hitchens is not Great

Christopher Hitchens is the author of a new book entitled "god is not Great". The book is thoroughly critiqued by Rev. Dr. Mark D. Roberts who also debated Hitchens personally. Because the debate was on a radio program, Pastor Roberts decided to write a blog series capturing more detailed discussion...

http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/godisnotgreat.htm

A few quotes from the blog series (although I recommend reading it)

The bad news for Christopher Hitchens is that he gets a low mark for accuracy when it comes to his statements about the New Testament and New Testament scholarship. In fact, I found fifteen factual errors in this material. I also identified sixteen statements that show what I consider to be a substantial misunderstanding or distortion of the evidence, even though a few scholars might agree with Hitchens. That's why I distinguish between factual errors and misunderstandings/distortions, in an effort to be clear and fair.

If my evaluation is anywhere near correct, this does not reflect well upon god is not Great, since the New Testament material comprises only about 6% of the whole book. How many other errors fill the pages of this book? I'll let suitable experts answer this question. But the obvious implication of what I discovered is that Christopher Hitchens is not a reliable reporter of facts, probably because has not done his homework adequately. He is, after all, a brilliant man with an inquisitive and well-tuned mind. Given my evaluation of his errors in the field I know best, however, I'm inclined to question his statements of "fact" concerning many other things. And my disbelief is not a belief. It's a reasonable conclusion based on the facts of Hitchens's numerous mistakes and misstatements.

Also, one of the specific points of debate:

As I read god is not Great, and as I've read other things Christopher Hitchens has written, it's obvious to me that he has a good bit of familiarity with the New Testament Gospels. I'd even be willing to bet that he knows the Gospels better than many Christians. Thus I am at a loss for why he would say that they "cannot agree on anything of importance." Even allowing for a good bit of polemical freedom, such a statement is so plainly wrong that it cannot but undermine the reader's confidence in Hitchens's reliability.

If would be perfectly fair for Hitchens to have said, "The Gospels agree on many things about Jesus, most of which are fictions, and all of which are rubbish." Of course I'd beg to differ with the stuff that comes after "Jesus," but at least it would be a fair point for him to have made. But it just isn't right for Hitchens to say that the four Gospels "cannot agree on anything of importance."

Read on!
Read full post here!

Awesome

Here are some pictures I received in an email forward that are interesting.

Perhaps you've seen these before?

Of course, the purpose of this is to show the relative size of the planets and stars we are near, however what it doesn't give us a feel for is the scale of distance between them, and that I believe is just as humbling when attempting to comprehend something that far away (and calling it "near", relatively speaking). The universe truly is awesome. There's no other word for it.







Read full post here!

Al Gore and the search for reason

I never thought I'd link to an article written by a nutcase like Al Gore, but it's worth the read actually. I disagree with many of his factual points, especially his naive assumption that "hardly anyone now disagrees that the choice to invade Iraq was a grievous mistake." Keep dreaming Al, that will probably go down in history as the greatest thing America has done in decades, even at the hands of this bumbling idiotic president we managed to elect twice. However, I do agree with his points about the decay of reason and logic in the American discourse...if only he were himself as open to it as he proposes to be.
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1622015,00.html

A few comments on his "excerpts":

In the world of television, the massive flows of information are largely in only one direction, which makes it virtually impossible for individuals to take part in what passes for a national conversation. Individuals receive, but they cannot send. They hear, but they do not speak. The "well-informed citizenry" is in danger of becoming the "well-amused audience."

I totally agree, what's more they are usually not watching the news but some idiotic sit-com with the same tired jokes and plots done for the past 20-30 years. These dumb down the public, and are not even funny enough for a real audience so they throw that annoying laugh-track over them to make you THINK it's something other people are enjoying also.

As a result, our democracy is in danger of being hollowed out. In order to reclaim our birthright, we Americans must resolve to repair the systemic decay of the public forum. We must create new ways to engage in a genuine and not manipulative conversation about our future. We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth. Americans in both parties should insist on the re-establishment of respect for the rule of reason.

IF ONLY AL GORE FOLLOWED THIS! He is leading one of the most manipulative movements in modern science! It's funny that he tells us that rejection of science is bad, but he won't even consider an objective, opposing view of why the earth's temperature fluctuates naturally from other notable scientists.

To understand the final reason why the news marketplace of ideas dominated by television is so different from the one that emerged in the world dominated by the printing press, it is important to distinguish the quality of vividness experienced by television viewers from the "vividness" experienced by readers. Marshall McLuhan's description of television as a "cool" medium—as opposed to the "hot" medium of print—was hard for me to understand when I read it 40 years ago, because the source of "heat" in his metaphor is the mental work required in the alchemy of reading.

I agree with this observation that reading something engages your mind in ways that TV doesn't, however that's why the internet is becoming the primary source of news and debate in the country (as he later points out in the article). The newspapers were too one-sided in their viewpoints, and thus they lended themselves easily to the propaganda that Mr. Gore is decrying.

Many young Americans now seem to feel that the jury is out on whether American democracy actually works or not.

Take them to Baghdad circa 1995, they'll see the light then!

The same ferocity that our Founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the Internet.

I hope he truly believe those words. And I'll expect him to fight just as hard to keep Townhall.com, WorldNetDaily.com, Redstate.com and the Drudgereport up and running right next to MoveOn.org. I'm sure his past flirtations with censorship are well behind him now.

Brad

Read full post here!

The warning signs of a "three tiered war"

Victor David Hanson has a good piece trying to show the rest of us the reality of the world we live in today. The media hasn't caught on yet, but have you noticed the number of small terrorist attacks or plots on our homeland lately?

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2UxMTFmMDc2NGEwMzllZjgwOGUwOWVkMGU3OGFkZDM=

A very good article, worth the full reading.

Read full post here!

Antony Flew the coop

This is a follow-up to my previous post regarding the link between science and faith.

This is perhaps old news, but still worth noting. As of the past few years, Anthony Flew may be considered one of the greatest FORMER-atheists of all time.

http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/
http://www.existence-of-god.com/flew-abandons-atheism.html

Follow the links above to read more about his change of heart.

It's encouraging enough when someone who is generally open to God decides to let Him in, it's quite another event when one of the greatest outspoken enemies of God of the 20th century says he now believes in the existence of God. What could be the reason for such a dramatic shift? His explanation: he apparently “had to go where the evidence leads”, that "the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." (Something Darwin would no doubt acknowledge as well)

But, wait?

I thought we just had to accept this all on faith?

Well, that's the point I'm trying to get at. Yes, there is a point where we allow faith to enter in (as in everything), but we should not throw out all of the perfectly good evidence that girds that faith, nor should we fail to educate ourselves about such evidence in order to defend the faith. Faith should follow a diligent study of the facts, then it is not an empty faith. Our faith should be a small step, not a leap. The faith we have is rooted in fact, in cold-hard TRUTH that even the worlds most notorious skeptics cannot obscure.

The study of science was indeed fathered by Christians such as Galileo, Pascal, Copernicus, Newton, etc. Their Christian worldviews are what fed their scientific method, the notion that the universe has a distinct order which can be observed and repeated. All other worldviews, including naturalism are thus incompatible with true science in reality.


Read full post here!