Comments on: An Atheist Philosopher Predicts Scientific Naturalism Will One Day Be Laughable

By: Laurette

Laurette — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 05:55:50 +0000

That IS the real question.

By: An Atheist Philosopher Predicts Scientific Naturalism Will One Day Be Laughable | Pastor Leaders

Sun, 25 Nov 2012 22:26:07 +0000

[...] Online Pastor Source- thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/ [...]

By: Bruce Russell

Bruce Russell — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 19:58:46 +0000

The claims of scientific materialism certify that permanent and unconcious death is the destiny of us all: nothing to sing about there. I choose to believe what God has shown me in Jesus Christ.

By: Steve, Winnipeg, Canada

Steve, Winnipeg, Canada — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 20:50:16 +0000

Dr Plantinga has never been more profound than in this clip!

By: Nathanael Johnston

Nathanael Johnston — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 19:26:18 +0000

Thanks for posting this review! There is another excellent review of Thomas Nagel’s new book by the Roman Catholic philosopher Edward Feser in First Things.

http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/10/aristotle-call-your-office

By: Jason Dollar

Jason Dollar — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 15:50:13 +0000

Plantinga writes and quotes Nagel:

“SADLY ENOUGH (at least for me), Nagel rejects theism. ‘I confess to an ungrounded assumption of my own, in not finding it possible to regard the design alternative [i.e., theism] as a real option. I lack the sensus divinitatis that enables—indeed, compels so many people to see in the world the expression of divine purpose.’”

I so much appreciate Nagel’s honesty (as most of us do, I assume), but I gather he is making this statement tongue-in-cheek. Not only does he “lack” the sensus divinitatis (or thinks he does), but he in no way believes such a thing exists. To me, the irony here is astounding. Nagel is being respectful and refreshingly honest on the one hand, but is truly blind in his sinful condition on the other, not seeing the fingerprints of God on creation (Rom 1), or his own personal need for the Gospel of Christ. He assumes there is no such thing as God, or the knowledge of God, but is actually suppressing that truth in unrighteousness.

Still, his book seems refreshingly honest!

By: rc sproul jr

rc sproul jr — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 14:11:42 +0000

That’s all well and good, but how does Dr. Plantinga’s air conditioning work? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nDOxLh6AbQ

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:41:36 +0000

This is some good old-fashioned Romans 1 honesty … For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.(Romans 1:21-23 ESV)

By: Steve Cornell

Steve Cornell — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 23:39:11 +0000

Ah yes, theophobia in the academy! My good friend Dr. Michael Murray, (Executive Vice President, Programs & Vice President, Philosophy and Theology, The John Templeton Foundation) gave an Inaugural Lecture on this titled, “Who’s Afraid of Religion?” I summarized some of Mike’s points here if interested: http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2011/01/29/theophobia-fear-of-religion-in-the-academy/

Philosophical naturalism — the view that the physical world is a self-contained system that works by impersonal, blind, unbroken natural laws — comes up suspicious by the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to defend it.

PN declares that nothing beyond nature could have any conceivable relevance to what happens in nature. But the really big problem with this conclusion is that there is not one shred of scientific evidence to support it. One is only cable of embracing philosophical naturalism by faith (which changes the entire direction of the discussion). Stretching science into a philosophy (or some kind of religion), PN proponents give people the misleading impression that the science of evolution offers more than it is capable of offering.

Honest scientists (and there are still plenty of them in the Academy) know that it’s simply outside the function of science to resolve such matters. Science can describe in fascinating detail what is within the universe and speak to purposes related to adaptability and survival in the physical world. Only God can prescribe what is beyond the descriptions of scientific inquiry and speak to purposes of eternal significance beyond the limitations of the physical world.