We now come to chapter 2 of Jerry Coyne’s book, Faith vs. Fact. The chapter is entitled, “What’s Incompatible?” And, to get right to the point, here is what Coyne’s answer to that question is: Methods. He writes: “My claim is this: science and religion are incompatible because they have different methods for getting knowledge…
We now come to Part 3 of my book analysis of Jerry Coyne’s Faith vs. Fact. In my previous post, I gave a general overview of chapter 1 and then discussed Coyne’s referencing of Galileo and the Scopes Monkey Trial as examples that “religion” (i.e. Christianity) has always been antagonistic toward science. A basic knowledge…
As we now start getting into the details of Jerry Coyne’s book Faith vs. Fact, I am going to try to cover each chapter in the same manner. I am going to first provide a brief synopsis/overview of the main points or topics Coyne covers in that particular chapter, and then I will proceed to…
NOTE: Ten years ago I did this book analysis on “The God Delusion” on my old blog. Then four years ago I revised it and put it up on this blog, resurrecting orthodoxy. Somehow in the process, I failed to put up Part 11–Only today, a good 4 years later did someone notice! And so,…
It was about ten years ago that I decided to read the “big three” writers of the New Atheist Movement: Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, Sam Harris’ The End of Faith, and Christopher Hitchens’ god is not Great. I was teaching Worldview at a small Christian high school at that time, and I felt it…
A couple of days ago, I wrote a response to Wayne Rossiter’s critique to Part 4 of my series in which I addressed Ken Ham’s attempt to address the Theodicy question (i.e. How can one reconcile the idea of a good and loving God with the reality of suffering and death in this world?). In…
Truth be told, I cannot remember a time when someone ever wrote a critique to one of my blog posts on their blog. Well, that has now happened with Wayne Rossiter’s critique on his blog of my thoughts on suffering and death. Needless to say, a response to his critique is in order. Enjoy. A…
We now come to my final post on the topic of Ken Ham’s book, How Could a Loving God?, in which he attempts to address the topic of suffering and death. In my first three posts, I gave an overview and critique of Ham’s answer. In a nutshell, the problem with Ham’s YECist answer to…
Ken Ham’s book, How Could a Loving God? addresses the topic of theodicy: how can one reconcile the idea of a loving God when there is so much suffering and death in the world? In my previous two posts, I have given a brief overview of each chapter in his book and have critiqued the…
In his book, How Could a Loving God? Ken Ham attempts to give what he feels are biblical answers to the problem of suffering and death in the world. In my last post, I provided a brief overview of the book and a critique of chapter 1. In this post, I will take a look…