I didn’t really believe it at first, but there it was, right on my Facebook feed. Someone talking about how the lunar eclipse that happened on Tuesday. Or, in their terms, the “blood moon.” I don’t really blame them, there are people who like to stir up hysteria and they make very convincing arguments with…
Tag: science
Interruption in a different direction
Ok, I know last week I introduced a series on Creation ex nihilo for Science and Religion Fridays, but it’s been a busy week and I hadn’t given it the full measure of my attention as of writing this. So instead, I’m going to just mention that I have a peer reviewed article that is…
Creation from nothing (part 1): What’s the big deal?
The next few posts in Science and Religion Friday will focus on why Christian Theology insists on a doctrine of creation out of nothing, what this means both philosophically and scientifically, and what it necessarily cannot mean theologically. Please note that the following posts are a little bit technical (though I’ve tried to ease out…
Additional Qualifications for Dialogue (Science and Religion Friday)
This week, I’m only going to give a few more qualifications for the grounds of a dialogue between Science and Religion as they will appear on this blog (in this weekly category). Next week, hopefully, I’ll start with some constructive dialogue and get to what I genuinely wanted this series to do. A Philosophical Assumption…
Philosophy of Science: A Bridge for fruitful dialogue
Over the past few weeks, I’ve been showing how I don’t find Ian Barbour’s scheme entirely helpful, and why I’ve abandoned NOMA as in any way adequate. Yet, I’d like to suggest something that sounds like I am endorsing a form of NOMA (that is, the view that science and religion don’t interact). I’d like…
Adendum to the discussion of NOMA
A week and a half ago, I talked about abandoning NOMA as a valid model for science/religion interaction. The week after that the Chronicle of Higher Education ran a piece on the seemingly dominate force of “beauty” or “symmetry” in much scientific investigation, particularly in physics, and how it might be misguided. I’ve linked to…
(Sort of) Abandoning Ian Barbour’s Scheme for Science and Religion Dialogue
Over the past few posts in this series, I’ve been discussing the way in which science and religion interact. In several posts, I spent a good deal of time attempting to debunk the idea that science and religion necessarily conflict. Last week, I tried to show how NOMA is invalid, in large part because science…
Why NOMA is inadequate
It’s Science and Religion Friday again. Last week I talked about moving beyond the “conflict” model of science and religion (but especially Christianity) interaction. This week I talk about the concept of NOMA (and why it fails). Next week, I’ll go to Ian Barbour’s scheme of different models of interaction, and why it may be…
Moving beyond a conflict model
Hey it’s science and religion Friday! NPR ain’t got nuthin’ on me (and if I continue to write like that, they never will, nor care to) Anyway, most of my posts in this category thus far have been discussing the relationship between science and religion, though really science and Christianity, from the perspective of conflict.…
Does the Resurrection provide an objective criteria for Christianity?
Let’s step right in with some heavy Science and Religion. If you were following this blog before I left, you may recall a post (with a promised follow up that never happened until now) on the Resurrection. Specifically, I contest the claim offered by so many of the so-called “New Atheists” (and others like them)…
