Greg Bahnsen on Defending the Faith

It’s been nearly 13 years since Greg Bahnsen went to be with the Lord, but his ministry still continues to edify and inform. Enjoy!

Tim Keller on Google Authors

A very helpful apologetic.

Don’t You Want to be”Rational”?

Here’s a great parody of the rhetoric of the “new atheists” Richard Darwins and Sam Harris. The point made here ties in nicely with a point made in my entry A Little Atheism is Good for the Soul (Part 2). If atheists want to say that Christianity is false because of the crimes committed in the name of Christianity, then we can play that game too.

[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/kGGkg7mGVDc" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

Atheistic Compartmentalization

These are the closing statements made by “Kelly” of the Rational Response Squad in a recent debate on ABC’s Dateline (her comments are made within the first minute):

[kml_flashembed movie="http://youtube.com/v/G6Ll2WPFxyk?rel=0" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

According to Kelly in this clip, the reason why Christians can act as valuable contributors in scientific studies (or any other field in which intelligent Christians participate) is because they mentally “compartmentalize.” Christians have a “God-box” where they won’t “let their logic seep into.”

So, apparently religious (and in the context of this debate, Christian) beliefs are irrational and do not harmonize with the type of rigorous thinking that is required in science. But, according to Kelly, Christians who do engage in science do not operate with these religious convictions within the doors of the laboratory.

Is this true? Do Christians secretly operate on atheistic grounds when intellectually contributing to the world in general, or doing science in specific?

I think not. In fact, what’s most ironic to me here is that Kelly’s statement is the exact opposite of what is the case.

It’s the atheist that “borrows” aspects of their thinking from the Christian worldview. It’s the atheist that “compartmentalizes” in their thinking. Why do I say that? Because the atheistic scientist accepts beliefs about the nature of reality (the uniformity of nature, i.e. that the future will be like the past), knowledge (the validity of the inductive principle), truth and ethics (we ought not to lie in the recording of data) and logic that simply cannot be made sense of in a naturalistic worldview, that is, these concepts within this worldview are not intelligible.

The naturalistic worldview believes one way about reality (all is matter in motion), yet it adherents function in their everyday lives based on beliefs that contradict their atheistic philosophy. When Kelly argues that Christianity is irrational, how does he account for rules or laws of rational thinking? Are they merely things that people agreed on? If they are, then we’re free to break them. Are these laws of logic universal abstract “things”? But in the naturalistic worldview all things are physical. Are the laws of logic physical things that we can touch or taste? And why ought (an ethical question) we to obey these “laws”? What obligations do we have to either a social convention or physical matter?

If Kelly and her partners cannot account for rules of logic, how then do they even begin to make sense of the notion of debate?

Tim Keller on the Importance of Doctrine

The Gospel in 6 minutes

Tim Keller on Scripture as our Foundation

Here’s a great clip of Tim Keller, Pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City.