By: Michelle Zorzella
There are several varying approaches to apologetics. A common strategy among Christian Fundamentalists and Biblical literalists is Presuppositionalism; the belief that Christianity provides the only coherent foundation for rationality. This approach relies on the presupposition that the Bible is divinely authored and consequently inerrant. A presuppositional apologist therefore seeks to demonstrate that Christianity is perfectly coherent, while exposing the logical flaws in all other worldviews. A common objection to this radical approach is that by presupposing the Bible is infallible, one begs the question as to whether Christianity is actually true and internally consistent. The full extent of this problem is best illustrated in a controversial statement offered by American Pastor Peter LaRuffa, in HBO‘s 2014 documentary Questioning Darwin:
By: Alexander Ciurana
On November 20, 1955—less than one month after becoming the pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church—Martin Luther King, Jr. preached on the parable of the Good Samaritan (Carson, 2007, pp. 239-240). The story is found in the gospel of Luke chapter 10. Doubtless, this parable has been the subject of thousands of sermons throughout Christian history. The vast majority of these would be focused on kindness and neighborliness. Yet on this Sunday service, in that Montgomery, Alabama church, the familiar story would receive an interpretation remarkably unique and insightful. The sermon’s title alone is striking, “The One-Sided Approach of the Good Samaritan” (Carson, 2007, p. 239). (more…)
By: Monique Zorzella
The well-known Darwinist and author Richard Dawkins is notorious for his emphatic views about religion. Unarguably one the most influential thinkers of the New Atheist movement, the British Biologist has inspired a fresh wave of religious skeptics that keep his various works in their repertoire. Among the ways of his thinking that has been adopted is the notion that religion encourages ignorance. This can be evidenced by his declaration “I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” This statement is quite bizarre seeing that it conveys an attitude towards uncertainty that is contrary to what many Atheists seem to believe, as Atheists themselves appear to be fairly comfortable with accepting their own ignorance.
By: Michelle Zorzella
Atheism can be generally understood as the negation or denial of theism. There is therefore no necessity for the atheist to believe no gods exist—only to have reasons for denying their existence. Agnosticism on the other hand, neither asserts or denies the existence of divine beings. More precisely, it can be described as indecision or the suspension of judgment concerning the existence of gods. How then can agnostic atheism be understood?
Scottish philosopher Robert Flint (1838–1910) provides one of the earliest references to the increasingly popular concept in his 1887–1888 Croall Lecture on Agnosticism. Flint, though he dismisses the idea agnosticism is inherently atheistic, acknowledges it may be and often is combined with atheism. An agnostic, believing proof of gods existence to be an impossibility, is consequently also an atheist who does not believe in any gods. Flint draws the following distinction between dogmatic, critical and agnostic atheism: