naturalism as explanation

I'm currently reading a paper by Peter van Inwagen on whether God is an unnecessary hypothesis and am absolutely drinking it up.

Thought I'd share (the insight below is not particularly controversial, but I find it is helping to clarify some things; you've gotta love analytical philosophy. I don't think I've ever seen this stated so clearly and it leads on to a bunch of things that I'm excited about.), partly as a reminder to me in future to read it again when I have time to scribble some thoughts on related things:

Consider the proposition that there exist natural things. This is a fact, and one easily verified by observation. Has it a purely natural explanation? That seems unlikely. How could facts about the properties of natural things and how they are related to one another (which are the only facts a purely natural explanation may appeal to) explain the existence of natural things? The difficulty of seeing how there could be an answer to this question suggests a general principle: To explain the existence of things of a certain type, we must somehow appeal to things that are not of that type.

...

Reflection on the fact that there are natural things suggests that the best course for the proponents of the superfluity argument to take might be to say that they hadn’t got their premise quite right, and to qualify it as follows: insofar as an observed fact has an explanation, this explanation is a purely natural one. That is, perhaps they should concede that some observed facts have no explanation at all, and go on to say that those observed facts that do have an explanation have a purely natural one. They could say that the proposition that there are natural things was a necessary truth, and thus had no explanation – at any rate, no causal explanation. But it doesn’t seem very plausible to suppose that the proposition that there are natural things is a necessary truth. The friends of the superfluity argument would, I think, do better to maintain that the fact that there are natural things is a brute, contingent fact – a fact because there are natural things, contingent because there might have been no natural things, brute because there is no explanation whatever of there being natural things.

How plausible is the thesis that every fact has either a purely natural explanation or else no explanation at all? Theists will certainly not find this thesis plausible. Theists think that at least one observed fact, the fact that there are natural things, has an explanation and has no natural explanation – its explanation being, of course, that there are natural things because God created them. Doesn’t the thesis that everything we observe either has no explanation whatever or else has a purely natural explanation simply assume the falsity of theism?

more here: http://andrewmbailey.com/pvi/Is_God_Unnecessary.pdf

Zeal

Question for the day:

Is zeal without knowledge dangerous or just disturbing/embarrassing in our apathetic world?

meaningful exchanges

The gospel: it’s truly relevant

Intrinsically; part of it.

Selfishness’s final solution

Good news: life which goes on and on

But how can someone communicate

This - 'true but inconvenient'?

Our faux-righteousness is no payment

Grace, free; generously given

Little surprise, faces resistance

All men want to be sovereign

Yet God exchanged divinity’s throne

With servant’s form; that’s upside down!

Crucified so that peace may be known

Take up your cross, the slave is now crowned

What of ourselves, now Death's overturned?

May our lives help make this Truth heard?

ambiguous violence

Man, the London riots.

What's up with that?!

Maybe I'll write more on this sometime.

If you don't believe that people are sinful, check out what's going down over there.

On a lighter note, I found this comment from the Metropolitan Police's spokesman a tad ambiguous:
"Those involved in criminality should be under no illusion that we will pursue you."

standing in my defense

One of my favourite song verses/sections:

Your blood: speaks a better word
Than all the empty claims I've heard upon this earth
Speaks righteousness for me
And stands in my defense

Jesus it's Your blood.



Some day I intend to write more about this; about how and why and that the blood of Jesus the Messiah was shed to rectify my stubborn opposition to the God who created me and is sovereign over the universe.

Your comments, of whatever stripe, are welcome. This is not merely some article of lofty faith for me, but really important to how I live my life and why I do what I do - if I'm wrong about this, I want to know and if you are, I think you should want to as well.

Religion - evil?

Thinking about the tragedy in Norway, I find this of interest and on the mark:

"The crimes of which Anders Breivik stands accused don’t show how religion can inspire evil. Quite the contrary: They are proof positive that a Christ-less Christianity is a cultural construct that can’t bring the depth of relationship required to prevent the horrors that evil inspires. ..."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/dont-blame-religion-for-anders-breivik/article2111872/

The gospel of Mark

I keep returning to the gospel of Mark - particularly since hearing it described as "the gospel for a sceptic in a hurry", I've been intrigued by it. Particularly its christology, or view of Christ. I'd love to talk with you about this, whoever you are, though admittedly I've only dabbled briefly in the topic. This gospel also contains one of my favourite passages, (as I may well have said here before.) That passage reminds me (and vice versa) of this skillet song. In related news, a NZ scholar of Mark I happen to know, Derek Tovey, will be speaking on the book's view of Jesus on Tues 2nd August at 1pm at Auckland Uni as part of Jesus Week.

Anyway, I think the gospel of Mark is also worth listening to. That's right, listening to!

Living in the 21st C, we're fortunate to have access to mp3s, including of the bible - that book that continues to influence so much and so many.

One of my favourite bible translations is the 'NET' bible (New English Translation), partly as it doesn't have the copyright issues of some other translations. It is also fairly literal and comes with some very useful notes.

As a service to someone out there, I've compiled the links to the chapters of the gospel of Mark, the NET version, read by some American guy whose voice isn't too disagreeable (lack of Queen's English or upper-class American accent notwithstanding) here - at an approximate calculation, you could listen to the whole thing in around an hour and a half or so. How about that?! Give it a shot.

Courtesy of http://net.bible.org

(chapters) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

kiwi music

Hey, here's a site worth checking out if you want some easy-listening kiwi (Christian) music to download for free - I hope you'll like it:

http://strahan.co.nz/


I envisage setting up a gig for him sometime, somehow.

How did Muhammed die?

It's an intriguing question for me and maybe for you - how did Muhammed, the prophet of Islam, die?

Another intriguing question for me is why the html on this site has been such a hassle recently - hence the large gaps and occasional lack of gaps in some of these posts.

Anyway, was it by poison? While it seems an ignoble death, particularly given Islamic conceptions of prophethood, the hadith seem clear on the topic (google it if you like.)

This Islamic response fascinates me - not least because it quotes, unblushingly, sections from the New Testament which show that prophets before Jesus died - fair enough - but also, explicitly state that Jesus was likewise killed. Believing that Jesus was killed is very unorthodox for a Muslim and I don't think the author believes this at all - but what basis could there be for using these accounts about Jesus only where they line up with what you already believe? What extra weight does such use of quotations give an argument?

The author also accepts the parable of the tenants, in Mark 12: 1-12 as authentic from the mouth of Jesus and points out that "the son" is clearly talking about Jesus. This is hardly controversial for most readers of the New Testament, but coming from the mouth of a Muslim apologist, it is unexpected. Perhaps I am missing something.

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/does_the_prophet_s_death_from_poison_disprove_his_prophethood_or_was_it_an_honorable_death_for_our_beloved_prophet_

Spooky.

Trent Dougherty says a lot of things (or a few things anyway) that I feel I would say if I was better educated in philosophy.

Enjoy (his insights on why some people need to get real when it comes to evaluating certain philosophical claims (particularly theism-friendly ones)):

http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/archives/2011/06/spookiness-get-.html#more

In the name of Science

A personal note:

For those who’ve followed my scientific career, this may be hard to believe - but I am now something of an expert in chicks, as in baby chickens. You could even say, with fairly minimal exaggeration, that they “flock” to me. I could give you the details, but I won't, as it might put you off your dinner to be honest.
So, for all your limb-bud grafting needs, text me anytime - or leave a message at this blog.


Here's a random superchic(k) song, enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-goGUFT35c

You know what?

You know what? I think we should change the world. You, me, that guy/girl we’re ‘friends’ with on Facebook. And their mates. Yeah, why not?! We should, we even could: feed people, clothe people, tell them about Jesus (order negotiable); fight for democracy, or socialism or compassionate communitarian conservatism or something, anything, other than the icky status quo. Common wisdom is overrated, I .. believe .. we need a change.
(Pronounced with due dramatic flourish.)

Me for President. Or maybe you!

Who’s with me (us)?!!

Oh, wait – it’s exam time. :(

Sorry folks.


And then there’s that little issue of the middle-class dream. We wouldn’t really want to give that up, would we?

And the student loan to pay off.

You’ve got to be secure, you know! Emotionally, financially, socially, the rest. Got to. It’s common wisdom.

So, yeah.


*Shuffles feet*

*Clicks pen & glances at notes*


Maybe I’ll be back later…

(Picture courtesy of Wikipedia - percentages of populations undernourished)