Comments for Analogical Thoughts

Comment on Scripture or Science? by Scripture and Science | Scripture Zealot

Scripture and Science | Scripture Zealot — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:16:44 +0000

[...] You can find them in this excellent post: Scripture or Science? [...]

Comment on Responses to The God Delusion by Critical Reviews of Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” : Thinking Matters Talk

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:54:38 +0000

[...] Also, for those interested in getting a hold of books that have addressed Dawkins’ book and the New Atheism, here are a few options (HT: James at Analogical Thoughts): [...]

Comment on Inverted Phariseeism by metochostouchristou

metochostouchristou — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:22:37 +0000

Great points. Thanks for posting this.

Comment on Inverted Phariseeism by James

James — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:31:34 +0000

Ouch! See how easy it is? :)

Comment on Inverted Phariseeism by stephennhays

stephennhays — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:01:35 +0000

God, I thank you that I’m not like other Calvinists who vainly imagine they’re justified by their faith in justification by faith!

Comment on Inverted Phariseeism by theoparadox

theoparadox — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:42:47 +0000

That’s convicting and well put. Thanks.

Comment on Scripture or Science? by James

James — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 01:10:56 +0000

Thanks for the comment. I agree that this is an important distinction, but I’m not sure how it bears on the point I made. My point was simply that recognizing the low probability of some state-of-affairs with respect to scientific evidence alone (whether evidence about natural laws or evidence about what happened in the past) needn’t defeat a person’s belief that the state-of-affairs has obtained. It’s a general point about probability and epistemic defeaters which doesn’t depend on the kind of scientific evidence in view. But that’s not to deny, as you point out, the relevance of the distinction in other contexts.

Comment on Scripture or Science? by James

James — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 01:02:33 +0000

Yes, it turned out a lot longer than I intended! But it was a good opportunity to articulate my thoughts on the issue, so thanks again for the question.

As to your first point, my qualified skepticism about scientific consensus is based partly on my view of the noetic effects of sin, as you suggest, but also on an understanding of human psychology that would be shared by many non-Christians. In short: it’s human nature to be inclined toward interpretations and conclusions that (i) fit with one’s personal outlook on life and (ii) fit with the expectations of one’s community.

Comment on Scripture or Science? by iohannes325

iohannes325 — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 01:22:21 +0000

Fascinating discussion. The ASA had a panel on Adam at its conference over the summer; audio recordings are available at the website (Symposium II). I look forward to reading Prof Collins’ paper when it becomes available.

Comment on Scripture or Science? by matthewdschultz

matthewdschultz — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 23:45:26 +0000

Dr. Anderson, this was excellent. Very useful and helpful.