Opus 2022-198: Scholars

I am starting to think that scholars should be banned from speaking to the general public and be forced to interact only with other scholars.  It isn’t a matter of vocabulary or knowledge.  It is a matter of attitude and ways of reasoning.

In the past I have listened to a scholar named William Lane Craig (WLC).  He is a Christian apologist who does research, writes books, records podcasts, debates and gives lectures.  His doctorates are in Philosophy and Theology but he seems to be a bit of a Renaissance man because he has also dabbled in physics and other areas of science.  He recently wrote a book, The Quest for the Historical Adam.  I listened to a forum at the Southern Evangelical Seminary which had scholars from four different disciplines react to his writing.  The four speakers weaved in and out of being interesting and being profound but I was generally able to follow them.  When Craig got up to respond I found I could understand what he was saying but it still didn’t make any sense to me as a common person.

When scholars get on their high horse they feel they have to put so many qualifications on anything they want to say that their statements become mush and fog.  Much of the bobbing and ducking focused around his statement that Genesis 1-11 was something he called “mytho-history”.  It seemed to me like he was focused on pleasing the scientific community more than actually making a clear statement.  

I don’t think I will bother with the book.  It fits into that genre of scholarship that is so inconclusive that the time would be better spent reading something else.  I hope it is just a hiccup in his career because he has a lot to say and usually says it well.  Meanwhile I hope he enjoys debating the other egg-heads.

homo unius libri

Opus 2022-176: Call Me Cynic

I am constantly reminded that my attitude of questioning everything is the right place to be.  Call it skepticism, cynicism, realism, or whatever ism you want, we need to make sure that our brains are always turned on and we are constantly on the lookout for deception.

This tangent is generated by a podcast I am listing to on the Alice Childers You Tube channel.  She is talking to J. R. Miller and they are discussing a recent book by William Lane Craig, In Quest of the Historical Adam.  I have heard Craig referring to his research on this for years and I guess the book is finally out.

I have listened to Craig for a long time, not religiously but enough to have a feel for him.  I used to listen to his podcasts when I walked.  I have found him informative and orthodox.  I have never heard him say anything that I thought was heretical or pushing the envelope.  

I have not listened to Childers long enough to have a firm knowledge of where she is on different issues.  J. R. Miller is totally unknown to me.  So when they tell me that Craig does not accept the doctrine of Original Sin I begin to wonder.  They also say that in his new book he seems to accept the “consensus” of science about evolution.  If they are right I am grateful for the heads up.  At the same time I need to keep my baloney meter on and keep listening.  I know enough about both topics to have a feel for the truth Biblically and scientifically.

I will continue to listen to the podcast and keep my mind in gear.  I hope you are finding a lot to stimulate your thinking and encourage your faith.

homo unius libri

Opus 2022-133: A Good Resource

I have been listening to William Lane Craig off and on for over ten years.  When I used to walk and listen to my I-pod I was able to put in a lot of time with his wisdom.  His website it called Reasonable Faith.  If you have never heard of him you might find his approach valuable.  He is one of those guys with multiple Ph.D.’s and is well versed in both science and theology.

One of his talks called “Does Modern Cosmology Prove the Existence of God?” popped up on my I-pad and I stopped to listen.  One of the reasons I like listening to people like Craig is that they know what they are talking about and they also know what the opposition is talking about.  That is a great combination.  On this podcast they were reviewing an article by a scientist whom I assume is well known and they were able to point out that the arguments he was putting forth had been refuted for years and yet he was acting like he was cutting edge.

This is why we need people like William Lane Craig.  It is easy for us laymen to get snowed by terms like quantum physics and not know what they are talking about.  Craig just smiles and goes on to quote the experts in the field.

Take a few moments and see what he has to say.  

homo unius libri

Opus 2016-344: Why the 25th? Why not?

What are the odds that Jesus was born on December 25?  I would guess about 1/365.  He was born.  He lived.  He died.  He rose again.  That you can take to the bank but we do not know the actual day. 

There are other things we do not know about Jesus.  We do not know what He looked like.  There is no physical description.  He was a He.  He was healthy enough to do a lot of walking.  Beyond that there is nothing but guesswork. 

We do not know what He liked to eat.  We do not know His favorite colors.  We don’t know if He liked traditional or contemporary music.  We don’t know if He was a KJV man or into the NIV.

There is a reason for that kind of ignorance.  It forces us to focus on the real issues instead of developing a bunch of superstitions and traditions based on fools’ gold.  Recently I heard a podcast talking about the opening of Jesus’ tomb in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.  The speaker, William Lane Craig, who is usually very scholarly was positively giddy about being able to see into this tomb.  He gave a run-down of the history of the spot and felt like it could very well be the real tomb of Jesus.  I hope not.  We don’t need another “holy spot” for the gullible to rush to for some magical cure.  If you want to read what National Geographic has to say it is consistent with what Craig had to say.

What we need to know, we know.  We do know why He was born.  It is wrapped up in His names.

(Matthew 1:21 KJV)  And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

(Matthew 1:23 KJV)  Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

So keep in mind what we do know and what we don’t.  What we know is important.  What we don’t is not.  If you don’t want to celebrate Christmas because the date is associated with a pagan holiday then pick a day to remember, mediate on and celebrate the incarnation.  And don’t look too deep because whatever day you pick you will probably find that pagans are doing something too.

Merry Christmas and Happy Incarnation.

homo unius libri

Opus 2016-235: The Unexplainable

William Lane Craig was talking about physics on one of his podcasts and trying to explain some complex detail of science.  At one point I expected him to say “It is too complicated to explain.”  He didn’t.  He went and attempted to make it clear.  I don’t remember the point buy I do remember wondering, “Is it possible that something is not too complicated to understand but too complicated to explain?”  I am more at home with theology than physics or philosophy so I apply it to concepts I deal with every day.

Have you ever tried to explain the trinity?  I have.  I have a deep satisfaction with understanding it even though I am continually getting new insights.  The problem is explaining it.  I constantly have a comment of one of my professors run through my mind, “Gentlemen, if you ever think you understand the trinity you have probably drifted into heresy.” 

Think about the things that are so hard to explain.  At school I tell my eighth graders that I had a lot of fun changing diapers.  I tell them that it is different when the child is yours.  They don’t believe me.  They don’t understand.  I have had fathers who understand but noone without the experience even has a clue. 

This does not mean we turn off our brains.  It does not mean we abandon thinking or reason.  It does not mean we stop changing diapers.  It means that we have been out and experienced enough to lose the arrogance of thinking our understanding is the measure of truth.

Just because you can’t explain something doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

homo unius libri

Opus 2016-117: Rejecting B.F. Skinner

I was listening to a podcast from William Lane Craig.  He was on a tangent that involved the question of free will verses the concepts of irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints.  For those of you not into theological terms that is a question of whether you have free will or not.  I believe in secular philosophy B.F. Skinner taught the idea that everything is predetermined.  He was trying to explain how God can know what you will do and at the same time you can make free choices.

He mentioned his wife.  He postulated a situation where she was presented with two plates.  The first plate offered a choice of liver and onions.  The second plate was filled with chocolate chip cookies.  She had to make a choice.  He said he knew what she would choose.  I can also tell you now which I would chose.  She has free will in the matter.  Noone is compelling her.  He knew what she would choose. 

In the same way, God can know what we will do because He knows us.  If we in our limited knowledge can make sound predictions then God with His infinite knowledge can certainly do as well.

homo unius libri