Naturalism and Atheism: An introduction

Posted: November 17, 2008 by limabean03 in Apologetics, Christianity, Contemporary Theology, Current Issues, Pop-Culture, Rob's Sermons, Rob's Thoughts, Trinity Tidings
Tags: , , ,

full text from my lecture at St. Paul’s Theolgoical Center.  Unedited, please forigve spelling mistakes!

Naturalism and Atheism

The Crisis of Unknowing


Robert Sturdy, Rector of Trinity Church, Myrtle Beach


Sometime in the late 14th century, an anonymous British mystic wrote these words to an aspiring “religious”,

But now thou askest me and sayest, “How shall I think on Himself, and what is He?” and to this I cannot answer thee but thus: “I wot not.” For thou hast brought me with thy question into that same darkness, and into that same cloud of unknowing, that I would thou wert in thyself. For of all other creatures and their works, yea, and of the works of God’s self, may a man through grace have fullhead of knowing, and well he can think of them: but of God Himself can no man think.. [1]

The booklet, known as The Cloud of Unknowing is a classic in the Christian mystic tradition.  And though the purpose of the book is to instruct in the spiritual life (with a somewhat dubious thesis I might add) it nevertheless clearly demonstrates the crux of the difficulties involved in the current discussions in the academic and popular spheres on the subjects of naturalism and atheism.  I would draw your attention to two things before we begin in earnest courtesy of our obscure British monk.

 His assessment of the ability of the rational mind to contemplate the material world is enormously optimistic.  “For of all other creatures and their works, yea, and of the works of God’s self, may a man though grace have fullhead of knowing.”  In other words the anonymous mystic, though he predated modern science and the cultural movements of enlightenment, modernity, and post-modernity as well as the monumental scientific achievements that accompanied them, would no doubt be quite enthusiastic about the knowledge that such movements have accumulated of the material world.  While terms such as DNA, CODONS, and Genome would no doubt have mystified our monk, he would not have been surprised that humans had the capacity to discovery such things, and with time and God’s grace one day would.  Our monk is absolutely committed to the potential of rational, scientific man to unravel the mysteries of the material world.

The second thing I would like to draw your attention to is our monk’s deeply ingrained pessimism for natural man with his natural capacities to draw definitive conclusions beyond the material world.  “All other creatures and their works, yea, and of the works of God’s self, may a man through grace have fullhead of knowing, and well he can think of them:  but of God himself no man can think.”  How we come to a knowledge of God is a deeply complex and much debated issue within the tradition of Christian theology, nevertheless, one thing we are agreed upon within “orthodox” thought is that natural man cannot come to a knowledge of God without God purposefully and supernaturally revealing himself “for no one comprehends the thoughts of God” (1 Cor 2.11).  Rational and scientific man unsuccessfully storms the limitations of his nature when he seeks to make definitive statements on the supernatural world. 

Our topic this evening is Naturalism and Atheism.  Over the course of this lecture I hope to equip you with a basic definition of terms to fruitfully explore these topics in greater detail on your own.  I also hope to place modern naturalistic and atheistic thought within its appropriate cultural context.  As we begin this journey you will be introduced to important figures in this conversation as well as their arguments.  Which brings us back to our monk and his thoughts on the abilities and limitations of natural man as well as the main point of this lecture.  In seeking through rational and scientific faculties to make determinations on the supernatural, contemporary naturalism and atheism have madly overreached their abilities while their limitations have been kept carelessly unnoticed.  They have entered into a cloud of unknowing and the real crisis is that neither they nor their followers have even recognized the massive epistemological predicament that they have blindly stumbled into.

Definition of Terms

Let us begin with a brief definition of terms.  For the purposes of this lecture we will limit naturalism to two forms.  The first form is philosophical naturalism which can be summed up simplistically as follows: “nature is all there is and all basic truths are truths of nature.”[2]  A naturalist, plumbing the depths of the metaphysical (morality, truth, creation, being) will presuppose a natural explanation for such phenomena.  In other words, there is no supernatural basis for morality, truth, creation, existence etc.  Philosophical naturalism necessarily leads to atheism.  The second form of naturalism we will discuss today is scientific naturalism.  Scientific naturalism is a commitment to the scientific method (observe, hypothesize, experiment, repeat) as explanation of phenomena, even religion (see Dennett, Breaking the Spell:  Religion as a Natural Phenomena).  Scientific naturalism often leads to atheism, but a more logically consistent approach to metaphysics for the scientific naturalist would be agnosticism. 

Atheism could be positively defined as the affirmation of the non-existence of the divine.  It has had many incarnations in religious (early Christians were described as άθεός by Romans for the peculiar monotheism in a religiously pluralistic society), philosophical, and scientific thought.  For the sake of this lecture, we will stick with our simplistic definition of atheism as the affirmation of the non-existence of the divine and hopefully as we discuss contemporary atheism some flesh will be placed on those bare bones. 

 Cultural Context

In order to understand the contemporary cultural context of naturalism and atheism in the West we need to begin some time ago during the period known as the “enlightenment,” which ushered in a massive epistemological shift in Western thinking.  Before the enlightenment, God was thought of as subject (branch of learning, field of study, area of interest, specialty).  Perhaps you were fortunate enough to study math at New College, Oxford in 1500 A.D.  Your math course would have been taught by a priest or a monk, and the rational law and codes associated with numbers would have been taught to you as a reflection of the rational and lawful mind of God.  Every subject, math, English, science, philosophy were objects under the supra-subject of divinity.  However, after the enlightenment, learning becomes fractured.  The study of theology makes God object to be studied instead of subject to study under.  Math, science, philosophy, languages all become independent disciplines with no reference toward the divine.  Why this is an epistemological shift is that before the Enlightenment it was thought that nothing could be understood until God was first understood.  He was the source and fountain of all knowledge.  After the enlightenment, the academic world came to the conclusion that knowledge could be derived from the fields of studies themselves apart from God.  This set in a motion a cycle that had profound cultural implications. 

Charles Taylor, a sharp philosopher who has assessed these implications and insightfully summarized the development of Western epistemology in his book A Secular Age.[3]  In it he identifies three phases of thought in the West.  The first stage of thought (pre-Enlightenment) is a time in which it was impossible not to believe.  It is impossible not to believe because there is no other explanation.  The second stage of thought (Enlightenment) opens the possibility of unbelief.  Skepticism and doubt become live options, but options which do not exclude theism as a possibility.  The final stage of Western intellectual development is the point at which it has become impossible to believe.  It was thought that as scientific discovery worked its way through civilization, addressing issues such as energy, the atomic and sub-atomic world, the human genome and more, that God would become less  probabilistic as a causal, explanatory factor in the intellectual framework of civilization.[4]  This process would continue until God, as a possible causal explanatory factor would be ruled out by scientific discovery.  While Taylor believes this age has been ushered in, it largely remains a prediction and not a reality. 

What is a reality however is that some very intelligent and provocative individuals have indeed arrived at the destination that Taylor predicted.  These individuals compose what has been termed the “New Atheism.”  What makes it “new” and how are we to distinguish it from the old?  What I’m about to do is an absolute overgeneralization but it’s a start, which with our time limitations this evening is about the best we can do.

1.       The New Atheism has a solidly naturalistic (philosophic and scientific) worldview.  It believes that science, specifically in the field of biology and its recent gains in evolutionary theory, has definitively disproven the possibility of God. 

An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: “I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn’t a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.” I can’t help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.[5]– Dawkins

The quote from Dawkins is illustrative of an important concept that differentiates the new atheism from the old.  Dawkins rightly points out, that the old atheism believed that there was a strong rational case against God being the agent of complex biological design.  Nevertheless, as strong as this case was, it was not logically bombproof.  In contrast to this, the New Atheism believes that Darwin’s theory of evolution, and the subsequent advances in our understanding of biological design, have conclusively ruled out God as a necessary agent in creation, thus proving his non-existence.  The New Atheists believe that Darwin provides them with far more solid ground to stand on than their pre-Darwinian ancestors.  . 


2.       The New Atheism is under the moral conviction that religion is evil. 

I don’t believe there is such a thing as God. Religion makes people do wicked things they wouldn’t ordinarily do. It doesn’t make them behave better—it makes them behave worse.  You couldn’t get people to hack away at the genitals of their newborn children if they didn’t think there was a religious obligation to do so. The licenses for genocide, slavery, racism, are all right there in the holy text[6].- Hitchens

The story of the man from whom we have gathered this sound bite is enormously interesting.  Hitchens is by far the least scientific, yet by far the most entertaining.  Before 9-11 he was a far left Marxist, however after 9-11 he became a far right political conservative.  When looking for an enemy to blame for the horrific events in 2001, Hitchens landed on religion as the prime motivator of those who attacked the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.  While this argument is by no means new, it is nevertheless  employed by all protagonists in the New Atheism movement. 

3.       The New Atheists are under the conviction of the “coming of age” meta-narrative.  One of the many aspects of postmodernity is its rejection of meta-narratives, that is broad stories that seek to authoritatively explain the meaning and purpose of life and history.  Nevertheless, the human need for such stories has forced postmodernity to come up with its own meta-narrative.    The meta-narrative of postmodernity goes something like this:  “we were once enslaved to: religion, government, patriarchy, etc., but we have come of age (intellectually) and thrown off the bonds of our oppressors.”  The New Atheists have adopted this new meta-narrative with great conviction.  Religion enslaved us to unreasonable behavior and caused us to be easily manipulated by those who held power in religious life (power over wealth, property, liberty, and especially for Mr. Hitchens SEX).  But now we have come of age and realized that religion is irrational and superstitious therefore we must rid ourselves of it so that we will no longer be deceived/ oppressed. 

4.       The New Atheism is Evangelistic.  Starting in D.C. this month bus ads reading: “Don’t worry, there’s probably no God anyway” will start running through the streets of our capital.  In London, Dawkins personally donated €5,500 out of €95,000 ad campaign for ads saying “There is no God, now quit worrying and enjoy your life.”  Now, the question should be immediately asked, if the apostles of the New Atheism spend their money in such a socially irresponsible and morally vacuous way, then what does it actually have to offer us that is of benefit?  We’ll return to that question later, but for now let us settle on simply saying that the New Atheism is aggressive and aimed at conversion. 

5.       The New Atheism is popular in appeal and popular in substance.  Much like during the advent of the printing press, which ushered in the era where any idiot could have his ideas easily distributed across whole continents, we now live in an era (courtesy of Al Gore and his “internet”) where any idiot can spread his ideas across the whole globe.  Furthermore, thanks to the internet, our ideas are democratized.  Take Wikipedia for example.  Scholars, in most cases have not written these articles, by lay people, AMATEURS.  The information on Wikipedia stands or falls by popular vote.  That is because truth is not substantive in our culture at present, rather, truth is validated by public opinion, whether it is on the best-seller list or on Wikipedia.  Something becomes true when enough people say it is, whether it actually is or not.  Every idiot has an opinion and the danger of our time is that every idiot’s opinion counts!  This is not to say that Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, or Daniel Dennet are idiots.  Far from it.  They are brilliant men who are very sharp in their chosen disciplines.  But when they overstep their competency, by diving into philosophical metaphysics or Biblical literacy they quickly show themselves to be idiots in certain fields.  Let’s just take a moment and see what happens when they move beyond their chosen discipline.

Of course Jesus was a theist, but that is the least interesting thing about him. He was a theist because, in his time, everybody was. Atheism was not an option, even for so radical a thinker as Jesus. What was interesting and remarkable about Jesus was not the obvious fact that he believed in the God of his Jewish religion, but that he rebelled against many aspects of Yahweh’s vengeful nastiness. At least in the teachings that are attributed to him, he publicly advocated niceness and was one of the first to do so. To those steeped in the Sharia-like cruelties of Leviticus and Deuteronomy; to those brought up to fear the vindictive, Ayatollah-like God of Abraham and Isaac, a charismatic young preacher who advocated generous forgiveness must have seemed radical to the point of subversion. No wonder they nailed him[7]. – Dawkins

Now those of you with even an amateur’s knowledge of the Gospels and the O.T. books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy will see how Dawkin’s Biblical literacy is embarrassingly ignorant.  How exactly did Jesus “rebel against YHWH’s vengeful nastiness?”  Jesus will talk about the eternal punishment of Hell more than any of the other Old and New Testament contributors COMBINED.  Furthermore, he is not as Dawkins says “one of the first to publicly advocate niceness.”  Stepping aside from the fact that this remark has all the intellectual veracity of a 2nd grader, we might go on to say that Jesus’ famous teaching “Love your neighbor as yourself” is taken from Leviticus (19.18), which by the way is the very book Dawkins uses to illustrate the “Sharia-like cruelties” of the Old Testament. 

Alvin Plantinga, who holds the John O’Brien professor of philosophy at Notre Dame, notes similar difficulties when Dawkins steps into the philosophical ring.  Commenting on Dawkins’ book The God Delusion, Plantinga writes:

Now despite the fact that this book is mainly philosophy, Dawkins is not a philosopher (he’s a biologist). Even taking this into account, however, much of the philosophy he purveys is at best jejune. You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class.[8]– Plantinga

Sadly, it doesn’t matter that listening to Dawkins on Biblical criticism or Philosophy sounds like pure amateur hour to those who are schooled in these disciplines.  Because the fact is, most people are not schooled in these disciplines.  Dawkins says things in an evocative way, is a scientist so he must be credible (right?), and is able to sell people a story that they want to hear.  So he is popular in appeal.  He’s popular in substance by the fact that he has very little.  His forays into religion, as are all the New Atheists, betray a complete lack of effort to genuinely understand their subject matter, as I’ve sought to illustrate from the quote above. 

Having looked at some features of the New Atheism, I would like to give a response.  Much response could of course be made, but I would like to limit my response this evening towards its epistemological limitations.  That is, I would like to hone in on where the New Atheism has confidently asserted their wisdom when in fact they have become ensconced in the thick, soupy , fog of the cloud of unknowing. 

The New Atheism is ignorant of history

To refresh our collective memories on this point, let us turn back to our quote from Christopher Hitchen. 

I don’t believe there is such a thing as God. Religion makes people do wicked things they wouldn’t ordinarily do. It doesn’t make them behave better—it makes them behave worse.  You couldn’t get people to hack away at the genitals of their newborn children if they didn’t think there was a religious obligation to do so. The licenses for genocide, slavery, racism, are all right there in the holy text[9].- Hitchens

To be absolutely certain, Mr. Hitchens is correct in saying that much unnecessary bloodshed and oppression  has often been and is currently a direct result of religious manipulation.  Where he is unfair, however, is in his assessment of the previous century.  You and I have just concluded the single most blood saturated 100 years of history EVER.  The lives violently taken in the previous one hundred years are more than the previous one thousand years combined.  How was this possible in the “secular age?”  Was it not, after all, science that produced the atomic bomb?  Was it not science that paved the way for the genetic experiments of Nazi Germany?  Was it not the committed atheistic agendas of communist Russian and China that accumulated the worst human rights records of the century?  While Hitchens point is well taken, we must provide and fair and honest approach to our historical assessments. 

The new Atheism is ignorant of its Logically defined limitations

1.       Scientific method is based upon the observance of phenomena, a hypotheses, a test, and a repeat to confirm.  And yet, the supernatural can by definition be subject to no such test.  Take for example the resurrection of Jesus.  This is an event in history, so we cannot go back to observe it.  Even if we could, should we crucify him again to see if he would be raised again, as Newton dropped the apple over and over to make sure it would fall?  This is all the more true for Deism, the non-personal God who merely sets things in motion but does not interact with the world.  If a deistic god does not interact with the world, how then could the scientific method even begin to make a determination on this?  We are not even talking about a low probability of the scientific method’s ability to assess the supernatural, we are talking about an absolute and non-negotiable inability for scientists, as scientists, to even speculate on the divine in terms of the scientific method.


2.       Naturalism is logically inconsistent.  C.S. Lewis attempted to tackle this argument and failed miserable.  He attempted it in this way: “A strict materialism refutes itself for the reason given long ago by Professor Haldane:  ‘if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true…and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.”[10]  This of course is absurd logic.  Because atoms are not rational themselves, then they alone cannot be a reliable basis for rational thinking is a summary of Lewis’ argument.  However if this were true then atoms couldn’t be responsible for anything.  Atoms are visible to the naked eye so how could they produce anything visible?  Lewis was badly embarrassed by this affair and later had to drastically restate his argument.  Recently, Alvin Plantinga has given us a much more satisfactory attempt at the logical limitations of naturalism.  He writes: 


“from a theistic point of view, we’d expect that our cognitive faculties would be (for the most part, and given certain qualifications and caveats) reliable.  God has created us in his image, and an important part of our image bearing is our resembling him in being able to form true beliefs and achieve knowledge.  But from a naturalist point of view the thought that our cognitive faculties are reliable (produce a preponderance of true beliefs) would be at best a naïve hope.  The naturalist can be reasonably sure that the neurophysiology underlying belief formation is adaptive, but nothing follows about the truth of the beliefs depending on that neurophysiology.  In fact  he’d have to hold that it is is unlikely, given unguided evolution, that our cognitive faculties are reliable.  It’s as likely, given unguided evolution, that we live in a sort of dream world as that we actually know something about ourselves and our world.  If this is so, the naturalist has a defeater for the natural assumption that his cognitive faculties are reliable.”[11] –Plantinga


Plantinga develops his thought along these lines.  Evolution depends upon us making the proper physiological responses to avoid danger, keep healthy, and reproduce.  Why, that is our belief for doing such things, does not have to be true it just has to be powerful enough to motivate behavior.  There are an infinite number of false beliefs that will motive reproduction or keep from danger, but there are limited, sometimes only to one! True belief.  What is the likelihood, that unguided evolution would produce the right belief?  This is very improbable.  Therefore, according to the naturalist, believing that our cognitive abilities are trustworthy is very improbable.  


3.        The atheistic evolutionists approach to religion is logically inconsistent.  Natural selection demands that the traits most beneficial are passed on to the next generation.  Naturalism demands that religion have a materialistic cause, as Daniel Denett argues in Breaking the Spell.  However, if this is so, then has not evolution proven that religion is biologically beneficial?  You can’t have your cake and eat it too.


4.        The famous British columnist Bernard Levine once wrote an article called “Life’s Great Riddle, and No Time to Find Its Meaning.”  In it he spoke of the fact that in spite of his great success as a columnist for over twenty years, he feared that he might have “wasted reality in the chase of a dream.”  He wrote: 

To put it bluntly, have I time to discover why I was born before I die?…I have not managed to answer the question yet, and however many years I have before me they are certainly not as many as there are behind.  There is an obvious danger in leaving it too late…why do I have to know why I was born?  Because, of course, I am unable to believe that it was an accident; and if it wasn’t one, it must have a meaning…Countries like ours are full of people who have all the material comforts they desire, together with such non-material blessings as a happy family, and yet lead lives of quiet, and at times noisy, desperation, understanding nothing but the fact that there is a hole inside them and that however much food and drink they pour into it, however many motor cars and television sets they stuff it with, however many well balanced children they parade around the edges of it…it aches.

Sir Peter Medower, nobel prize winner in the sciences wrote in his acceptance speech: “The limits of science are clearly perceived in that they cannot answer the simplest question of a child.  What is the meaning of life?  Why am I here?  What is my purpose?” 


The New Atheism is ignorant of its presuppositions

The New Atheism appears to be ignorant that it has taken naturalism as a presupposition, when naturalism could never logically be proven to be a reliable, concrete presupposition.  Of course, theism could come no closer to being proven as a reliable, concrete starting point for scientific discover, but it has a proven track record in history for benefitting the development of scientific thought.  The idea that theism retards scientific discovery simply holds no basis in history and even in an age of resurgent atheism, still holds very little water. 

Let me show you what I mean.  Historically science exploded in the 16th and 17th centuries in western Europe.  Many people have said why then and why there?  It was Sir Alfred Whitehead who hypothesized that Christian Europe understood creation to be rationally ordered precisely because it had been ordered in such a way by a rational mind.  Therefore in seeking to discover laws and systems in biology, chemistry, time and space, Christian Europe had a much easier time of it than say, Communist China.  The case for this was made by Joseph Nieben (Marxist, sociologist), who tried to learn why Marxist China was so retarded in its scientific development.  The conclusion that he came to was that neither Communist China nor any of the order less religious systems of the Far East, equipped the Chinese mind with the necessary presuppositions to make scientific advancement. 

The other presupposition, that has proven overwhelmingly false, is that current respectable scientific scholarship is incompatible with theistic belief.  For this we turn simply to Frances Collins, physician, geneticist, and current Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute at NIH. Raised on a small farm in Virginia, he obtained a B.S. in chemistry at the University of Virginia and a Ph.D. in physical chemistry at Yale University. He graduated from medical school at the University of North Carolina and completed a residency in internal medicine at Chapel Hill. Later, he returned to Yale for a fellowship in human genetics, and then joined the faculty at the University of Michigan in 1984. His genetic research team identified the genes for cystic fibrosis, neurofibromatosis, and collaborated with others to identify the gene for Huntington’s disease. In 1993, Collins became the second director of the National Center for Human Genome Research, following in the footsteps of James Watson. In that role, Collins has overseen the successful completion of the Human Genome Project.  Collins is also a committed Christian.  He writes:

Science explores the natural world. Faith explores the supernatural world. If I want to study genetics, I am going to use science. If I want to understand God’s love, then that is where the faith world comes in. Does that make them separate and impossible to integrate into one person, one experience, one thought? Is Stephen Jay Gould right when he calls these “the non-overlapping magisteria”? No, from my perspective these two world views coexist in me, and in many of you, right now. We are not torn apart by that; we are not forced into contradictions. Rather, I believe that we are enriched and blessed. We have an opportunity to practice science as a form of worship. We have a chance to see God as the greatest scientist. As we discover things about the world, we can appreciate the wonders of God’s creation. What a gift it is to be a scientist and be able to do that.[12]– Collins

Or on the opposite end of the disciplinary spectrum, we might turn to fundamentalist Biblical theologian B.B. Warfield who writes concerning science:


“We must not then as Christians assume an attitude of antagonism toward the truths of reason or to the truths of philosophy or the truths of science or the truths of history or the truths of criticism. As children of the Light, we must be careful to keep ourselves open to every ray of light. Let us then cultivate anattitude of courage as over against the investigations of the day. None should be more zealous in them than we. None should be more quick to discern truth in every field, more hospitable to receive it, more loyal to follow it whithersoever it leads. It is not for Christians to be lukewarm in regard to the investigations and discoveries of the time. Rather, as followers of the Truth, indeed we can have no safety in science or in philosophy save in the arms of Truth. It is for us, therefore, as Christians to push investigation intothe utmost, to be leaders in every science, to stand in the band of criticism, to be the first to catch in every field the voice of the Revealer of Truth who is also our Redeemer. All truth belongs to us as followers of Christ, the Truth. Let us at length enter into our inheritance.”  -B.B. Warfield[13]

In closing, perhaps we might turn to the famous opening words of John Calvin’s Institutes on the Christian Religion.  He writes, “without knowledge of self there is no knowledge of God.”[14]  The major flaw, in my opinion, of the New Atheism is that is has not taken adequate stock of itself and is thus impaired from taking adequate stock of God.  Namely, that its most severe epistemological limitations have remained unacknowledged.  They are in the cloud of unknowing and are entirely unaware of it.  If they were to become aware of it however, perhaps Calvin’s prediction for them would come true and their “very poverty” would “better disclose the infinitude of benefits reposing in God.”  But as Calvin says, they cannot seriously aspire to God before they begin to become displeased with their own inability to comprehend him.[15]

[2] The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Macmillan, 1996 Supplement, 372-373.

[3] Mohler, A. Atheism Remix pg 35-37

[4] Mohler, A.  pg 29

[5] Dawkins, R.  The Blind Watchmaker, page 6

[7] Richard Dawkins, Atheist for Jesus.

[8] Alvin Plantinga. The Dawkins Confusion.  Books and Culture, March/April 2007

[10] Lewis, C.S. Possible Worlds pg. 209

[11] Alvin Plantinga. The Dawkins Confusion.  Books and Culture, March/April 2007

[12] Frances Collins. “Faith and the Human Genome”

[13] Warfield, B.B. Selected Shorter Writtings

[14] Calvin. Institutes. 1.1

[15] ibid

  1. […] my introduction to John’s Gospel here A talk given at St. Paul’s Theological Center here Our final sermon in our Acts series […]

  2. […] atheism, Christ, Christianity, deism, reasonable belief, reasonable faith, science I have said in the past that science could neither prove nor disprove God, since the supernatural could never be tested by […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s