Thursday, April 16, 2009

New Atheism by Norman Geisler MP3 Audio

Norman 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.



  1. Dante April 16, 2009


  2. Marcus McElhaney April 16, 2009

    Thanks!!! This is awesome

  3. 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.

  4. Cowloogi April 17, 2009


    I agree.

  5. Semper Paratus April 18, 2009


    I don’t.

  6. 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.

  7. Semper Paratus April 20, 2009


    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.

  8. 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.