Christianity is a religion founded in history. Its authoritative text, the New Testament, is a document likewise founded in history. Mythology is not history, and if Christianity were simply a compilation of mythological superstitions, then it would be abjectly divorced from the reality of history. But the very opposite is the case, as we shall see: Jesus Christ and His teaching and actions, including the miraculous, are grounded in human history and human relationship, and are neither explained nor defended in a vacuum outside the scope of literal, actual human experience. One may deny the meaning or purposes of the events recorded, but not the context of human experience in which they happened and are chronicled.
Read MoreFROM THE ARCHIVE
Even a cursory reading of Paul’s epistles to Timothy and Titus makes it clear that their work involved a wide variety of communicative purposes. They were to instruct, teach, rebuke, urge, charge, guard the truth, remind, rightly handle the word, correct opponents, convince, exhort, and so forth. The list is long. It should not be assumed now, any more than then, that all of these activities are restricted to the Sunday sermon. . . .
Read MoreThis discussion is the second and concluding article reviewing the book by Alvin Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism.1 A brief evaluation of what his book offers to the overall discussion of science and religion will follow. His primary theme, which he mentions several times throughout, is there is superficial conflict, but deep concord, between science and religion, and superficial concord, but deep conflict, between science and naturalism. Consequently, according to Plantinga the real source of the disagreement is between religion and naturalism. To be clear, Plantinga’s point is the atheism of Dawkins, Dennett, and others with their trash talk about theism makes the mistake that must be addressed. It is not that science is opposed to theism, so much as is naturalism. Plantinga argues these “super atheists” have taken science and have tried to argue it supports naturalism, when, in fact, it does not.
PART III
Read MoreThe assignment for this article is to examine the argument made by Alvin Plantinga regarding where the disagreement really lies in the overall discussion on the question of God and God’s existence with science and naturalism. Plantinga, a theist, wants to clarify where the real controversy is, from the perceived controversy. Reading through his treatment, he discusses the possible conflicts that may or may not exist between science and religion. This review, the first of two installments, considers Plantinga’s position and offers an evaluation.
Certain Preliminary Matters and His Main Theses
Plantinga considers the real source of the problem to be between theism and naturalism.1 However, before serious consideration can be given, one must understand what Plantinga means by theism, science, and naturalism.