Consciencebound

Archive for the ‘Christianity’ Category

People often look back to the Leave it to Beaver 1950’s as if it was the ideal moral family setting. As if the 1950’s society was the pure expression of God’s family values. But was it? This lecture which I found through my learnoutloud.com daily email, challenges this notion. The lecture is titled The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap which is the same title as the speaker’s book.

“Scholar and author Stephanie Coontz explores the myths of traditional marriage. Coontz is a faculty member at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash., and the director of research and public education for the Council on Contemporary Families. She has published extensively on the topic of marriage and family life and is the author of several highly praised books, such as The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap and Marriage, A History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage.”

Read the rest of this entry »

 I came across this site today that I thought was pretty good.  There is  a lot more on this site than just he page I link to but the section on the Bible I found to be pretty good.  This is coming from a skeptical and atheistic point of view but I believe it represents in some manner what much scholarship today has to say about the Bible.  Read it just as skeptically as the writer is about Christianity.

The sections discussed on this page are the following:

Read the rest of this entry »

In my previous post, I started to discuss my questions and thoughts on the moral argument for God’s existence.   In that post i dealt with my question about the differing moralities that we find in this world between different people.  In this post I would like to discuss something else which is another question which makes me doubt or at least question the idea that there is objective morality which exists in this world and is a clue to lead us to belief in God.

Question #2.  If we are born with a moral sense from God, shouldn’t we see evidence of this from birth or at least from very early on?

Read the rest of this entry »

The moral argument for the existence of God is something that is often brought up by believers.  Indeed, it has a lot of force to it and has been a question that has made me think considerably over the years as i have lost my faith.  I would like to take some time laying out some thoughts of mine on this argument over a few different posts.  There are different angles to deal with this subject and there are many things to consider.  My articulation of it may be a little disjointed and at some later point I may bring it all together in a more systematic way but I at least wanted to start writing to help me think it through.

Briefly stated, the moral argument of God is:

1. Some aspect of Morality (e.g., its objective force) is observed.
2. Belief in God provides a better explanation of this feature than various alternatives.
3. Therefore, to the extent that (1) is accepted, belief in God is preferable to these alternatives
   

The strongest force of this argument (in my opinion) is that it seems that we all TALK and FEEL as if morals are objective and absolute.  That is, that they are applicable to all people of all times.   Atheists and Religious people alike call things “wrong” or “bad” or “evil” and we speak in a way that suggests that everyone OUGHT to believe these same things are wrong (or right).

I personally FEEL as if morals are absolute and are not variant (at least the big ones).  I FEEL as if my moral convictions are not preferences but are timeless truths which we have no control over whether they are true or not.  I also FEEL as if this is something that has to be explained from whatever “world view” a person comes from.  Accounting for this seemingly obvious reality should not be taken lightly and is something that admittedly has kept me up at night thinking about it.

HOWEVER…  at times I have questions about what I thought was an obvious assumption to make.

Question #1.  If we are reasoning FROM morals TO God then shouldn’t the morals that we have all be the same? Read the rest of this entry »

The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.  by Francis Collins.

Francis Collins is a geneticist and the former director of the Human Genome project and every Christian should read his book.  But why would I suggest every Christian read a book about a man explaining his reasons for belief?  Christians already believe don’t they? Allow me to explain…

There are two aspects of this book that I one might find interesting and helpful.  Collins’ reasons for faith, and Collins’ explanation of genetics and evolution.  The reason that I recommend this book is because of the latter.  I didn’t find the arguments presented  by Collins to be particularly well reasoned and convincing for why one should believe in God or why they should become a Christian.  What i did find fascinating though was his very good explanation of how genetics work and what the genetic evidence is for common ancestry (evolution).  I hesitate to even state this for fear that many Christians will automatically rule Collins out as a “liberal” evolutionist who is opposed to the faith.  But Collins is not that.  He is an Evangelical Christian who believes that the Bible is the word of God, that Jesus is the second person of the holy Trinity, and that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.  But even though he believes these things, he is convinced because of his work that there is no doubt that all life on earth has a common ancestor.

I believe that he presents some very compelling reasons for why the belief in evolution is so wide spread among scientists today.  It is not as though there is a big conspiracy or that they are so committed in their stance against God that they try to force the facts to fit the evolutionary hypothesis.   Collins, like more and more believers, feels compelled by the evidence and believes that nature is a revelation from God that we are to understand to the best of our God given abilities. Read the rest of this entry »

Ok, I admit it, I like to argue.  I like to debate and discuss important issues and ideas.  But in my discussions with other people about important issues and ideas I have come upon an interesting psychological phenomenon.  Have you ever been talking to someone, debating maybe, and you had a realization that you weren’t truly as sure about what you were saying as you would like the other person to think?  Maybe it was over politics, religion, philosophy or why enchiladas ARE better than tacos.  You were steadfast in your position and felt that for some reason, you could not let on that you had doubts about your belief/position.  In your own mind you might have been thinking something like, “Hm, that is a good point and I really don’t have an answer for it but I am going to look into it more since I obviously and not as sure as i thought”.  But do you say this out loud?  No.  In the mean time, you argued and argued your position as if you were not swayed one bit. Read the rest of this entry »

This is an excellent article on the view of Biblical Inerrancy.  Very insightful and well written.  You can check out the original posting of it here or read the whole article below.

The Psychology of Apologetics: Biblical Inerrancy

November 9, 2008