RSS
Browse in : [
Categories
]
J.P. Moreland, The Christian Research Journal (Winter 1992). Also see, "Assessing the Options".
In June of 1990, Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a 63-year-old retired pathologist, was charged with first-degree murder after he helped an Oregon woman with Alzheimer's disease commit suicide in June 1990. The charge was dismissed in December 1990. (Michigan has no law against suicide.) In October of 1991, Marjorie Wantz used a suicide machine devised by Kevorkian to take her own life. Kevorkian also assisted Sherry Miller in an act of suicide by pulling a mask over her face so she would inhale carbon monoxide from a tank. Miller's veins were too delicate for a needle involved in Kevorkian's suicide machine. The police found both bodies in a cabin 40 miles north of Detroit. Miller was incapacitated by multiple sclerosis and Wantz suffered from a painful pelvic condition. Neither condition was life threatening.
J.P. Moreland and Stan Wallace, International Philosophical Quarterly (Vol. XXXV, No. 3 Issue No. 139 Sep. 1995).
During the last decade or so, there has been a growing body of literature about various topics in end-of-life ethics. And while there is no clear agreement about a number of issues in this literature, nevertheless, there is something of a consensus that has emerged, perhaps unconsciously and implicitly at times, regarding how to view a cluster of crucial metaphysical themes relevant to the ethical issues just mentioned — the nature of personhood, humanness, and personal identity. In our view, this consensus approach to these three themes is Cartesian and Lockean in spirit. Often conspicuous by its absence, especially outside Catholic circles, is any discussion of Thomistic insights into these metaphysical desiderata, much less an acceptance of them. This tendency is egregious and contributes to a way of framing certain ethical issues that determines their resolution from the beginning.
J.P. Moreland, "Utilitarianism and the Moral Life" in Tabletalk (Ligonier Ministries : April 1993), 7-9.
The Goal Of Normative ethics is to develop a comprehensive, coherent
system of morality that answers difficult questions. For advocates of
biblical Christianity, whatever system we embrace should square with
our considered, commonsense moral intuitions derived from natural law,
and it should he consistent with, shed light upon, and help extend the
morality contained in Scripture. Currently, there are three competing normative systems. Virtue ethics does not focus primarily on moral rules (e.g., "don't steal") or moral
actions but on describing the good person or community and the features
present in a virtuous character. Deontological ethics (from deon
meaning binding duty") focuses on moral rules and actions and
emphasizes duty done for duty's sake. Certain moral rules are
intrinsically correct and should be followed simply because they are
right. Virtue and deontological ethics are easily harmonized. But that is not the case with a third normative theory: utilitarianism.
J.P. Moreland, in Evangelical Apologetics (out of print), eds. Michael Bauman, David W. Hall, and Robert C. Newman. (Christian Publications Inc., 1996).
Moreland defines what he calls philosophical apologetics as "a philosophical activity which has as its goal (or perhaps as its result) the increasing or maintaining of the epistemic justification of a Christian world view in whole or in part." Moreland surveys several varieties of philosophical apologetics and makes the case for philosophy as an essential and specially placed discipline for the effective integration of theology with other sources of knowledge claims. Finally, Moreland suggests several practical ways in which Christians can interact persuasively with the world of ideas that undercut the plausibility and relevance of Christian ideas in contemporary culture. ~ Afterall
J.P. Moreland, in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 46 (March, 1994): 2-13.
Among other things, scientists try to solve both empirical and conceptual problems. Conceptual problems, in turn, are of two basic types: internal and external. In this article, I offer a taxonomy of both types of conceptual problems that have constituted scientific practice throughout its history and argue that certain activities done by creationists fit this taxonomy nicely. I then conclude that these creationist activities cannot be faulted as being non-science or pseudo-science once we see how they fit a proper scientific pattern of addressing conceptual problems in other areas. ~ An Excerpt
J.P. Moreland in The Christian Research Journal (Fall 1993).
From space travel to organ transplants, one of the most important influences shaping the modern world is science. Amazingly, people who lived during the Civil War had more in common with Abraham than with us. If Christians are going to speak to that world and interact with it responsibly, they must interact with science. The question is, how are we to understand the relationship between science and Christianity? At a dinner party I was introduced to a professor of physics. On learning that I was a philosopher and theologian, he informed me of the irrational nature of my fields, contending that science had removed the need to believe in God.
J.P. Moreland, on his blog at Amazon.com (June 12, 2008).
Recently, I've been doing a lot of thinking about consciousness and how it might contribute to evidence for the existence of God in light of metaphysical naturalism's failure to provide a helpful explanation. Some of my thinking has culminated in the recently released Consciousness and the Existence of God (Routledge Studies in the Philosophy of Religion) (Routledge, 2008). Consciousness is among the most mystifying features of the cosmos. Geoffrey Madell opines that "the emergence of consciousness, then is a
mystery, and one to which materialism signally fails to provide an
answer."i
Naturalist Colin McGinn claims that its arrival borders on sheer magic
because there seems to be no naturalistic explanation for it: "How can
mere matter originate consciousness? How did evolution convert the
water of biological tissue into the wine of consciousness?
Consciousness seems like a radical novelty in the universe, not
prefigured by the after-effects of the Big Bang; so how did it contrive
to spring into being from what preceded it?"ii Finally,
naturalist William Lyons argues that "[physicalism] seem[s] to be in
tune with the scientific materialism of the twentieth century because
it [is] a harmonic of the general theme that all there is in the
universe is matter and energy and motion and that humans are a product
of the evolution of species just as much as buffaloes and beavers are.
Evolution is a seamless garment with no holes wherein souls might be
inserted from above."iii
J.P. Moreland in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 46 (March, 1994): 2-13.
There has been a growing debate about the proper way to integrate science and theology. On the one side are those who accept a complementarity view of integration and claim that science must presuppose methodological naturalism. On the other side are those who accept some form of theistic science. Central to this debate is the nature of divine and human action and the existence of gaps in the natural causal fabric due to such action that could, in principle, enter into the use of scientific methodology. In this article, I side with the second group. To justify this position, I first state the complementarity view and its implications for the nature of human personhood, second, explain libertarian agency in contrast to compatibilist models of action, and third, show why "gaps" are part of divine and human agency and illustrate ways that such a model of agency for certain divine acts could be relevant to the practice of science.
J.P. Moreland, in Promise (March/April 1996): 40-42.
Scientific Naturalism is a worldview that is powerfully influencing our
culture today. So much so that even believers in one and the same God
struggle with conflicting views. J.P. Moreland begins the first of his
four part series with a clear examination of its belief system and the
role theistic evolution plays to perpetuate its ends. Here are parts II, III, IV.
William Lane Craig, presented to the Christian Theological Research Fellowship meeting at the AAR in November, 1996
William Lane Craig argues first that objective morality is indefensible apart from the existence of God, and second, therefore, that the evident fact of objective morality is evidence for the existence of God. If not A (no God) then not B (no objective morality), then conversely, B therefore A. Craig justifies his thesis by noting the inability of atheism to account for moral evaluation, moral responsibility, and moral accountability. He is careful to stipulate that he is not arguing that belief in God is required for moral action and character, as the argument is sometimes misconstrued. Rather, "that if God exists, then the objectivity of moral values, moral duties, and moral accountability is secured, but that in the absence of God,
that is, if God does not exist, then morality is just a human convention, that is to say, morality is wholly subjective and non-binding." ~ Afterall
