Dr. John Polkinghorne

[Proverb2717]

Dr. John Polkinghorne considers that "the question of the existence of God is the single most important question we face about the nature of reality".

He suggests that God is the ultimate answer to Leibniz's great question "why is there something rather than nothing?" The atheist's "plain assertion of the world's existence" is a "grossly impoverished view of reality," he says, arguing that "theism explains more than a reductionist atheism can ever address."

He "does not assert that God's existence can be demonstrated in a logically coercive way (any more than God's non-existence can) but that theism makes more sense of the world, and of human experience, than does atheism."

In John Polkinghorne's book "Questions of Truth" he addresses issues such as "Can God's existence be proved?" and explores if evolution could create a mind such as the human mind. It is essentially the stronger rival of Dawkin's "God Delusion" in terms of science and backing authors.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Dr. John Polkinghorne considers that "the question of the existence of God is the single most important question we face about the nature of reality".

He suggests that God is the ultimate answer to Leibniz's great question "why is there something rather than nothing?" The atheist's "plain assertion of the world's existence" is a "grossly impoverished view of reality," he says, arguing that "theism explains more than a reductionist atheism can ever address."

His views of whether a view is aesthetically pleasing is irrelevant. The claim of improverishment is a base assertion.

Theism explains exactly nothing. It asserts a god because it doesn't know what the answer is.

Atheism in and of itself, of course, explains nothing. Atheism is nothing more than the denial of a theist's claims. It the state of being unconvinced by theist claims.

It is the job of science/investigation to explain things.

He "does not assert that God's existence can be demonstrated in a logically coercive way (any more than God's non-existence can) but that theism makes more sense of the world, and of human experience, than does atheism."

If there is no evidence of gods, no way to prove god in a logically coercive way, then how does it make more sense? It doesn't.

In John Polkinghorne's book "Questions of Truth" he addresses issues such as "Can God's existence be proved?" and explores if evolution could create a mind such as the human mind. It is essentially the stronger rival of Dawkin's "God Delusion" in terms of science and backing authors.

Could be interesting. But if he's just going to assert that theism gives warm fuzzies, I think I'll pass.

 

[Greatcloud]

His views of whether a view is aesthetically pleasing is irrelevant. The claim of improverishment is a base assertion.

Theism explains exactly nothing. It asserts a god because it doesn't know what the answer is.

Atheism in and of itself, of course, explains nothing. Atheism is nothing more than the denial of a theist's claims. It the state of being unconvinced by theist claims.

It is the job of science/investigation to explain things.


If there is no evidence of gods, no way to prove god in a logically coercive way, then how does it make more sense? It doesn't.





Could be interesting. But if he's just going to assert that theism gives warm fuzzies, I think I'll pass.

If you want a good read about Atheism and Christian thought try C.S. Lewis. I suggest "Mere Christianity".

 

[UncleHermit]

Well don't leave us in suspense, what is Dr. Polkinghorne's reasoning behind these assertions? I might be persuaded to buy the book if I didn't think it was going to be a waste of money. How about this one:

He suggests that God is the ultimate answer to Leibniz's great question "why is there something rather than nothing?"

In what way does Dr. Polkinghorne think that God is an answer to this question?

 

[Tinker Grey]

If you want a good read about Atheism and Christian thought try C.S. Lewis. I suggest "Mere Christianity".

I've read that several times and even taught from it when I was a Christian.

He's a good writer but his arguments are weak.

 

[Proverb2717]

Well don't leave us in suspense, what is Dr. Polkinghorne's reasoning behind these assertions? I might be persuaded to buy the book if I didn't think it was going to be a waste of money. How about this one:



In what way does Dr. Polkinghorne think that God is an answer to this question?

Well, study up on the subject. I am just putting the man's name out there for fellow Christians to read a little more into the intellectual side of the faith. It's been far too long that atheists or agnostics have been portrayed as the intellectually superior group, either by themselves or media.

 

[quatona]

Dr. John Polkinghorne considers that "the question of the existence of God is the single most important question we face about the nature of reality".

How does the nature of reality change depending on whether there´s a god or not?

He suggests that God is the ultimate answer to Leibniz's great question "why is there something rather than nothing?"

Admittedly, it´s an answer. Then again it´s not an explanation of sorts.

The atheist's "plain assertion of the world's existence" is a "grossly impoverished view of reality," he says, arguing that "theism explains more than a reductionist atheism can ever address."

As far as I can see theism makes blanket assertions (and exceptional ones, at that) but these assertions don´t explain anything.

He "does not assert that God's existence can be demonstrated in a logically coercive way (any more than God's non-existence can) but that theism makes more sense of the world, and of human experience, than does atheism."

Let me guess: He´s a theist. (How did I know? : People tend towards those worldviews that make sense to them. )

 

[AV1611VET]

He suggests that God is the ultimate answer to Leibniz's great question "why is there something rather than nothing?"

As Jesus might say to him:

Mark 12:34a And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God.

 

[quatona]

If you want a good read about Atheism and Christian thought try C.S. Lewis. I suggest "Mere Christianity".

I will never understand why so many Christians feel that C.S.Lewis of all might appear convincing to anyone outside Christianity.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's been far too long that atheists or agnostics have been portrayed as the intellectually superior group, either by themselves or media.

As the Bible says, some who profess themselves to be [Homo] sapiens, become atheists:

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

 

[Greatcloud]

Hey AV,

how are you doing for the 4th ? I am just fine and its a beautiful day here in the Pacific NW sunshine and high clouds. 72 degrees.

Concerning the OP the apologist I really like and swear by is Arther Pink.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hey AV,

how are you doing for the 4th ? I am just fine and its a beautiful day here in the Pacific NW sunshine and high clouds. 72 degrees.

Concerning the OP the apologist I really like and swear by is Arther Pink.

I'm doing just great, Greatcloud! Thank you for asking!

My apologist of choice is Chuck Missler, but I've cut my teeth on the likes of Dr. Walter Martin, David Mainse, and Bob Larson.

Many in our church are partial to the likes of Lester Roloff and Bob Jones; but one person I'm waiting to see is Charles Spurgeon!

 

[Proverb2717]

As the Bible says, some who profess themselves to be [Homo] sapiens, become atheists:

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

 

[UncleHermit]

Well, study up on the subject.

I have. I've never seen a decent defense of the assertions in the OP, although I've seen many failed attempts. Without more information, I'm not optimistic that this book would be any different.

I am just putting the man's name out there for fellow Christians to read a little more into the intellectual side of the faith.

Ok. I thought you might want to discuss some of the ideas as well.

It's been far too long that atheists or agnostics have been portrayed as the intellectually superior group, either by themselves or media.

If the shoe fits...

 

[Proverb2717]

If the shoe fits...

A lot of people wear the same shoe size... but judging by the smell of the shoe, i'd say it belongs on your foot

 

[UncleHermit]

A lot of people wear the same shoe size... but judging by the smell of the shoe, i'd say it belongs on your foot

The shoe of intellectual superiority belongs on my foot, judging by the smell? Ok.

 

[Proverb2717]

The shoe of intellectual superiority belongs on my foot, judging by the smell? Ok.

indeed

 

[UncleHermit]

indeed

You've lost me.

 

[Freodin]

He suggests that God is the ultimate answer to Leibniz's great question "why is there something rather than nothing?" The atheist's "plain assertion of the world's existence" is a "grossly impoverished view of reality," he says, arguing that "theism explains more than a reductionist atheism can ever address."

I don't like reading apologetic books. Not because I can't stand to be confronted with arguments against my position... but because you cannot debate a book. You cannot chime in and ask the one making an argument: "Yes, but what about...? Have you considered...? Wouldn't the logical consequence of that be...?"

I can do so on an internet forum... provided that the one who brings up these arguments is willing to discuss them. And I so hope to find some people who can discuss the arguments, instead of simply referring to them as authoritative.

In regard to the argumentation of the quote above:
So "God" is "the ultimate answer to the question 'why is there something instead of nothing?'"
Simple "God" cannot be an answer to a question of such a type. It has to be broadened to "because God exists and created everything" or something in that line.
Yet that means "God exists" is a necessary prerequisite for that conclusion. But that again invalidates the whole reasoning: "why is there something instead of nothing? Because there is something (God)!"

But why is there something (God) instead of nothing? Because it is? What kind of "ultimate answer" and "better explanation" is that?

As for the "impoverished reductionist atheist view"... how much more reductionist than "God" can you get? How much more impoverished is a view that answers each and every question with "God did it. God is good. Good is good. God did it."?

I am just putting the man's name out there for fellow Christians to read a little more into the intellectual side of the faith. It's been far too long that atheists or agnostics have been portrayed as the intellectually superior group, either by themselves or media.

Intellectually superior? Why not say "wise" instead? Do you really want to state here, in the presence of the terrifying AV1611VET, that there are CHRISTIANS who proclaim themselves to be wise? Or "intellectually equal" to all those self-professed fools?

Think again.

 

[Elias526]

In regard to the argumentation of the quote above: So "God" is "the ultimate answer to the question 'why is there something instead of nothing?'"

The mind is not able to imagine nothing. The mind has to imagine something. When it comes to the sun, stars, moon, then our eyes and mind trick us or lead us to believe that they are all real. Their reality to us is somewhat limited to our senses and our limited ability to be able to perceive and detect their existence.