"We know too little to prescribe to strict atheism, but we know way too much to commit to any particular religious story".

David Eagleman

Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!

Neuroscientist and best-selling author David Eagleman has invented, and is promoting, a philosophy known as possibilianism. Eagleman claims that his worldview is new and distinct from other worldviews such as atheism and agnosticism. The philosophy is defined as a philosophy which utilises science to explore new unconsidered ideas about the world around us, after we have eliminated the alternatives. Essentially he views debates between atheists and Christians as presenting a false dichotomy. He also believes this is true for all the other worldviews.

Even though it is claimed to be a fresh philosophy on the surface it shares many characteristics with other worldviews. In relation to atheism, possibilianism share in the rejection of all known religious thought and also embraces the view that knowledge can be acquired through science as axiomatic. Possibilianism shares a similar stance as agnosticism and post-modern views regarding the limits and uncertainty of knowledge. However, possibilianism rejects both these views. It rejects atheism because it is too certain about things that we can't know definitively and it rejects agnosticism because it falls upon the scale of what is perceived as a false dichotomy between atheism and theism. Furthermore, David views agnosticism as a stagnant position that does not search for answers. Despite the claims to the contrary, possibilianism should be approached as a variation of agnostic/atheistic thought.

From the Christian perspective it is important to understand that despite the differences to other worldviews, possibilianism is still a rejection of biblical truth. Biblically it can be identified as just another variant of the suppression of the truth (Romans 1:18) and it remains, as Christians, our responsibility to demolish arguments against the knowledge of God (2 Corinthians 10:5). Although, intellectual humility and the rejection of atheism, and other religions, is welcome, the movement still consciously rejects Christianity. This is our primary concern.

In advocating the search for new possibilities David Eagleman rejects Christian claims to truth in the same manner as atheists and agnostics who have come before him. The reasons he gives for rejecting Christianity are drawn from the relationship between culture and belief and how it relates to modern scientific understandings. Like many atheists David rejects the Bible based on the limited knowledge of the cultures in which it was written. David also makes the claim that what we believe is just a product of the culture we live in. To illustrate this he compares the Genesis account of creation to a tribal account of creation claiming that each of them sound ridiculous to the other side. Hence, he rejects both. These rehashed arguments are a common threat between modern rejections of the Bible and we should be prepared to give a defence of the hope we have when we encounter these arguments, no matter what source.

This new worldview provides Christians with another opportunity to deepen our understanding of what we believe and how to defend it. This worldview brings into perspective that it is not always sufficient to merely prove opposing ideologies incorrect. Even if an opposing worldview is incorrect this does not mean that the Christian worldview is necessarily correct. With this in mind we should be keen to give positive reasons for believing what we believe as opposed to being reactionary to opposing views. In one sense David is correct in his assumption that we are going to have limited knowledge. However, this is part of the human condition and, in no way, contradicts the Christian understanding of the world. From a Christian perspective the importance of the knowledge is more crucial than how complete our knowledge is. As knowing the answer to big questions is greater than knowing all the answers to the smaller ones.

Because of the inability to answer these questions, in practice followers of this worldview will, in many ways, still revert to lives that are indistinguishable from atheists and agnostics. Although you can avoid saddling up with a particular idea it is impossible to operate independent of a perspective on things relating to ultimate purpose. Like all others the individual is still in the same predicament when presented before our creator. Therefore, despite the humility of the position this should not blind us that this is still a standing that misses the mark.

http://possibilian.com/

Here's an article that Bill wrote for me, because I asked him nicely.

More Celebrity Wisdom
Bill Muehlenberg, 7th September 2011

"I expect that some might argue that what I said in my title is a glaring example of what is known as an oxymoron. To that I can only plead guilty as charged. That our over-paid and over-egoed celebs can actually offer us anything remotely resembling wisdom is, I realise, a really big ask.

Yet that has not prevented many of them from trying to inflict their great learning upon us mere masses. We have far too many examples of various celebs pontificating on all sorts of important social, moral and cultural issues. Even intellectual issues.

On a regular basis our enlightened ones from Hollywood, popstardom and elsewhere will graciously bestow upon the rest of us peons their golden nuggets of wit and wisdom. Without their elevated thoughts and glistening guidance we would all undoubtedly be so much worse off.

Indeed, it is not enough that they have to bore us to death with their monotonous pop songs and box-office disaster films, but they feel the need to wear us all down with their celebrity commentary. I am not alone in dreading this assault of the celebs. In fact, whole books have been written about this.

For example, back in 2009 Andrea Peyser penned a neat little volume, Celebutards (Citadel Press). In it she examined a number of celebs, all card-carrying members of the zany left. All the usual suspects were there: Sean Penn, Madonna, Susan Sarandon, Michael Moore, Barbra Streisand, Jimmy Carter, Oprah Winfrey, Martin Sheen, Jesse Jackson, Hillary Clinton and many more.

It is worth noting that Peyser is no redneck hillbilly; she is “live-and-let-live on a variety of social issues, including abortion and gay rights”. But she can spot a celubutard a mile away, and provides a valuable service here in naming and shaming these serial pests. Her book begins this way:

“ce – leb – u – tard (suh – LEB – yu – tard) noun 1. A famous person with a grandiose notion of his own importance and contribution to the known universe. 2. A human being of sub-par intellect, oversized ego and colossal bank account, whose existence represents a drag on the food chain, waste of oxygen and severe annoyance. 3. An egregious moron. (Origin: from the Latin celebutardus Paris Hiltonus maximum Baldwinus).”

Thus a celebutard is a term used to describe “lazy and egotistical thinkers, stars equipped with abundant money, fame, idle hours and yes-men, who feel secure enough in their own influence and intelligence to create insane foreign or domestic policy in their spare time”.

The only problem with her book of course is that another volume is already long overdue. Plenty more showcases can be mentioned. The media continues to cough up one bizarre example after another of these folks. Indeed, I have documented many such cases myself on this site.

As to the latest instalment, consider this headline in today’s press: “Gwyneth Paltrow says humans are flawed and respects, admires people who had extra-marital affairs”. The article says this: “‘I am a great romantic – but I also think you can be a romantic and a realist,’ said Gwyneth Paltrow, who has two children Apple, seven, and Moses, five, with husband, Chris Martin, the singer/songwriter of UK band Coldplay.

“‘Life is complicated and long and I know people that I respect and admire and look up to who have had extra-marital affairs,’ said Paltrow, who spoke about the difficulty of marriage last month. ‘It’s like we’re flawed – we’re human beings and sometimes you make choices that other people are going to judge. That’s their problem but I really think that the more I live my life the more I learn not to judge people for what they do. I think we’re all trying our best but life is complicated’.”

Thank you Gwyneth for sharing with all of us these pearls of wisdom. That makes life so much easier now – or should we rather say, complicated? Imagine us foolish mortals thinking that human beings actually were able to make moral choices and not just excuse their bad behaviours as if they were nothing but animals.

It is so good to know that life is complicated. We used to foolishly think that Hitler was evil – end of story. But now with this new found Hollywood wisdom, we know that the poor guy was a complicated soul, and we have been far too harsh on the Nazis. After all, as you so rightly remind us, “we’re all flawed” and we have to “learn not to judge people for what they do”.

It is a pity the Nuremberg trials could not have been put on hold until you could have straightened them out on their mean-spirited judgmentalism and their obviously foolish notions of binding, absolute morality. Boy, what an uneducated and Philistine lot those guys were.

But now thanks to you, we can soon have universities offering Paltrow Ethics 101 and other helpful courses. There we will learn just how unhelpful it is to judge, to make moral decisions, or to exercise ethical discernment. We can be liberated in the knowledge that we are all “flawed – we’re human beings and sometimes you make choices that other people are going to judge.”

This is such a liberating concept. Next time I run a red light, I will just run that line past the judge. Surely it will get me off the hook. Next time I decide my wedding vows are far too tedious and embark upon a string of adulterous affairs, I will simply mollify my wife with the words, “Hey, we’re all flawed you know – and life is complicated!”

Next time a brain-challenged celeb makes some moronic comments about some important social and ethical issue, and someone seeks to put her out of her misery with his Smith & Wesson, we will be so relieved to know that they have no moral case to answer for. After all, life is oh so complicated, don’t you know?

Life will now be so much easier and straightforward, thanks to young Gwyneth sorting us out about all those ethical dilemmas. We now have the Ten Commandments nicely boiled down to just one: “Thou shalt not judge anyone because life is complicated and we are all flawed.”

And there we allowed all this archaic ethical teaching of the centuries to make our lives so cumbersome. Thank you Hollywoodians – you have made our lives so much more easy (even though it is because we have been informed that it is actually so complicated!).

Thanks so much Gwyn, I feel as if an enormous burden has been lifted from my shoulders, just as it must have been for you as well. I am so delighted to know that when your husband of eight years walks out on you and the kids for a new, younger model, you will be so understanding and accepting of all this.

Ah, the bliss of walking through life with the wit and wisdom of the celebs to guide us along the way. Where would we be without them?

www.dailytelegraph.com.au/lifestyle/sex-relationships/gwyneth-paltrow-says-humans-are-flawed-and-respects-admires-people-who-had-extra-marital-affairs/story-e6frf01i-1226130773039"

Used with Permission

Click here to go to Bill's website.

Article by Cameron Spink

"I do not entertain hypotheticals. The world itself is vexing enough"

This movie lives up to its name; it is a truly gritty movie. Right from the start this western re-make holds no Hollywood glamour. With Joel and Ethan Coen directing, producing and writing the screenplay for it this is no surprise.

Mattie Ross (played superbly by first-timer Hailee Steinfeld) is forced to sort out her families affairs after her father is killed by one of his hired hands Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin). To avenge her father she hires Deputy US Marshall Rooster Cogburn (award-winning Jeff Bridges) who knows the terrain which Chaney has fled to. They are joined along the trail by Texas Ranger LaBeoeuf (surprisingly strong performance from Matt Damon) who has been tracking Chaney for crimes he did in a past life.

A great article from some years ago on the dangers of Harry Potter.

The Word of God and Harry Potter
John A. Lynn

"The fact that any Christians would not recognize J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter  books (and the corresponding movies) as a ploy of the Devil to introduce witchcraft to millions of people, especially children, is a sad testimony to the dearth of biblical knowledge in the Church today. The fact that some go so far as to endorse the books as advancing good-versus-evil “Christian” principles is even more discouraging.

For example, in John Granger’s article titled Harry Potter and the Inklings: The Christian Meaning of The Chamber of Secrets, he misses the boat by not seeing how Satan often tries to get people to choose between two alternatives, neither of which is true. In this case, the Devil promotes the whole modernistic, naturalistic, materialistic, no-spiritual-dimension belief system and then comes along with Rowling’s supposedly Christian antithesis to that. Granger says that “Rowling asks us to look at the world magically,” and he speaks of her “edifying use of magic in literature.” If God’s Word is true, both of those things are exposed as untrue. Granger uses no Scripture to document his assertions.

We don’t need J.K. Rowling to lead an attack on modernism, etc., as we already have Jesus Christ and the Word of God, which has none of the harmful side effects that come with ingesting Harry Potter.

Perhaps there are some Christian principles (e.g., good versus evil) woven into the H.P. narratives, but really, how many people, especially kids, do you think will come away with a Christian orientation or hunger and pursue that hunger by delving into the Bible? I’d say few, if any, for it doesn’t give them any real direction. And I think that even those who do notice anything akin to Christian ideology will be drawn in by that and then led astray by the more powerful message Rowling is promoting, which is that magic is anything but evil. 

If we allow God to speak for Himself, we can see things as they really are. First, what does He say about Satan, His arch-enemy?


2 Corinthians 11:13-15

13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15 It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.

God makes it clear that the Devil is the Master Counterfeiter. The main characteristic about a counterfeit is that it looks a lot like the real thing. You or I would be fooled by an excellent counterfeit $20 bill. Why? Because we have not sufficiently studied the genuine article in minute detail, but the women I once saw at the U.S. Mint in D.C. could quickly go through bills and pull out the bogus ones—it was amazing. Of course they had been there 20 years.

There is no such thing as the “good magic,” “good spirits,” “good force,” etc., that Rowling promotes in the H.P. series. That rhetoric is a trick of the Devil to entice people into his realm of the spiritual, but it wouldn’t work if people took even a quick look at The Book. For example, here are some things God says about what Harry Potter, many kids’ new hero, epitomizes...."

Click here to read the full article.

A disappointing verdict has been reached by the US Supreme Court in regards to violent games. It has decided that California cannot regulate violent video games to stop them getting into the hands of children.

Grand Theft Auto no different to Cinderella, rules US Supreme Court
Herald Sun, 28th June 2011

"Ripping out your video game opponents' spine is akin to Hansel and Gretel baking their captor in an oven.

That's the message sent to gamers by the US Supreme Court yesterday, after it refused to let California regulate the sale or rental of violent video games to children.

California's 2005 law would have prohibited anyone under 18 from buying or renting games that give players the option of "killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being".

That means that children would have needed an adult to get games like Postal 2, the first-person shooter by developer Running With Scissors that includes the ability to light unarmed bystanders on fire.

However, governments do not have the power to "restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed", the court ruled, despite complaints about graphic violence.

On a 7-2 vote, it upheld a federal appeals court decision to throw out the state's ban on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors, saying the law violated minors' rights under the First Amendment.

"No doubt a state possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm," said Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion.

"But that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed."

The California law would have prohibited the sale or rental of violent games to anyone under 18....."

Click here to read the full article on the Herald Sun's website.

Article by Cameron Spink

It seems necessary that a leader needs to have a good and strong voice to rally his people, yet, for King George VI (played by Colin Firth) he had, what seemed, an incurable stammer. However, this movie starts before Albert, Duke of York, becomes king. He is second in line to the throne, behind his older brother David (English-accented Guy Pearce). So, for the most part, "Bertie" avoided the limelight after he botched a speech at the 1925 Empire Exhibition.

Bertie's wife, Elizabeth (Helen Bontham Carter), encourages him to go to speech therapists, even though, it is suggested that he has received all types of help to no avail. In a last ditch attempt Elizabeth ends up in working class London, asking Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), an Australian out-of-work actor and sometimes speech defects specialist, who comes highly recommended despite his unorthodox methods.