"A loosely organized reform movement originating during the English Reformation of the sixteenth century. The name came from efforts to 'purify' the Church of England by those who felt that the Reformation had not yet been completed. Eventually the Puritans went on to attempt purification of the self and of society as well."
(Mark Noll, "Puritanism", Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 1984)
What was the debate specifically about? I'm not even sure if the debaters really knew either since they didn't really argue on a specific point. Having said that, I was dissappointed with Alister McGrath's arguments for the validity of a Christian worldview; it was a modified form of the Transcendental Argument from Cornelis Van Til except McGrath kept qualifying his statements with words such as "I believe." Therefore, it was very much reducible to a form religious subjectivism(as Peter Atkins kept pointing out). Even if McGrath does not believe in Classicial Apologetics(ontological,teleological,cosmological arguments for the existence of God) or evidentialistic apologetics, he could've at least elaborated on why the world would make more sense if God did create it.
On the other hand, Peter Atkins doesn't really bring anything new to the table either. He doesn't really elaborate on his proofs for his materialist, naturalistic worldview.
One really good question from the crowd was, "Why is atheism a simpler explanation of the universe and why must we must seek to a simple explanation in the first place?"
"All those nick-names of Puritan, Precisian, Hypocrite, &c. with which lewd tongues are wont to load the saints of God, are so many honourable badges of their worthy deportment in the holy path, and resolute standing on the Lord's side."
Robert Bolton (1572-1631)
Get to know several puritan classics by reading one book
3 comments:
What was the debate specifically about? I'm not even sure if the debaters really knew either since they didn't really argue on a specific point. Having said that, I was dissappointed with Alister McGrath's arguments for the validity of a Christian worldview; it was a modified form of the Transcendental Argument from Cornelis Van Til except McGrath kept qualifying his statements with words such as "I believe." Therefore, it was very much reducible to a form religious subjectivism(as Peter Atkins kept pointing out). Even if McGrath does not believe in Classicial Apologetics(ontological,teleological,cosmological arguments for the existence of God) or evidentialistic apologetics, he could've at least elaborated on why the world would make more sense if God did create it.
On the other hand, Peter Atkins doesn't really bring anything new to the table either. He doesn't really elaborate on his proofs for his materialist, naturalistic worldview.
One really good question from the crowd was, "Why is atheism a simpler explanation of the universe and why must we must seek to a simple explanation in the first place?"
Thanks for the link, John! Does anyone know if McGrath's book is only available in the UK? Its not on the US Amazon store. Thanks.
I found the debate to be a lesson in futility. Atkins proved one thing: he's not very nice. He definitely didn't convince me of atheism!
Post a Comment