mightychurch.com

Ian, still keen to hear about metamathematics if/when you get a chance :)

Thanks for the gentle prod Luke. I’ve not been very well of late, but have just about finished gathering together the texts to which I wish to refer, as well as carrying out a cursory overview of the output of various scientist-Christians currently engaged in rebutting the better-known ‘atheist evangelists’. So far, I’ve discovered only a single, very cursory reference to the subject of metamathematics, by the Oxford-based mathematician John Lennox (in a debate against Richard Dawkins) - despite its great capacity to refute such atheists’ ‘scientism’!

But given the highly abstruse nature of the metamathematics, don’t you think it might be preferable for me to start a new thread in the “Deep End” zone?

Certainly, a new thread would be fine. Bummer about your health, totally understand, so take your time :)

Yeah - diabetes and stage 4 kidney failure on top of severe depression is a bummer. I’m fighting it…

Wow, that’s brutal Ian, sorry to hear it, but glad you’re fighting it. I hope being able to discuss things here is some small distraction, if nothing else..!

I’ll say it again ... and that stuff, like the other thread, kinda makes my suffering (unemployment) look tame.  Get well soon mate.

Thanks fellas.

The Lennox/Dawkins debate is a good one! We showed the first more sciencey half a few weeks ago as an evangelistic event, and are showing the second more philosophical half this Wednesday. We had about 180 people come last time, and I think at least half were not Christian. Please pray even more come this time!

I should have included the link to this debate, which is:

http://fixed-point.org/index.php/video/35-full-length/164-the-dawkins-lennox-debate

Dawkins 0 Lennox 1.

(Lennox’s fleeting reference to Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems rendering futile physicists’ search for a ‘Theory of Everything’ [TOE] is made at about 60% of the way through the debate.)

The moderator for the above debate made a point of disclaiming any challenge to science as a factor in religious faith.  But Dawkins still argues for evolution against religion. And many evangelists argue christiaity against science. It seems to me that some people like obsessions.

There is widespread misunderstanding about the magisteria - to use the late palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould’s term - of science and religion and their relationship to one another. The fact is that they overlap, although the boundary regions of the overlap are innately ‘fuzzy’ (largely, if not entirely, on account of metamathematics!).