Who do you think you are?

We live in an individualistic society. In many parts of the world today, and in every part historically, a person was identified by their family, tribe and nation. There was a great sense that the individual’s identity was bound up in the group. The theory of our culture is that you can make your own identity, and it doesn’t matter about your family, tribe or nation. That’s the theory anyway.

Respect

I told you in a previous post about an atheist friend (Robert) I had a chat with. I want to focus on another aspect of our conversation. 

Impossible!? Exactly!

I want to tell you about a conversation I had with a young woman who was more than a bit sceptical about Christianity.

Why Sandy Hook makes me glad (and more sure) Christianity is true

The unspeakably tragic shooting in Connecticut leaves me praying for the families involved, but also praising God for the truth of the Christian worldview.

Still without a leg to stand on

I wrote last year about a man (Robbie) with whom I had a long and interesting conversation (see here, here and here).  Well, I just spoke to him again today, and sadly he still holds to the same denials of reason and reality, all the while denouncing those who disagree as unintelligent.

Without a leg to stand on, part three

There was one other subject under discussion in my recent conversation with the man who described himself as a "total atheist".

Without a leg to stand on

I want to tell you about a conversation I had with a very intelligent man recently.  The conversation enforced something I have often observed - intelligent people can say really unintelligent things.

History denier!

Richard Dawkins, in his usual measured way, has described those who deny Darwinian evolution as being on a par with those who deny the Holocaust.  However, it seems that Dawkins is the history denier!

Science has what?!?

It's often aggressively stated, and dogmatically shouted that science has disproved God, but is it true? The short and simple answer is no, and to suppose that it could be true betrays one of two things, either that people are dreadfully misinformed about the facts, or that people are deliberately misleading about the facts. Consider what science is – it is the study of the physical, material universe – how could it ever be that studying the physical universe could prove that there is something non-physical? When someone armed with a microscope or telescope proclaims they can’t see God, or someone armed with a balance says they can’t weigh God, why should anybody think this is a significant statement? It is like searching every square inch of your house and then declaring at the end of it that there was no builder because he isn’t in the bricks, mortar, tiles, paint or wallpaper. The application of the illustration is obvious – the builder isn’t a part of the thing he has built, he’s outside it. If you want to find the builder you need to go beyond an examination of what he has built. So it is with the universe. God is outside of creation, He’s not a physical being, and therefore science can’t examine Him, and certainly can’t disprove Him. Indeed, the more we learn about the universe, the more we see science pointing towards a Creator. Consider again the example of you searching your house for the builder: as you search your house and notice the ordered layout, the structure, the materials etc. at the end of your search you won’t have found the builder but you will have lots of evidence that there was one, and you will have learnt some things about him – you’ll have learnt about his skill (or lack thereof), and the level of his attention to detail, and so on. So it is with science: as the universe is investigated we find it pointing to a source outside of itself, and there are things we can learn about that source. Let’s briefly consider a few ways in which creation points outside itself to an external source, and then see what we can learn about the Creator.