Thursday, April 16, 2009New Atheism by Norman Geisler MP3 AudioNorman Geisler talks about the many new forms of atheism that exist today. He also presents arguments for theism over atheism. Full MP3 Audio here.Original video here. Enjoy. Apologetics315 is a non-profit ministry. You can support this work here. Do you do your shopping at Amazon? If so, using this Amazon link supports Apologetics315. In the UK? Use this UK Amazon link. By Brian Auten on April 16, 2009 at 6:30 am Topics: apologetics, Atheism, audio, christianity, mp3, Norman Geisler 8 comments 0 Related Is God Necessary for Morality? William Lane Craig Debates Shelly Kagan MP3 Audio A Critique of Bart Ehrman’s Jesus Interrupted by Ben Witherington 8 Comments Dante April 16, 2009 Great! Marcus McElhaney April 16, 2009 Thanks!!! This is awesome Eric April 16, 2009 Apologists like Geisler who make such a strained effort to dismiss evolution are, IMHO, as good for Christianity as the New Atheists are for atheism: both make everyone associated with them look ridiculous. Cowloogi April 17, 2009 Eric- I agree. Semper Paratus April 18, 2009 Eric- I don’t. Eric April 18, 2009 Semper Paratus, do you disagree on scientific grounds or on scriptural grounds (or some combination of the two, which would of course most likely be a scientific rationalization of a scriptural interpretation)? Christians should ‘always be ready’ (sorry, couldn’t resist!) to abandon interpretations of scripture that are overwhelmingly falsified by modern science. Think Aquinas here, and the unity of truth. Semper Paratus April 20, 2009 Eric, If we turn your statement right side up, then we have my position. Accordingly, I offer the following revised version for your consideration: Christians should ‘always be ready’ (sorry, I couldn’t resist either) to abandon interpretations of modern science that are overwhelmingly falsified by Scripture. Think Sola Scriptura here, and how natural revelation (nota bene: not natural theology) perfectly comports with it. Eric April 20, 2009 “Christians should ‘always be ready’ to abandon interpretations of modern science that are overwhelmingly falsified by Scripture.” Semper paratus, I’m not sure I can think of a scenario in which scripture could, even in principle, falsify an interpretation of a (properly) scientific theory. It can give us fresh ways of looking at the data in a way that doesn’t contradict scientific findings (e.g. a Lorentzian conception of Special Relativity with God as a privileges observer), but these will be observationally indistinguishable from rival conceptions. I simply can’t see how it could *falsify* an interpretation of some scientific theory.