Here’s my list of resources for those interested in the history of religion and science, both pro and anti-religious.
Stark argues that faith in God encouraged Christians to invent science. Having read other books making the same claim, I think Stark’s approach to this question is one of the best. Not only does he go over the development of technology in the so-called “Dark Ages,” and show how the “Enlightenment” picture of Copernican era science is a myth, he studies 52 key early scientists, and shows that more than 60 % were “devout,” while only 2 were skeptics. The critic below who asks why Christianity did not produce science in Russia did not read attentively: Stark argues that faith in God was a necessary, but not sufficient, cause of the rise of science. Other factors were also involved. ~ From this excellent review
I just purchased the Leader’s version of Logos Software 4, and wow! I am learning like crazy without even trying. Just trying it out, I searched on the term ‘homosexual’ and a bunch of references came up, including one that mentions 1 Timothy 1:9-10, one of the three New Testament passages that refers to homosexuality directly:
1 Timothy 1:9-10 (English Standard Version)
Understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine.
One commentary mentioned that this passage tracks closely with the Ten Commandments. I took a look, and here’s the parallels. I kept the order the same, and you can see how they roughly line up:
- Thou shalt have no other gods before me > the lawless and disobedient
- Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image > the ungodly and sinners
- Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain > the profane
- Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy > the unholy
- Honour thy father and thy mother > those who strike their fathers and mothers
- Thou shalt not kill > murderers
- Thou shalt not commit adultery > the sexually immoral, homosexuals
- Thou shalt not steal > enslavers
- Thou shalt not bear false withess against thy neighbor > liars, perjurers
- Thou shalt not covet > whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine.
What do you think?
- When different claims get bundled together.
- When ad hominem attacks against dissenters predominate.
- When scientists are pressured to toe the party line.
- When publishing and peer review in the discipline is cliquish.
- When dissenting opinions are excluded from the relevant peer-reviewed literature not because of weak evidence or bad arguments but as part of a strategy to marginalize dissent.
- When the actual peer-reviewed literature is misrepresented.
- When consensus is declared hurriedly or before it even exists.
- When the subject matter seems, by its nature, to resist consensus.
- When ‘scientists say’ or ‘science says’ is a common locution.
- When it is being used to justify dramatic political or economic policies.
- When the ‘consensus’ is maintained by an army of water-carrying journalists who defend it with uncritical and partisan zeal, and seem intent on helping certain scientists with their messaging rather than reporting on the field as objectively as possible.
- When we keep being told that there’s a scientific consensus.
To download <em>How to Misunderstand Scripture, please subscribe to the podcast feed.
Here’s the complete sermon outline:
A. Good Teacher
The Mistake: Jesus is denying his deity
The Truth: Jesus is challenging the man’s idea of ‘good’
The Problem: The man is a self-made success and now wants to excel in spiritual matters.
In one of my classes, we have been watching The Atheism Tapes, a BBC series where atheist Jonathan Miller interviews other prominent atheists on their disbelief and other related topics. Today, we watched his interview with Richard Dawkins.
I was surprised at who poorly Dawkins handled Miller's God's-advocate (as it were) questions. Miller was obviously not pushing the theist point of view, but he asked Dawkins questions from what he believed to be a theistic view point in order to elicit a pro-atheistic answer from the former professor at Oxford. When he was unable to explain his rationale for holding a certain position, Dawkins surprisingly to me fell back on what he so often attacks in others – faith.