the other. Moreover, that there are indeed evolutionary biologists who presuppose the existence of God and, in effect, are successful in interpreting the data according to this belief, stands as solid proof of this point. <BR/><BR/>Clearly, then, while science has done wonders in enabling astronomers to peer into galaxies billions of miles away, to discover and observe the blue supergiant explosions whereby the periodic table came into existence (hence making life possible), its hands are tied when it comes to shedding insight on how such a universe came into existence in the first place. I guess that is where theology has to step in.Sarahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931156548697185481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-86683898005615917772007-10-14T18:29:00.000-07:002007-10-14T18:29:00.000-07:00the most interesting part of the Lennox/Dawkins "d...the most interesting part of the Lennox/Dawkins "debate" (however we wish to describe the event) was when Lennox was giving Dawkins the working definition that we Christians have for faith. Lennox drew up on the example of a marriage and how he has faith in his wife. Dawkins dismissed it by simply saying "that isn't what faith is" (paraphrase, at least).<BR/><BR/>i guess we can call Dawkins argument a strawman.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13622708504225609852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-19400135974620486662007-10-14T13:54:00.000-07:002007-10-14T13:54:00.000-07:00I've been listening to this debate recently, thoug...I've been listening to this debate recently, though I'm not through it quite yet. I have listened to McGrath and Dawkins talk several times though and it has usually been quite inspiring as a Christian, to see someone stand up to Dawkin's fundamentalist atheism in an intelligent way. <BR/><BR/>But what you say here is true - atheism, particularly the new atheism we see today, is very much a faith though such atheists will fight this fact tooth and nail. While they are the minority, it still concerns me when I hear some very vocal atheists talking about religion as a mental disease or disorder. It's obviously not true, but the truth has rarely stopped the ignorant and conceited from doing extreme things.<BR/><BR/>I'm currently reading Moreland's "Scaling the Secular City" and have been very pleased so far with how he defends Christianity from all sides. I still need to read "The God Delusion" after which I suppose I will need to read "The Dawkins Delusion." :) Too many books and so little time!Lesliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05454747871999481708noreply@blogger.com