(And apparently they're in the living room because they have to be "entertained" in order to get them to sit on the potty chairs for any amount of time. haha)
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Big kids now
Add this to the pile of pictures that are adorable now, but they'll hate when they're teenagers.
(And apparently they're in the living room because they have to be "entertained" in order to get them to sit on the potty chairs for any amount of time. haha)
(And apparently they're in the living room because they have to be "entertained" in order to get them to sit on the potty chairs for any amount of time. haha)
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
dawk and alister, pt 1
With the upcoming 'themester' at IU regarding evolution, I've been thinking through my own viewpoints (albeit incomplete) and extending my knowledge through conversations with friends and literature from scientists and theologians. Today I was talking with a bio professor that I work with (who also happens to be a full time pastor!) about Dawkins' imminent talk coming up on campus. He mentioned that he finds Dawkins' arguments relatively easy to deal with simply for the fact that Dawkins doesn't really seem to understand faith or religion at all.
Tonight, I began listening to this conversation between Dawkins (RD) and Alister McGrath (AM). AM is a Christian theologian who also has a PhD in molecular biophysics. About 12 minutes or so into the video, RD makes a point that Christians should not (cannot) use improbability of nature and living things as a reason for God because the existence of God is just as improbable. That is, he comments that God popping into existence is just as improbable as a complex organ (the eye) popping into existence. I think this in itself goes to show his lack of understanding. AM tries to explain that God is not IN this natural order... He created it. He is outside of that which he created. And despite all improbabilities, you can say that we are here right now in this moment (including our eyes and other complex organs) so at some point you have to make a decision about what improbability is least improbable.
RD goes on to say that if AM believed in a "God that evolved I'd be much happier." Whoa, RD. Again, there's some basic theology you're missing, I think. To believe in a God that evolved would mean that there was room for improvement. That God was not perfect to begin with; that he developed in some way. Again, this is putting God into our natural order that we (try to) observe here on Earth, instead of realizing that He is outside of all that; He's supernatural. RD also mentions that he would be more comfortable with the idea of a simple God. Really? Why do you want to make God wimpy? Why would you be more comfortable with a God who constantly changes or who is simple in our human minds? It seems to me that RD wants to work God into our framework. That he thinks we're the ones that figure it all out and God should fit into our way of being, into the natural world he created. It's kind of like saying that if a man builds a house, he will be part of that house in the same way a wall is; that he would settle as the house does, he would need to be painted and remodeled and developed as the house is. When actually that's not the case at all. The man would be able to interact with the house but he will never BE a part of the house in the way that the wall is (I realize this analogy isn't perfect, but maybe you get my point).
Anyway, that's it for tonight, but there will probably be more to come on this. :)
Tonight, I began listening to this conversation between Dawkins (RD) and Alister McGrath (AM). AM is a Christian theologian who also has a PhD in molecular biophysics. About 12 minutes or so into the video, RD makes a point that Christians should not (cannot) use improbability of nature and living things as a reason for God because the existence of God is just as improbable. That is, he comments that God popping into existence is just as improbable as a complex organ (the eye) popping into existence. I think this in itself goes to show his lack of understanding. AM tries to explain that God is not IN this natural order... He created it. He is outside of that which he created. And despite all improbabilities, you can say that we are here right now in this moment (including our eyes and other complex organs) so at some point you have to make a decision about what improbability is least improbable.
RD goes on to say that if AM believed in a "God that evolved I'd be much happier." Whoa, RD. Again, there's some basic theology you're missing, I think. To believe in a God that evolved would mean that there was room for improvement. That God was not perfect to begin with; that he developed in some way. Again, this is putting God into our natural order that we (try to) observe here on Earth, instead of realizing that He is outside of all that; He's supernatural. RD also mentions that he would be more comfortable with the idea of a simple God. Really? Why do you want to make God wimpy? Why would you be more comfortable with a God who constantly changes or who is simple in our human minds? It seems to me that RD wants to work God into our framework. That he thinks we're the ones that figure it all out and God should fit into our way of being, into the natural world he created. It's kind of like saying that if a man builds a house, he will be part of that house in the same way a wall is; that he would settle as the house does, he would need to be painted and remodeled and developed as the house is. When actually that's not the case at all. The man would be able to interact with the house but he will never BE a part of the house in the way that the wall is (I realize this analogy isn't perfect, but maybe you get my point).
Anyway, that's it for tonight, but there will probably be more to come on this. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)