Ian Hutchinson on Engaging Today's Militant Atheist Arguments

In this video Ian Hutchinson introduces his paper "Engaging Today's Militant Atheist Arguments", which can be downloaded here: http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/hutchinson_white_paper.pdf

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Christianity
• religion
• atheism
• science

[STEVONYMO]

If I was to sit and write all the things that science cannot explain I would be here a very, very long time...I feel sorry that some of you have not experienced things that you cannot explain. I'm lucky I have and I am a completly sane and rational computer scentist that works for a very large company. I'm not writing a book or looking for fame...I'm just trying to get to the truth and my truth is that I have seen shit that can't be explained and it was seen by family members also at the time.

[TheSamuraiGoomba]

I don't see why there's a problem with assuming science is the best way to know anything that's available to us today. The methods of experimentation and peer review eliminate bias. Most of our advancements came from science.

When we didn't know much about elements, people thought you could turn lead into gold. As we learned more about the subject, alchemy became chemistry as it became more scientific. Science isn't just "evolution," it's every subject approached with scientific methods.

[DarkEmergence]

Arguments? Wouldn't a Militant Atheist just physical hurt people? Like the way a Militant Muslim would strap a bomb to his chest or a Militant Christian would shoot up an abortion clinic? What exactly makes Dawkins a militant that can't be said for the average Christian Apologist?

[DarkEmergence]

@niriop Basically, he didn't really have a response to you so he tried an argument from authority.

[julzabro]

@jerrydecaire1 "The big bang is thought real only by circumstantial evidence (red shift) rather than replicable science and yet we accept that to be true." The Big Bang THEORY is NOT accepted as fact or, at least, not the complete by science which is y they r looking at various other explanations up 2 & including that there was nothing prior 2 the Big Bang. Science doesn't claim truths but merely tested facts. Not knowing exactly how we got here doesn't = a supernatural skydaddy.

[niriop]

@jerrydecaire1 Erm...what?

[jerrydecaire1]

@niriop Hutchinson fully understands science and he has less of a problem with God than the people posting here who know far less. Maybe he's on to something? Maybe he's got something you don't? One thing for sure, you don't ahve anything he doesn't. Think about that.

[jerrydecaire1]

@julzabro What logic are you talking about? The logic emanating from a cobbled together brain by chance which only concerns itself with survival rather than truth? The big bang is thought real only by circumstantial evidence (red shift) rather than replicable science and yet we accept that to be true. This circumstantial evidence is likened to the fine tuning of the universal constants which lead many to conjecture a God...

[jerrydecaire1]

Thanks for pointing out to a nuclear physicist how science works. I suppose when he finally gets it like you have, he'll change his absurd ways and become an atheist-like you.

[robvlob]

Saying science is the best or only know way to demonstrate repeatably facts is not akin to saying science is the only way of proving facts. Science may not be the only way of demonstrating facts repeatedly, but so far its the best we have. If there is some other way come up with it, there would be a noble prize in this finding.

Furthermore it seems the more science finds out about reality the more theists use its findings to assert that its a proof of their deity. Seems a bit contradictory.