Anyone Read / Listen to "The Language Of God" ?

[pgp_protector]

The Language of God (Unabridged)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Author: Francis S. Collins
Date: 17-JUL-2006
Narrator: Francis S. Collins
Provider: Simon & Schuster Audio
Running Time: 7 h 12 min

Just finished this today, Must admit it got me thinking quite a bit about "Theistic Evolution"

 

[pgp_protector]

So I take it no one has read/listened to this book ?

 

[philadiddle]

what's it about?

 

[pgp_protector]

About his journy in finding faith from Athist to Christian as a scientest. Also is the first book I've seen talking about TE.

 

[Mallon]

I dunno... any book that touts "scientific evidence for believing" makes me suspicious. The IDists make the same claim. It smacks of God-of-the-gaps theology.
Why should God, who is spiritual, be validated by anything more than spiritual evidence? The fruits of spirit displayed by any practicing Christian is ample enough evidence for me.

 

[JohnR7]

I dunno... any book that touts "scientific evidence for believing" makes me suspicious.

You better go back and read that again. It says that a scientiest presents evidence for belief.
He give us evidence for why he believes. That is not the same as "scientific evidence for believing"
There is a difference between subjective and objective evidence, even if the same science is used.

As Christians we have ALL the evidence we will ever need because God is 100% faithful, 100% consistant, 100% true.
God is perfect, He does not ever fail us forsake us or disappoint us. He will never fall short and He will always get the job done.

It is wonderful to study and learn the promises of God so we can know what is avaiable to us. So we can know what He wants and desires for us.

 

[Mallon]

You better go back and read that again. It says that a scientiest presents evidence for belief... That is not the same as "scientific evidence for believing"

Come again?

 

[Deamiter]

Evidence from personal experience (for example) is not scientific, but it's the sort of evidence this scientist is using to support his faith. He is in no way trying to "prove" his faith using repeatable methods.