As far as I know it will be the only physician bluegrass fiction novel out there.

Between FaceBook and WordPress I have found many kindred spirits.

drtombibey.wordpress.com

http://100treatises.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/on-the-existence-of-the-man-in-the-sky/

You are very welcome to comment.

The points raised by Tyler are a bit deeper and more complex, so I will write about them in a future post soon.

Take care

There is ample evidence that the tooth fairy does not exist. We know the truth–parents sneak in, take the tooth, and leave a George Washington (or an Abe Lincoln under the pillow or a Andrew Jackson for you rich folks lol) under the pillow.

This cannot be said of God. There is the empirical world around us that we can see, touch, taste etc. Where did all this complexity of life arise from? Even if you attribute it to the big bang, you are still not answering the question of where all this empirical matter came from to begin with. Further, we still have no legitimate or even scientifically reasonable theory for where life came from. For the sake of argument, let’s say life did evolve out of single-celled organisms–but where did the organisms come from? Bottom line is that we don’t know, no one does.

Nor do we know where we got our sense of right and wrong. Our capacity to love, our inherent sense of justice etc. These are huge questions that Christianity (or perhaps more pointedly, the Bible) gives answers to.

That is why I agree with Tyler that Dawkins is an amateur because he makes silly generalizations about God and never takes the time to address or counter arguments made by sane, credible, well-established theologians. Dawkins reminds me of “Religulous”–ever notice that Maher interviews every Christian nut-job on the planet but fails to talk to any of the thoughtful, credible, intelligent, Christian voices in our nation. It is a caricature.

St. Paul is doubtless referring to God’s Law promulgated through Moses (which is, in fact, the same that was written on the human heart in Creation–though that firm of the Law is supresed in humans on account of sin).

And whether one maintains this encompasses all Mosaic legislation or narrowly the “moral” aspects is immaterial. St. Paul’s point here in Romans is that as a principle of law only one who satisfies it–keeps it–will receive vindication.

This is to make the case, as he does, that by such a principle all humanity is guilty and that through the Law comes only the knowledge of sin. Consequently, God in Christ fulfilled the Law through His atoning sacrifice, on account of which humans have imputed to them Christ’s righteousness–His obedience–and are declared righteouss by God.

“…(in fact, it is even more of an “invention” than reason because the latter is something we do naturally and instinctually without consciously trying).”

Well, now we’re opening real cans of worms. You’re assuming belief in God is not a properly basic belief. I would argue that it is (ala Alvin Plantinga). Whose assumption is more reasonable? Only within the last two Centuries have we started to think otherwise. But scientific positivism (which is what I hear from you) failed to deliver on its promises. It cannot support itself, it has nothing transcendent to appeal to (other than ‘deifying’ the self and making empiricism god…which is like saying, “I hear your objection, but I’m right, I know I’m not wrong because I’m right”).

Secularist, I promise you that things are not quite as simple as you would have them. I’ve already said that the only evidence we need is provided to us in an empty tomb in 1st Century Palenstine. N.T. Wright has provided one of the most sophisticated historical arguments for why the burden of proof is on those who would deny the historicity of the resurrection. The historical evidence for the resurrection is enormous. He’s not a blowhard either, this is a man who taught at the same university as Dawkins.

Speaking of Dawkins . . . he has accomplished much as a biologist, considering his presuppositions. But he is certainly no philosopher and his “The God Delusion” is embarassing to read. It’s hard to take him seriously because he hasn’t taken his opposition seriously (and thereby failed to do the responsible work of a scholar).

I’ll read your post and I’ll try to respond early next week on the resurrection. That’s what it all boils down to, anyway.

Regarding Dawkins, I’m no expert, but he seems to be of the position, simply, that there is an equal amount of evidence for the existence of the tooth fairy as there is for the God of the Bible—which is true.

The fact that “reason is a human invention and therefore subject to human limitations” does not mean it is not inherently reliable. In fact, it is the best tool we have to figure anything out, and, sure enough, we have used it with great success. Furthermore, the same thing could be said of religion—that it is a human invention (in fact, it is even more of an “invention” than reason because the latter is something we do naturally and instinctually without consciously trying). Does that then invalidate religion? I should think you would say it does not.

I deal with some of the other topics in a post today on my blog, if you are interested in taking a look.
Take care

I would chasten what I said with this caveat: Secularism is not a religion, but it has worldview implications like any religion. Thus, in the public square, I believe it’s on equal footing.

Further, I think you’re right about the devaluing of Christian influence in history. Christians gave birth to the ideas that formed modern secularism in the first place (i.e., Aquinas). However, the hopes of secularism in the 19th and early 20th Centuries have largely been recognized by the academy as overblown and failed (contra what secularist10 believes). It’s failed to deliver on its billing.

She’s wanting to argue about the public square, I’m wanting to discuss assumed pre-assumptions. Naturally, she doesn’t think she has any. [note: I'm gonna go ahead and be PC about this person so I don't have to continue repeating "secularist10".]

Despite what secularist here said about Dawkins, I think you hit the nail on the head. The reason he is so influential is because of his rhetoric not his arguments which are leveled at monsters in the closet and the tooth fairy and not the God of the Bible.

I also agree that reason is never a blank canvas–reason is a human invention and therefore subject to human limitations.

I will also say that Tyler never said that holding to racial and sex equality is a requirement for being a Christian. Although the New Testament posits different roles for women and men, it clearly holds that they are equal in Christ (as are all ethnicities Galatians 3:28). Different doesn’t mean unequal. Furthermore, I fear you are devaluing the Christian influence upon human rights movements prior to the 20th Century (i.e. William Wilberforce whose battle to end the British Slave trade kick-started the human rights movement in the states).