This is a list (being updated) of my current work in article format.
++ ‘Is a Fetus a Human Person?: Thinking Deeply on a Complex and Politically Charged Question.’ Jurnal teologic Vol 13, Nr 1 (2014): 111-127.
This article will address the question, is a human being a human person? Many modern bioethics professors and philosophers have adopted a new view of human personhood that makes allowances and justifications for embryonic stem cell research and abortion. I will address this issue by arguing that the human being is a human person. I will attempt to do this by stating that 1) Claiming that an adult human person is different in kind from a fetus or embryo is a category mistake between actuality and potentiality. 2) I will argue that the difference be- tween the adult human and the human embryo is a difference in degree, not kind. 3) I will argue that claiming that an embryo is not a human person will lead to an absurd result using reductio ad absurdum. 4) I will propose an argument showing that a human being must be a human person.
Naturalism is the strongest force against the legitimate expression of religion in the sciences today. I attempt to show the problems of naturalism in this paper which is composed of three parts. Part 1 is a struggle to find a coherent definition of naturalism as it is currently understood. The common thread I find running through all definitions is the following: naturalism is a belief or research paradigm that excludes any teleological, theological or supernatural explanations for the elucidation of phenomena in the universe. It assumes that the best explanations are causal non-purposive explanations, ultimately depending on the causal regularities of the physical sciences. Moreover, if anything cannot be explained by the machinery of the hard sciences, like consciousness, morality, or beauty, then it either is a mystery waiting to be solved or explained by the hard sciences, is epiphenomenal or does not exist (it is a social or linguistic artificial convention). In Part 2, I address the unscientific presuppositions of naturalism. This leads us to the question of scientific methodology. Famous philosopher of science Karl Popper wrote, “the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.” If we cannot or are not allowed to consider the falsifiability, or refutability of naturalism, then it is according to Popper, a non-scientific theory. This does not mean it is a false theory; just that it is a non-scientific theory. Finally in Part 3, I frame and articulate to the naturalists’ community a strong argument against naturalism ala Alvin Plantinga and Richard Taylor, (different than the one raised by C. S. Lewis). This argument states that if our cognitive faculties have arisen by purely natural, unguided forces, then, although they can be trusted to arrive at pragmatic conclusions, they cannot be trusted to arrive at truthful conclusions. The point is that truths that have survival values are not the same as truths that are reasonable or have a purpose.
In this article I address the issue of truth, tolerance and romance in theology.
In this article, I interview one of my heroes, Christian Apologist, Ravi Zacharias.
Ravi Zacharias is Founder and President of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM), which celebrates its thirtieth anniversary in 2014. Dr. Zacharias has spoken all over the world for 42 years in scores of universities, notably Harvard, Dartmouth, Johns Hopkins, and Oxford University. He has addressed writers of the peace accord in South Africa, the president’s cabinet and parliament in Peru, and military officers at the Lenin Military Academy and the Center for Geopolitical Strategy in Moscow. At the invitation of the President of Nigeria, he addressed delegates at the First Annual Prayer Breakfast for African Leaders held in Mozambique.
The attached paper is an imaginary conversation on the ever elusive qualia, or the ‘what is it like’ feeling, or conscious experiences, that has left philosophers and cognitive scientists searching for answers. This article is meant to give the beginning reader an overall view of this phenomena. Qualia is the technical name for conscious experiences like seeing the colour red or listening to Handel’s Messiah. The problem is that these conscious experiences are apparently nowhere to be found in our physical brains. Thus, it would not register on any physical system in the known world (although the results of it, such as neurons firing, would).
In this article, I argue that modern Israel does not have Divine blessing if it continues to dismiss the Divine Son.