tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post1803490643681030475..comments2024-03-25T02:16:16.247-07:00Comments on Christ the Tao: Faith Plus: Christian discoveries for John Loftus.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-50763289366299457632013-07-19T00:58:05.135-07:002013-07-19T00:58:05.135-07:00Actually there are accounts of anciet egyptians pe...Actually there are accounts of anciet egyptians performing brain surgery... science.still cannot prove how life started.and that big bang crap is nothing but a small pop hypothesis. Plus through personal experiences and seeing with othersits impossible to deny someone like God created this world its too complex and put together for the planet to jus appear and a cell to evolve...what! This isn't pokemonAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13638488925009126188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-88759796518958307662013-03-23T13:46:18.886-07:002013-03-23T13:46:18.886-07:00We're all borderline narcissists, Sam. If I ig...We're all borderline narcissists, Sam. If I ignore the narcissists, I'll have to go join the nihilists, if they'll have me. <br /><br />I think John raises interesting questions. I think those questions, properly understood, can help point people to the truth. I don't rebut Loftus because his arguments are terrifying, and rebut him because they are promising. See my review of this book on Amazon. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-71615536184692360202013-03-23T13:21:27.580-07:002013-03-23T13:21:27.580-07:00You really need to ignore John Loftus. He's no...You really need to ignore John Loftus. He's nothing but a pseudo intellectual crackpot borderline narcissist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-49276124065992502112013-03-14T07:45:05.320-07:002013-03-14T07:45:05.320-07:00Jim: Thanks for explaining your point of view more...Jim: Thanks for explaining your point of view more. I don't listen to podcasts, also don't have access to journals, so I'll have to take a pass on Weeden for now.<br /><br />It appears that the term "theology" is a sticking point. "Theology proper," for you, seems to include not just the study of God, as the term implies, but also of human relations with God, which actually seems to be an expanded meaning. My meaning is expanded further. If your point is that Christians hold to certain dogmas, why yes, we do. So do Secular Humanists, Marxists, Theraveda Buddhists, etc. <br /><br />We use history and science to make new discoveries. Yes, also geography, our own senses, and reports from people we meet. Some of those discoveries inspire new thinking in "theology," broadly defined -- not just the basic nature of God, but how He interacts with this world of His. Yes. That's what the term usually covers, academically, and maybe in popular thinking. Christian theologians don't usually change their idea of God from three-in-one to many on Olympus: if they do, they exit Christian theology. Same with Secular Humanists: if they change their definition of "human" from "homo sapiens" to "anything with fur," then they too exit Secular Humanism. <br /><br />My work, completed last year, is a fundamental work of intellectual discovery, that explains how world religions relate to one another better than has been done before, IMHO. John Hick compared such theories to a scheme of the planets, and that's an appropriate analogy, to a limited degree. I think that's very close to the heart of theology in your "narrow" but not too narrow sense. But of course, I wasn't assuming that sense: I was assuming the more conventional, expanded sense. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12934365167621451886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-69008811405374195772013-03-14T03:39:48.192-07:002013-03-14T03:39:48.192-07:00David,
Sorry for taking so long to get back to yo...David,<br /><br />Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. On the road and caught in work-related mini-disasters. Anyway, you can find a a good review of Bauckham's book in Theodore J. Weeden, " Polemics as a Case for Dissent: A Response to Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses," <i>Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus</i>, Vol 6(2), 2008, pp. 211-224, especially the section on the Gospel of Mark as a Petrine remembrance. You can find Bauckham's response, "In Response to My Respondents: Jesus and the Eyewitnesses in Review" in the same volume, pp. 225-253. Not being a Biblical scholar and having no convenient access to an academic library, I found a reading of Weeden's criticisms in one of Robert Price's <a href="http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-20430/TS-452692.mp3" rel="nofollow">Bible Geek podcasts</a>.<br /><br />Many of your responses are based on a misunderstanding of my point, but that's my fault. I should have made it very clear that the <i>only</i> field in which Christians cannot and do not learn much of anything new is theology proper, When it comes to questions such as "what is God like, what kind of relationships with him can and do we have, and how do we move between them" even Roman Catholicism and Pentecostalism, which have the most generous views of continuing revelation, don't budge much on their traditional fundamentals, unless, of course, they take the "liberal" route of people like me. <br /><br />Apart from theology proper, your quote from Proverbs is apropos. I will repeat my earlier criticism of your list of "discoveries." Most of the works containing discoveries cover fields in which standard scientific and historical methods are used to determine what is the case. The other works may be filled with new ideas, but John was not contrasting the number of new ideas generated by Christianity vs. science, only discoveries, i.e., knowledge. <br /><br />Also, let's be clear on the difference between what is "new to me" vs. "what nobody else has known before." According to Christian orthodoxy, Christians can learn tons of new things about theology proper -- things new to them. Learning things nobody else knew before is another matter altogether. Isn't that limited to periods of major upheaval like the 1st and 2nd comings of Christ?<br /><br />So, in theology proper, what are your criteria for truth? Based on those criteria, what new <i>knowledge</i> has been discovered in 2012? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08729965956946739033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-53538586320014601182013-03-12T05:27:36.277-07:002013-03-12T05:27:36.277-07:00Yes. It's also a "Myth," as Jacques...Yes. It's also a "Myth," as Jacques Ellul puts it, one of those myths to which propagandists must always appeal, if they want to be heard. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-18747777582545707012013-03-12T01:46:39.028-07:002013-03-12T01:46:39.028-07:00So here's another way to make the larger point...<i>So here's another way to make the larger point: science is explicitly dedicated to following the evidence *wherever* it may lead.</i><br /><br />No, it's not. Science is a tool or a method, and an extension of philosophy. It's not "explicitly dedicated" to any such thing, just as rulers are not explicitly dedicated to letting us accurately measure window panes. They can certainly be used for that role - or others.<br /><br />Now, maybe you can argue there's a particular mindset or attitude or claim about 'following the evidence wherever it leads'. But it's just not going to be science. Maybe science grafted to a particular supposed philosophy - but even the philosophies are going to start with some exemptions and axioms.<br /><br />Science is great, but one reason it's great is because it's limited. It's a tool, not a way of life.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-8436801874379339512013-03-11T21:59:25.226-07:002013-03-11T21:59:25.226-07:00I'll see if I can find the CS Lewis essay and ...I'll see if I can find the CS Lewis essay and get back to you.Paul Rinzlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06784526285150115571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-993797203230446412013-03-11T19:31:01.739-07:002013-03-11T19:31:01.739-07:00Paul: Commitments are often package deals. If you...Paul: Commitments are often package deals. If you get married, you commit yourself to your wife "in richer and in poorer." Faith is a set of beliefs about reality, but first of all a commitment. Have you read C. S. Lewis' essay on persistence in belief? I've been traveling for 24 hours, may not give a very good answer -- so let me recommend that essay, with which I agree pretty much, and may answer your question. Maybe my brain will start working againt tomorrow. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-89820589629521530012013-03-11T09:26:01.033-07:002013-03-11T09:26:01.033-07:00Yes, David, I get your point, but my point was a l...Yes, David, I get your point, but my point was a larger one, not the narrower one you took it as.<br /><br />So here's another way to make the larger point: science is explicitly dedicated to following the evidence *wherever* it may lead. Can you say the same thing about Christianity (or your version of it)? I don't mean that rhetorically or as a challenge, I mean it plainly and simply. Or are there some things that you or Christianity has concluded that has been concluded on some basis other than where the evidence has led? If you answered that question with, "no," then our differences will be merely in how we interpret and evaluate the evidence. <br /><br />Let's start there and see where it does.Paul Rinzlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06784526285150115571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-68097137065749272982013-03-10T06:54:48.807-07:002013-03-10T06:54:48.807-07:00Paul: Again, we can just throw that challenge back...Paul: Again, we can just throw that challenge back at Secular Humanists. SH cannot, in principle, ever conclude that the following is not true: <br /><br />1. There is no God. <br />2. We die and that's it. <br />3. We should care about ourselves. <br />4. We should care about other humans. <br /><br />That doesn't make either Christianity or Secular Humanism unscientific, or indeed comparable to science at all. Science is one, fairly narrow, way of finding things out, useful in some situations. I doubt one could prove or disprove God scientifically: even were ID or miracles true (I do think the latter occur, at least, but that's more an historical than scientific claim), that alone would not prove God. Even if they don't, that alone would not disprove God. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-67733241454049470892013-03-09T18:52:53.971-08:002013-03-09T18:52:53.971-08:00To put things simply, I am a realist, though it fi...To put things simply, I am a realist, though it finding the truth about the nature of the universe is easier in some areas than others.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15589068803309555248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-66919946467450202182013-03-09T16:40:55.871-08:002013-03-09T16:40:55.871-08:00I totally agree with that point Stephen, as you po...I totally agree with that point Stephen, as you pointed out the 'epistemic' possibility of conflict can occur regarding how X views their worlview. <br /><br />Though you did state'science is a method or methods, of finding out facts about the universe' I'm just curious on what your views are pertaining to scientific realism and anti-realism?Cornell Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13255210404560230404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-53380360265694743022013-03-09T13:06:17.181-08:002013-03-09T13:06:17.181-08:00It is at least epistemically possible for science ...It is at least epistemically possible for science and Christianity to come into conflict. It is also at least epistemically possible for philosophical naturalism and secular humanism to come into conflict with science. My point is that Christianity and naturalism/humanism are world views, and are thus on a different level than science. Science is a method, or methods, of finding out facts about the universe, which can operate within the contexts of different world views. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15589068803309555248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-80532498745348418212013-03-09T12:52:46.229-08:002013-03-09T12:52:46.229-08:00Stephen Parrish is correct to a degree in which Ch...Stephen Parrish is correct to a degree in which Christianity and science doesn't NECESSARILY come into conflict.<br /><br />As shown in works such as:<br /><br />'Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues' by Ian Barbour<br /><br />'The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion' edited by Peter Harrison<br /><br />This Video actually makes a lot of good points as well, and I believe many will find it to be of interest to them. The Christianity vs. Science supposed conflict is more of 'myth' than fact.<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkMfQjwLbog<br /><br />Keep in mind though, my discussion with John (who appears will not be joining us here any longer on this thread) is a bit different than what others are discussing here on this thread.Cornell Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13255210404560230404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-75170604376087312182013-03-09T12:27:57.317-08:002013-03-09T12:27:57.317-08:00Comparing Christianity to science is an apples and...Comparing Christianity to science is an apples and oranges comparison. What is apples to apples is comparing Christianity to philosophical naturalism or secular humanism.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15589068803309555248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-33320109796256646342013-03-09T11:52:09.870-08:002013-03-09T11:52:09.870-08:00Jim and David, allow me to summarize and clarify o...Jim and David, allow me to summarize and clarify one of Jim's points.<br /><br />Christianity, in principle, cannot ever conclude that the following is not true:<br /><br />1. The god of the Bible created the universe.<br />2. Humans have a sinful nature.<br />3. Jesus died for our sins and our salvation in the afterlife.<br /><br />If you want to quibble about the details of #1-3 above, I will accept whatever edits you choose to make, but the point will still hold that (your version of) Christianity cannot ever conclude that (your edited version of) my #1-3 above is not true.<br /><br />Science, by contrast, holds not a single conclusion away from some potential rejection, given good enough evidence.Paul Rinzlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06784526285150115571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-84379674939131001172013-03-09T11:35:23.561-08:002013-03-09T11:35:23.561-08:00And really all these new medical discoveries are g...And really all these new medical discoveries are great John, but it would be nicer if the average american could actually afford them without having to either go into bankruptcy or into other uncomfortable finanical situations.<br /><br />But I guess this somehow makes life easier, yes? And this system of new healings has been working just fine. Yes, we can get healed, but then your most likely to live a life of recovery to your finances.<br /><br />"The study data, published online Thursday in The American Journal of Medicine, likely understate the full scope of the problem because the data were collected before the current economic crisis. In 2007, medical problems contributed to 62.1 percent of all bankruptcies. Between 2001 and 2007, the proportion of all bankruptcies attributable to medical problems rose by about 50 percent."<br /><br />"Among families who were bankrupted by illness, those with private insurance reported average medical bills of $17,749 compared to those who were uninsured, who faced an average of $26,971 in medical costs. Those who had health insurance but lost it in the course of their illness reported average medical bills of $22,568.<br /><br />"Hospital costs accounted for about half the expenses (48 percent), followed by prescription drugs (18.6 percent), doctor’s bills (15.1 percent) and insurance premiums (4.1 percent). Medical equipment and nursing home care rounded out the list."<br /><br />http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/medical-bills-cause-most-bankruptcies/<br /><br />This is definitely working fine and dandy.Cornell Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13255210404560230404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-85886182614232444612013-03-09T11:22:09.867-08:002013-03-09T11:22:09.867-08:00@John
Easier to all humanity, especially people w...@John<br /><br />Easier to all humanity, especially people who love hitting others with identity theft? Is this 'easier' a subjective term? <br /><br /> Why is it that there are still so many problems in the US even given the fact that we have better access to science? Ask the 99%<br /><br />Why is it that the U.S is even 16 trillion dollars in debt? Can't science somehow come to the rescue and clean up this act in one swoop? <br /><br />You also say 'ought' is pragmatic and conditional, well that makes absolutely no sense. Pragmatic either sounds more like "a "theory of what works best for me personally" not what works better for everyone, so this ends up being subjective, OR it sounds like something trying to derive and 'ought' from an 'is'. What you saying here is DESCRIPTIVE and not PRESCRIPTIVE, I'm interested in how something 'ought' to be like, instead of what 'is'. What you say also begs the question on why humans should live as if they need to make their lives better. If this is the case then which type of humans are we talking about? Are we talking about Identity hackers who get off on making people miserable? Because yes I can see how an Identity theives can use science to their advantage. In fact this is actually a big problem going on right now in the world.<br /><br /> http://abcnews.go.com/Business/126-million-reasons-identity-theft-matters/story?id=18628475<br /><br />As far as what 'works' well we don't know all of the long-term actual and potential effects of a new discovery in science. Take the Credit card for example and how much of a disaster that has been.<br /><br />"Americans today depend far more on credit than they do on their savings, and credit cards are one of the most common form of borrowing in the US...<br /><br />Credit card debt in the USA currently amounts to a total debt of about 962 billion dollars. The average credit card debt per credit card owning household is 14,750 dollars. This is the total credit card debt divided by the number of households with credit cards. Credit card penalty fees in the US add up to about 20.5 billion dollars a year."<br /><br />http://www.usdta.org/credit-card-debt-in-the-usa.php<br /><br /> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/19/us-credit-card-debt-grows_n_2158010.html<br /><br />Even though Americans are making progress in debt regarding some areas, the overall picture looks terrible:<br /><br />"Americans have increasingly been paying down their mortgage and credit card balances. But even as total consumer debt has diminished by approximately $100 billion (down to a mere $11.4 trillion), more than $1 trillion of our current debt load is delinquent, and nearly $800 billion of that is overdue by more than 90 days. And while owing less is a good thing, the study shows that we're burning through our savings to pay our debts down. The overall net worth of the average American is down nearly 40% from 2007 to 2010."<br /><br />http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/07/02/do-you-have-more-debt-than-the-average-american/<br /><br /><br />The problem is we don't have a crystal ball telling us how everything is going to turn out, so this pragmatic conditional becomes more of a guessing game. What works, doesn't really always work and in fact just makes things worse. It's more like 'hmmm let's just wing it". <br /><br />So now you have more questions to answers, why is it that we have all this sciece, but still so many problems in this country? You are aware of the problems yes?<br /><br />It just seems that you ignore the negative effects of the double edged sword and haven't really given us an idea of why humanity 'ought' to have this goal to search for scientific discoveries. I see 'easier' for some people, and 'tougher' for people who have been hit with identity fraud, which is a lot according to that article I posted from ABC<br /><br />I hope we don't have to come to the conclusion of you promoting identity theft?Cornell Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13255210404560230404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-20671580530738524172013-03-09T11:19:48.319-08:002013-03-09T11:19:48.319-08:00Jim: Sorry for the slow response -- I've been ...Jim: Sorry for the slow response -- I've been pretty busy, lately. <br /><br />Thanks for your gracious apology, and interesting argument. <br /><br />"If you ask a secular humanist what procedures he uses to establish his "beliefs," he'll usually point you to science."<br /><br />That's because most secular humanists have not been taught to think philosophically, or in some cases, just to think well. The truth is, most scientific thinking relies on prior sources of knowledge and trust -- in the mind, the senses, the honesty of other researchers -- which are not themselves scientific. So science is, in some ways, a superstructure on those prior ways of knowing, and is much narrower than them.<br /><br />Faith in God is what I call the "fourth step of faith," beyond mind, senses, and people. It offers the chance to get to know things the prior steps of faith cannot. In the same way, trust in people is a broader epistemological method than is trust in one's own mind and senses, and therefore allows broader knowledge. <br /><br />In this sense, "By faith, I know that the world was formed from things that are not visible," as Hebrews 11 puts it. True, science also tells us that now. But we Christians first learned it from the Bible. <br /><br />"Ask a Christian, and he'll usually point you to his Bible."<br /><br />But Christians also learn from science, history, philosophy, etc. In fact, Christians helped invent and develop many subdisciplines in science. So this is a false dichotomy. Secular humanists in no sense "own" science. <br /><br />"You may disagree here, but IMHO where the two cover the same ground scientific investigation has been eating traditional Christian orthodoxy's lunch for the last 500 years."<br /><br />I do disagree. Often, science (and other rational studies) have confirmed and deepened Christian faith. <br /><br />"Science makes no claim that we already know everything important to know, whereas Christianity does."<br /><br />Does it really, now? As in the verse, "It is the glory of God to hide mysteries, and the glory of the king to seek them out?" Francis Bacon quoted this verse twice to justify his role in the scientific revolution. <br /><br />"In principle, any sociologist could have written Bad Religion . . . "<br /><br />Unlikely. But one can again throw this argument back as Secular Humanists. What great discovery by a secular humanist could not also have been made by a Christian? <br /><br />"Any Bible scholar could have written Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (although most wouldn't because Bauckham's central thesis is flawed, and it's odd you included that book in the list of 2012 discoveries because the book has been out for a number of years)."<br /><br />I discovered it last year. What's the best criticism you know of the book? <br /><br />"John was ambiguous, but he meant discoveries in theology proper. I'd love to see your list of discoveries in that field!"<br /><br />Some of the books above were in that field. My interests are pretty catholic, though, as are those of theology in general. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-26090370024160651712013-03-09T08:10:25.393-08:002013-03-09T08:10:25.393-08:00Cornell, I'll answer you quickly but once. The...Cornell, I'll answer you quickly but once. The "ought" is pragmatic and conditional. If we want to make life easier and better for ourselves then we ought to pursue scientific discoveries. If we don't, then we don't. And science does just that. It works. It has brought us computer chips, rocket ships and cruise ships. Even if you knew you were going to cease existing in a year you would still want your life made easier and better now.John W. Loftushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05460780063452698997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-8439396642993532742013-03-09T08:02:13.073-08:002013-03-09T08:02:13.073-08:00@ John Loftus
Science is underpinned by philosoph...@ John Loftus<br /><br />Science is underpinned by philosophical presuppositions and heavy use of principles of logic such as the Law of excluded middle and the law of non-contradiction. Now let's dissect what you said and I will show you how your statement = religious in itself. <br /><br />The Statement "look at all these great discoveries in science for 2012 and nothing from religion" entails that there is an OBJECTIVE goal towards humanity that states humans 'ought to' progress in scientific discovery. <br /><br />Right now this statement from Loftus in itself is a religious mindset that states humanity has a purpose it 'ought to' acheive in progressing science, but you haven't given any reasons on why this is the case. <br /><br />Is the unconscious universe going to happy with humanity?<br /><br />Cornell Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13255210404560230404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-30527154323096342892013-03-07T03:13:02.601-08:002013-03-07T03:13:02.601-08:00David,
You are right about me calling your reply ...David,<br /><br />You are right about me calling your reply dishonest. That was wrong of me and I ask your forgiveness. <br /><br />I don't think that the comparison between Secular Humanism and Christianity as "belief systems" does what you want. Let me elaborate as simply and briefly as I can.<br /><br />The distinction you make between science as an "epistemology" and "religion" as a set of beliefs is only half the story. In fact, in common usage both "science" and "religion" can refer to a set of methods to discover truth and sets of truths discovered.<br /><br />John's post works if you understand science and religion as references to both investigative procedures and the conclusions reached as a result. If you ask a secular humanist what procedures he uses to establish his "beliefs," he'll usually point you to science. Ask a Christian, and he'll usually point you to his Bible. After the necessary qualifications I think this distinction holds. <br /><br />OK, so we can compare the results of science to the results of Christian faith. You may disagree here, but IMHO where the two cover the same ground scientific investigation has been eating traditional Christian orthodoxy's lunch for the last 500 years. <br /><br />Christianity is not a way of finding stuff out? The only way that can be true is if you mean by it, "it is not a way of finding stuff out on your own; God has to give you revelation if you want learn something new." Isn't this the way Christians become wise, by listening to the voice of God in Scripture, believing what he says, investigating it carefully to be sure it is understood correctly, and then putting it into practice? It seems to me that in principle it is just as possible to discover something new in the Bible as it is to discover something new in the physical universe. Sure, the field for discovery in the Bible could be smaller, but that depends on your hermeneutic. Consider the cabbalists or allegory. Talk about discovery! So, what's your hermeneutic? Most likely it introduces some kind of controls to this dicovery process, just as science does with its methods. And most likely, your set of controls is going to limit the discoveries to things that conform with the basics of Christian orthodoxy. Which means that there isn't anything very significant left to discover. After all, if there were then God had chosen to hide it from previous generations of his people? I thought that was ruled out by the appearance of Jesus and the dawning of the last ages. If I'm right, and I think I have the weight of the evidence on my side, then it's by design that Christian orthodoxy doesn't discover much of anything new. So you are right to complain that John is comparing apples and oranges, since science makes no claim that we already know everything important to know, whereas Christianity does. Each body of knowledge's progress conforms to its own set of initial conditions. <br /><br />In the case of Christian orthodoxy, though, the initial conditions include a set of claims about the physical universe and past history that can be and in some cases already have been falsified, leaving guys like you to either abandon the scheme or invent ever more convoluted CYA moves. <br /><br />One final point. John was not saying that Christians can't make new discoveries. Of course they can, using the same methods in the same fields of study as anyone else. In principle, any sociologist could have written <i>Bad Religion</i>, any Bible scholar could have written <i>Jesus and the Eyewitnesses</i> (although most wouldn't because Bauckham's central thesis is flawed, and it's odd you included that book in the list of 2012 discoveries because the book has been out for a number of years). John was ambiguous, but he meant discoveries in theology proper. I'd love to see your list of discoveries in that field! <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08729965956946739033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-91500997746189491562013-03-06T09:01:50.332-08:002013-03-06T09:01:50.332-08:00David,
You can get used copy from Amazon for $19...David, <br /><br />You can get used copy from Amazon for $19.57. In my opinion, it is one of the more interesting books on apologetics around, and gives an answer to some of what Loftus said at the beginning of this thread. <br /><br />Also, since I know you are a fan of Rodney Stark, have you seen his new book, "America's Blessings?"Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15589068803309555248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-64936694402703364622013-03-06T08:44:52.860-08:002013-03-06T08:44:52.860-08:00Stephen: Looks interesting. A little expensive, t...Stephen: Looks interesting. A little expensive, though. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.com