The only issue of difficulty here is evolution, but this is only a part of the ‘findings’ of modern science. I’m not sure what qualifies as “denying the findings of modern science” here, but it seems as if they took a more moderate interpretation of Genesis in order to hold this view. Not that this is necessarily bad, even St Augustine held similar views long before evolution’s debut, but it just shows that this is a little more complicated. However, I think the main point can be sustained since science is not just evolution but is a collective methodology that incorporates various discoveries. Nothing about that is strictly incompatible with theology as a discipline that studies truths about God. And it is not at all immediately obvious that there is one definitive interpretation of Genesis at this moment as there are some formidable scholars that take a different approach.
“We are to think of a mindless process as using technique to put things in place. Though it has no intentions, we are to conceive it as enforcing its edicts by fobbing things off on us and using ploys. Though it is incapable of purposes, we are to suppose that it designed us. And though it is insusceptible to moral judgement, we are to be scandalized by its shamelessness [...] And so the very idiom these thinkers choose to tell that God is nonexistent and nature devoid of purpose insinuates, at another level, that nature is full of wily purposes and rules as a crafty, shameless god.” – J. Budziszewski in The Line Through the Heart: Natural Law as Fact, Theory, and Sign of Contradiction page 81.
In this article, philosopher David Albert, who is professor of philosophy at at Columbia, slaps Krauss’s hands for being a bad, bad boy. He essentially condemns Krauss’s thesis in his new book A UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing.
Krauss, mind you, has heard this kind of talk before, and it makes him crazy. A century ago, it seems to him, nobody would have made so much as a peep about referring to a stretch of space without any material particles in it as “nothing.” And now that he and his colleagues think they have a way of showing how everything there is could imaginably have emerged from a stretch of space like that, the nut cases are moving the goal posts. He complains that “some philosophers and many theologians define and redefine ‘nothing’ as not being any of the versions of nothing that scientists currently describe,” and that “now, I am told by religious critics that I cannot refer to empty space as ‘nothing,’ but rather as a ‘quantum vacuum,’ to distinguish it from the philosopher’s or theologian’s idealized ‘nothing,’ ” and he does a good deal of railing about “the intellectual bankruptcy of much of theology and some of modern philosophy.” But all there is to say about this, as far as I can see, is that Krauss is dead wrong and his religious and philosophical critics are absolutely right.
I’ve posted a couple times about Krauss and his new book about ”nothing.” I wonder if anyone can get through to this fool. Krauss, to put it bluntly, is a dolt. He needs to keep doing what he’s good at–namely, science, and please step away from philosophy and theology, because he clearly has no idea what he’s talking about.
For today’s Illustration, I attempted my very first Digital painting. Check it out.
Amazing video that shows the different stages of human development. From the human zygote, to the human fetus, to the human infant. I was in awe as I watched this beautiful video. I hope you feel the same way.
Short sound bites and links and stories that we encounter about Jesus in our daily life.
The supposed origin of Valentine’s day as inspired by a faithful Christian man
A few images.
The herecy hunters on this blog would like this
Very right wing
As of this post 127,464 people said Jesus was their Valentine on Jesus Daily’s facebook
Revival In Our Town Youth Group’s attendance reached an all time low of one kid.
Please pray for our Ministry.
Awesome Spanish Worship song.
Oh Senior da me mas de tu amor y verdad (Lord Give me more of Your love and truth)!
Shanton L. Jones surveys the scientific research, saying:
So in plain English, the best contemporary scientific findings are that when one identical twin brother is gay, the probabilities of the second twin being gay are approximately 10%. This suggests that the contribution of genetics to the determination of homosexual orientation is modest at best.
Not good news for the pro-homosexual camp. There has never been concrete evidence for it being genetic but despite this, it has always been championed as if it were a fact. I think more focus should be given to the sociological or psychological conditions instead. Even if their orientation was genetic, it does not make it anymore “normal” or “good” than down syndrome. In which case, both should be treated as genetic disorders (at different degrees) but of course that will be regarded as intolerant, bigoted, and offensive.
Solution? Don’t state facts, it’ll just make people mad.
One of my favorite bloggers and philosophers made an excellent post that rips the covers off of Krauss’s nonsense. You can find his article here. He does a much better job of exposing Krauss as one who spouts “sophistry for the purpose of exploiting rubes to make a quick pop science buck.”
Here is a video of Edward Feser giving a talk on “Natural Theology Must Be Grounded in the Philosophy of Nature, Not in Natural Science.” I’m personally a fan of Feser’s work (Thank you to Gil Sanders and my other good friend Tim Hsiao for introducing me to his books), and I think Feser has a great deal to say about this. He is the author of Aquinas, Philosophy of Mind (Now in its second edition), and The Last Superstition–and I must say I own all these books and they are excellent!
Here is Alvin Plantinga giving a talk on his most recent book Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism. This is another great philosopher whose work I am a fan of. Sadly, I don’t own too many of his books! That will change in this coming week when I purchase a few of them including his tide turning book God, Freedom, and Evil. Enjoy!
Please, Krauss, make up your mind about nothing. I’ve never seen this much of a blatant use of equivocation. Not only that, but Krauss had the nerve to say that the questions of “what is nothing?” and “what is something?” is not philosophical, but scientific. Really? Nevermind that this presupposes a philosophical stance. But like those amazing infomercials say, wait, it gets better!
So first Krauss says that quantum mechanics has allowed us to see that something can come from nothing. Later, Krauss tells us that science has revealed that empty space is not empty at all, but is instead particles. He also notes that empty space can contain energy.
So far we have learned that nothing, and empty space, is really a) particles and b) energy.
So, given that “nothing” is particles and energy, one can say that the universe did come from nothing! But, as you’ve already noticed, Krauss equivocates BIG TIME with our little tricky friend called nothing. Nothing, then, is not really nothing but really something: particles and energy. His whole point is to show that something can come from nothing, uncaused without the aid of God. But all he’s really done is shown that the universe came from something (particles and energy), thus demonstrating the truth of the very thing he is trying to disprove, i.e., something cannot arise from nothing uncaused. The problem is still there, it’s just pushed back a step. Where did the particles and energy come from if it all arose from the big bang?
Well done, Krauss.