“My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning the abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) — or to ‘unconstitutional’ Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word State (in any sense other than the inaminate real of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate! If we could go back to personal names, it would do a lot of good.
Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should be an offence to write it with a capital G or so to refer to people … The most improper job of any many, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity …
There is only one bright spot and that is the growing habit of disgruntled men of dynamating factories and power-stations; I hope that, encouraged now as ‘patriotism’, may remain a habit! But it won’t do any good, if it is not universal.”
- J.R.R. Tolkien 1943 (from The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien)
“The theorist who maintains that science is the be-all and end-all-that what is not in science textbooks is not worth knowing-is an ideologist with a peculiar and distorted doctrine of his own. For him, science is no longer a sector of the cognitive enterprise but an all-inclusive world view. This is the doctrine not of science but of scientism. To take this stance in not to celebrate science but to distort it.”
-Nicholas Rescher, The Limits Of Science
“See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.”
-Colossians 2:8 ESV
As I browse the internet, reading articles and the comments on those articles, I am always amused at responses to certain topics such as the creation vs evolution debate. Which, for whatever reason, is still stuck in a perpetual state of polarization and the progress of understanding the true nature of the discussion is going nowhere fast. The view that seems to stick is that the religious must believe things without any evidence and that science has done away with God. The problem was enhanced by the Ham/Nye “debate”, yes I put the word debate in quotations because I’m not sure that qualified as a proper debate. The way these conversations always end up, is not discussing evidence that science discovered, but with philosophical claims. Let’s define some terms here;
Science is considered a first-order discipline.
-A field which examines a subject of interest (Biology, physics, etc..)
Philosophy is a second order discipline.
-A field which examines the presuppositions of another field (philosophy of science, philosophy of history, etc..)
When we make the claim that science is the only source of true knowledge, this is a self refuting statement. Science itself does not make this claim. To do science, one must hold many philosophical presuppositions before ever beginning to study the external world in which we live. We must first assume that there is an orderly, knowable, external world/universe for us to study. This is something that cannot be verified by natural science.
If we are going to make any progress in this realm of discussion, we must understand what it is we are trying to convince each other of. ’Great care must be given to distinguish issues in the philosophy of science from those in science. For issues that directly involve both disciplines, we should try to clarify the scientific and philosophical aspects of those issues’. 
Some say philosophy is dead. I would argue that it is alive, and more important than it has been in a long time. Take time to study basic philosophy and logic, these are tremendous tools in understanding the language being used and how to discern when the line has crossed from a discussion of science to the discussion of philosophical claims about science.
“But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil.”
-1 Thessalonians 5:21,22
 Moreland, JP and William Lane Craig; Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, IVP Academic, 2003.
A little reality check from Blaise Pascal.
One needs no great sublimity of soul to realize that in this life there is no true and solid satisfaction, that all our pleasures are mere vanity, that our afflictions are infinite, and finally that death which threatens us at every moment must in a few years infallibly face us with the inescapable and appalling alternative of being annihilated or wretched without eternity. Nothing could be more real or more dreadful than that. Let us put on a bold a face as we like: that is the end awaiting the world’s most illustrious life. 
While other debates do nothing to further anything in the discussion of science and religion, Plantinga diagnosis and addresses the real problem.
This is the intro to the book I am currently working on. I’ll post more sections in the near future.
“Come now, let us reason together,” says the LORD.
Isaiah 1:18 (ESV)
As I begin building the case for Christians to take up the mantle of Anarcho-Capitalism, I wanted to present some presuppositions I have before laying the ground work. I’m writing this specifically for the Christian who is fed up with the current system, finding it harder and harder to support the corruption we see all around. For those who once towed the party line, whether Republican or Democrat, and can’t seem to support any candidate from either side. I hope you find this to be a helpful guide into understanding how to truly live out what Jesus said is the second most important commandment “Love your neighbor as yourself” in all areas of your life, especially the way we go about participating in the public sphere of politics. I believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God, much of the latter part of this will be spent theologically hashing the proper understanding of “submitting” to earthly governments, as well as showing the incompatibility of democracy and a Christian worldview. Anarchy and Christianity are friends, as far as I’m concerned, more specifically Free Market Anarchy (Anarcho-Capitalism). I do hope I can clarify for some people that anarchy properly understood does not mean chaos. That’s for later.
My journey to this position was a pretty linear, logical one. Even before I became a Christian, I always thought of myself as very much against big government, limited government was best. I considered myself a hardcore conservative. When I look back, I realize how emotional I became over politics. I would feverishly judge those who did not agree with me. I find that I never went very deep into understanding many things about policies, ignorant of economics all together. I just stayed at a very surface level with many positions I held. I always just sided with the right wing position. As I got older, I began disagreeing with many things I saw in politics and became very apathetic towards the whole thing. It was hard for me to even care about the decisions that were being made, mostly because I just understood that it was all out of my control. I certainly still hold this view, but I know He works all things for the good of those who love Him (Romans 8:28 ESV).
With the understanding that we may never come to see a completely voluntary society, this does not mean we just give in and accept what is going on around us. I will always advocate for it, even though it may never come to fruition. As Christians, we should be at war with the world, not with flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places (Ephesians 6:12 KJV). We should also not be held captive by hollow and deceptive philosophy (Colossians 2:8). I will argue against the bad political philosophies we all seem to slip into, and how the Christian political philosophy should be one of non-aggression. Lets be discerning, and reason these things out.
Hans Halvorson lectures on quantum mechanics and how it relates to the mind. Brilliant.
Fine tuning is the most powerful argument for God’s existence.
Originally posted on Wintery Knight:
First, let’s review the structure of the fine-tuning argument.
The argument goes like this:
- The fine-tuning of the universe to support life is either due to law, chance or design
- It is not due to law or chance
- Therefore, the fine-tuning is due to design
Here are the facts on the fine-tuning: