Academic and Former Atheist, Dr. Holly Ordway, on Fox News Tomorrow!

Hello faithful readers! Tomorrow morning at 8:20am Central, tune in to Fox and Friends to see an interview of my dear friend and HBU colleague, Dr. Holly Ordway. She will talk about her new book, Not God’s Type: An Atheist Academic Lays Down Her Arms (Ignatius Press), in which she recounts her journey to faith and later reception into the Roman Catholic Church.

Stay tuned for my review of her book. :-)

Join Me in Northern California October 10-11th

Dear Readers,

On October 10th and 11th, I’ll be giving two different lectures at the THRIVE conference in Roseville, California: “Bioethics: Making the Case for Life” and “Exploring Creation Models: The Science and the Scripture.” Both of my children’s apologetics books will be available in the resource sales area.

The plenary speakers for the weekend are Lee Strobel, Dr. Stephen Meyer, Dr. J.P. Moreland, and Dr. Craig Hazen. If it is feasible for you, I encourage you to join us for what promises to be a fantastic event!

Click the image below for details—>


“Why I was Once an Atheist” –From Pastor Matt

Dear Readers,

I am now dwelling deep inside the cave of PhD work, up to my eyeballs in Plato and battling the balrog. I promise I’ll try to post a new article soon! But in the meantime, I encourage you to check out this fascinating piece by Pastor Matt. Here’s an excerpt:

Once I became confident that Christianity didn’t work and, therefore, God didn’t exist, I looked primarily to the work of Sigmund Freud to intellectually justify my atheism.  I argued those who believe in God do so only because they are afraid of death and the uncertainties of life, so they create a giant daddy in the sky that will take care of them.

When I received any push back from Christians, I would lob the typical accusations their way: “What about those who have never heard?” “Why is there evil in the world, especially natural evil?”




Socrates Meets Descartes: A Fun Little Primer on Cartesian Philosophy


Socrates Meets Descartes is part of Dr. Peter Kreeft’s Socrates Meets… book collection. If you are not already familiar with these popular-level philosophy books, I encourage you to consider them. Here’s the concept: Kreeft uses Socrates—the father of philosophy—as a mouthpiece to individually examine major philosophers of history through classic Socratic dialogue. This turns out to be a rather ingenious literary technique that is employed with both wit and wisdom.

In Socrates Meets Descartes: The Father of Philosophy Analyzes the Father of Modern Philosophy’s Discourse on Method, Socrates’ interlocutor is Rene Descartes. Kreeft arranges their imaginary meeting in Purgatory, where Descartes’ penance is defending his famous Discourse on Method in response to Socrates’ demanding critique. Descartes, the reader learns, set out to revolutionize philosophy by inventing a scientific method that could discern truths with certainty, even eliminate human warfare by providing the tools for intellectual conflict resolution. If everyone had a common set of data and tools (his method), they would be enabled to reach the same conclusions, he claimed. In fact, everything that can be known could, theoretically, be realized in this way. Descartes’ purpose in writing Discourse on Method was to introduce the world to his new science of philosophy. It was this work that contained the most famous statement in the history of philosophy: “I think, therefore I am.”

Socrates proceeds to examine each step in Descartes’ system, which first moves from universal doubt to certainty only of one’s self-existence, then to proof of God’s existence, and then the existence of the material world.  Socrates doesn’t pull any punches in his analysis of Descartes’ ideas. He extensively questions the hidden presuppositions of Descartes’ project and points out logical difficulties.  But Descartes has his moments, too. One fine example is when he roundly criticizes the ancient pagan philosophers “who discuss morals in very proud and magnificent palaces that are built on nothing but sand and mud” (83). Often, a difficulty isn’t fully resolved, and the two philosophers leave the reader with what they call a philosophical “loose end.” Sometimes it was a mild relief to abandon an increasingly tedious rabbit trail, but sometimes it was frustrating, such as when it happened at the end of Socrates’ evaluation of Descartes’ version of the ontological argument.

Kreeft packs a lot of value into this little volume, but manages to do so with clear language and a minimal amount of convoluted argumentation. In addition to learning the basic strengths and weaknesses of the Cartesian philosophy being scrutinized, the reader is exposed to a few rules of logical argumentation, some basics of ancient Greek thought (Plato’s Cave is explained, for example), relevant cultural context, and names of a few of Descartes’ key challengers and sympathizers. The dialogue is interspersed with comic relief, clever and corny—both appropriate to the spirit of the book.

I highly recommend Socrates Meets Descartes and believe it to be suitable for college undergraduates or adults just beginning a foray into philosophical study. It’s a wonderful stand-alone introduction to Descartes that would serve as a nice preliminary to research.

The Divine Mathematician and His Image-Bearers

Originally posted on School of Christian Thought:

In his celebrated book, The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe, Dr. Steven Weinberg said that mankind is a “farcical outcome of a chain of accidents reaching back to the first three minutes” after the Big Bang. According to Weinberg and many other atheist thinkers past and present, the cosmos is not purposeful and we, its observers, amount to nothing more than self-aware cosmic dust bunnies.

Dr. Weinberg is a Nobel Prize winning physicist, a brilliant scholar who has spent decades investigating the intricacies of the material universe. I find it astonishing that individuals with such extensive, intimate knowledge of the mathematics of nature could so confidently dismiss the implications of the fact that we are conscious, intelligent beings capable of ascertaining these complex truths in the first place.

Consider this. Humans developed fundamentals of mathematics before they were applied to nature. We first had to…

View original 598 more words