I don’t understand the notion of science as a source of truth. All science really is is a set of methods of exploration.

Correct. It is a methodology which relies on prior philosophical presumptions, one of which is that the universe can be rationally deduced and understood, which is rooted, in part, in the work of Christian theologians and philosophers, btw.

But science can only describe, it provide a metaphysical anchor for morality, provide objective meaning, or answer the capital-W “Why?,” only the the “How?” Moreover, a materialist paradigm, asserting only a physical universe, can not explain the reality of thought (the jump of biochemical reaction to the thoughts in our heads), the paradox of consciousness (neuroscience has been pushing the idea that consciousness is an illusion, but how is an illusion aware of itself?), and the unreliability of the mind under a materialist paradigm, both from a physical (a misfiring neuron or a misaligned protein may change a thought that I’m having) and evolutionary (link: “…if evolution and naturalism are both true, human cognitive faculties evolved to produce beliefs that have survival value (maximizing one’s success at ‘feeding, fighting, and reproducing’), not necessarily to produce beliefs that are true.”) perspectives.

Certainly everything we have observed could be Divinely constructed — but I think that would be most consistent with a trickster God like Raven or Coyote.

Voltaire, in his Philosophical Dictionary, says of atheism:
We are intelligent beings: intelligent beings cannot have been formed by a crude, blind, insensible being: there is certainly some difference between the ideas of Newton and the dung of a mule. Newton’s intelligence, therefore, came from another intelligence.

When we see a beautiful machine, we say that there is a good engineer, and that this engineer has excellent judgment. The world is assuredly an admirable machine; therefore there is in the world an admirable intelligence, wherever it may be. This argument is old, and none the worse for that.

Indeed, that is the whole idea behind natural law and natural theology, that what is in the world points to God and men can reason their way there. Tertullian asked, “What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem?” The answer is that Athens first asked the Questions and Jerusalem gave the Answer. Socrates began modern philosophy by acknowledging his own ignorance and then seeking the answers. He believed himself sent by the gods to seek justice and righteousness.

At least, that’s it from a Christian perspective.I’m not trying to debate, mind you, as the debate is profoundly larger and more complex than I’ve made it. I just wanted to give a little of the Christian PoV.

I think everything is divinely constructed… the kicker for those who think God is warped… it’s “broken”. That’s the very first thing in Genesis. It was created “good” and then was broken.

I’ll have my empirical proof someday — and I’m OK with the wait. I’ve got what I need to be joyful and thankful.

I’m glad you enjoy the blog. Love the moniker. My great granddad was “Fritz” — never met him since he died 30 years BF (Before Floyd — natch), but anyone crazy/brave enough to climb on a boat for Canada from Hamburg at 15 must be OK.

I don’t understand the notion of science as a source of truth. All science really is is a set of methods of exploration. Certainly everything we have observed could be Divinely constructed — but I think that would be most consistent with a trickster God like Raven or Coyote. Which makes sense here in a blog devoted to the Brothers Marx.

Happy Thanksgiving. I frequently give thanks to the meteorite that allowed us to eat turkeys rather than them eating us.

And welcome to Threedonia Fritz! Please come back around and hang out.

That being said… St. Paul’s argument with the Stoics on Mars Hill in Athens — recorded in the book of Acts is the quintessential apologetic starting with nature and moving to scripture. Ultimately all Christians will argue from scripture. We believe it is the source of Truth about Jesus Christ and who he is — which is what it’s about. Arguments from nature will only get one so far in defending Christianity.