Recent Articles on Science and the Academy
Truth is important, and the Christian claims to understand some of it. How do the story of the Bible and the life of Jesus and the beliefs of Christians come together to affect the way we view the world and try to understand it? From tracing out the outlines of order in the text of nature, to attempts to understand the seemingly unknowable race that is humanity, the sciences attempt to describe and understand the complex world around us. The institution of the university has long stood as a testament to Western attempts to seek knowledge, and today’s colleges and universities are no exception. How does Christian hope affect how one approaches the field of Economics, Psychology, English Literature? Do the presuppositions of the hard sciences align with Christian doctrine and what they imply about the world? Is there such a thing as a Christian Epistemology, and if so, what would it look like? What does it really mean to love God with all of one’s mind?
It seems to be a common assumption that religious believers are somehow irrational for holding the beliefs that they do. The claim, simply put, is that there just isn’t enough (or any) convincing evidence for the truth of many Christian beliefs, such as the belief in God, especially in light of the discoveries of modern science.
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? While often used as a dismissal of medieval scholastic philosophy, the question is actually an incredibly interesting one. How many of these marvelous creatures and ministers of God would we find on the head of a pin if we had our minds opened to their presence? […]
In what became an immensely popular and widely circulated article in The New York Times magazine several weeks ago, Nathaniel Rich highlighted a mystifying biological phenomenon observed in a species of jellyfish called Turritopsis dohrnii. To put it simply, this organism is somehow able to regenerate itself indefinitely, repeatedly cycling through stages of development and always returning to its earliest stage, a polyp.
Philosophically, classical natural law is untenable because it has a number of wildly counterintuitive ethical implications, many of which, ironically enough, would deter most non-Christians from accepting the theory at all and thus threaten the possibility of meaningful communication with them.
I think consequence is a concept which is pretty easy for most people to understand, and (for better or worse), it’s oftentimes a metric by which people attempt to talk about the morality or immorality of a particular action.