|Science and Christian Belief 22.2 (October 2010)|
|This Page provides (where held) the Abstract of the above Book and those of all the Papers contained in it.|
|Colour-Conventions||Disclaimer||Notes Citing this Book|
Abstract: In two recent books, Victor Stenger claims to show that, using the scientific method, it is possible to show that the ‘God Hypothesis’ must be rejected. To a large extent his refutation is based on the use of ideas of statistical inference. The purpose of this paper is to show that the scientific method is incapable of achieving the goals set for it by Stenger and that, in particular cases, his use of it is fallacious. We deal first with intercessory prayer experiments and then with his understanding of statistical significance, meta-analysis and scientific sampling. In conclusion it is pointed out that a rigorous use of scientific method must include all the evidence which, in the case of Christianity, involves a serious examination of the evidence relating to the incarnation.
Abstract: The philosophical debate about determinism and free will is far from being resolved. Most philosophers (including Christians) are either compatibilists, asserting that determinism is compatible with free will, or libertarians, arguing that free will requires a fundamental indeterminism in nature, and in particular in brain function. Most libertarians invoke Heisenbergian uncertainty as the required indeterminism. The present paper, by a neurobiologist, examines these issues in relationship to biblical teaching on the brain-soul relationship. It distinguishes different levels of determinism, including genetic and environmental determinism, and argues that these are incomplete, whereas the physical (or ‘Laplacian’) determinism of brain function is almost total. In particular, it is argued that the attempt to support the libertarian concept of free will on the foundation of Heisenbergian uncertainty applied to the brain is problematic for both conceptual and quantitative reasons.
Abstract: In this article I argue that Christian theology, in order to be sufficiently coherent, should claim that miracles, like those described in the New Testament, do occur. I discuss first an argument by Wolfhart Pannenberg that any theory of God must be based on revelation, and suggest an improvement to Pannenberg’s line of reasoning. Presupposing that Christian theology must hold that God has revealed himself decisively through Christ, I then discuss whether or not Christian theology can reject that miracles happen. Based on arguments from the discussion of Pannenberg, I argue – against scholars like David Griffin and Arthur Peacocke – that Christian theology should accept that miracles occur in order to be sufficiently coherent. The reason for this is that if miracles do not happen it is more coherent to believe that God is not revealed decisively through Christ, than to believe that he is.
… "Coyne (Jerry A.) - Why Evolution is True" (Ken Mickleson)
… "Nevin (Norman C.) - Should Christians Embrace Evolution?".
"Jones (D. Gareth) - A Christian Perspective on Human Enhancement"
Source: Alexander (Denis) - Science and Christian Belief 22.2 (October 2010)
|© Theo Todman, June 2007 - Sept 2019.||Please address any comments on this page to firstname.lastname@example.org.||File output: |
Website Maintenance Dashboard
|Return to Top of this Page||Return to Theo Todman's Philosophy Page||Return to Theo Todman's Home Page|