Introduction In my day job, I use any number of tools to maintain and repair the equipment that passes through my shop. Each of these tools fit into my tool box so that they will always be at hand to complete whatever task that I might encounter. In that toolbox one will find all manner of tools: wrenches, pliers, screwdrivers, electronic testing equipment, and even a hammer. A Video Response Hammers are interesting tools because they are used to hit things. Sometimes those things need just a light tap, other times they need a good, solid wallop. Sometimes I’m using my hammer to knock things together and, other times, I’m using it to knock things apart. My hammer is a useful tool, when it is applied correctly, with the right intent. Human reason is like a hammer: it can be used to knock together facts into coherence and, sometimes,—especially among unbelievers—can wield it in such a way that it destroys everything it touches. This is especially true when we run into apparently contra

Always interesting to encounter a reformed take. From Triggermanblog : Back in 2018, I ran across  a brief paper  by philospher Stephen Maitzen titled, “Atheism and the Basis for Morality”. Upon reading it, I sat down and began analyzing various points raised in the paper and began formulation a response. For that response, I composed a  brief abstract , in that I noted, [W]hen one cruises the numerous ethical papers and texts, terms like “common morality” or “ordinary morality” litter the discourse. The matter at issue is not to be seen as one of nuance, or mere perspective, but of considerable foundational importance. In order to lodge a complaint, one is assuming a basis upon which such a complaint is even possible. Since it is always good to bring back up points for consideration, I am going to reach back into the blog and repost that analysis. In  the introduction  I noted that moral claims are, first and foremost, knowledge claims saying, “ in order to be true  [moral claims]  re

 One of the greatest challenges to the Reformed faith and an acceptance of the inerrancy of Scripture is that there’s an assumption that for Scripture to be true that every particular element of it must be true (ie literal), even down to the matter of numbers. Unbelievers and those willing to compromise the authority of Scripture will often use inconsistency in matters of numbers between books to argue against either (a) inerrancy as practice or (b) the truth of Scripture over all. I would argue that for those who are willing to compromise the authority of Scripture due to a wooden understanding of inerrancy as a doctrine are not helping the faith but are surrendering it to the judgement of the world, a world that has already itself been judged (John 3:19). We—believers—come to Scripture, recognizing that “ the whole...and...parts [of Scripture]...were given by divine inspiration ”[1] and that “ inspiration was the work of God by His Spirit ” and while we may not know the exact mode b

In matters of  biblical  interpretation  we are interested in what the text  says .  Our interest is in the words of the text and the context of the text. Our concern is with the genre of the text: is this poetry or narrative; is this descriptive or prescriptive? What’s the historical background? What’s the grammatical structure of the text? All of these are important, because they have an effect on the application. Application is what we do with the text. It’s how what is said in the text finds its way into expression in thought or deed. While this has variety in practice, it is only as valid as the interpretation from which it is drawn.  Often, these two get confused since they are so closely related, but they are two sides of the same coin, but they are not equal and should not be treated as such. When it comes to matters of interpretation, while it’s important that we not only understand the context, historically and grammatically, but that we also need to pay attention to element

  Introduction   An argument that is gaining popularity among the more intellectual atheists is what is known as the Meager Moral Fruits Argument (MMFA). The general thrust of the argument is that a religion that is TRUE should have some empirical measure that generally establishes this as true, as Emerson Green has put it in terms of Christianity, If Christianity is the one true religion, its members should be relatively morally superior to those in other religions as well as non-believers. Indeed that seems to be a somewhat reasonable assumption. The argument has been developed by philosopher Paul Draper of UC-Irvine and has been picked up by a number of philosophically minded atheists, like Emerson. And, like I said, if we are going to consider whether or not its a meaningful argument against Christian theism there are some point that are due for examination. I am not overly impressed by moral arguments or arguments that deal with evil for a number of reasons. But this