The Colson Center for Christian Worldview is assembling a great library of article by a number of authors, including Greg.
Comments
Don't know who Colson is, but I suspect it will be hard for him to compete with the quality of what you can (or soon will be able to) find at the following (this is just a guess based on the quality of the work I've read from Tim McGrew):
http://historicalapologetics.org/
The project is directed by Tim McGrew, a philosophy professor at Western Michigan University. McGrew is actually a Christian scholar whose education extends far beyond what anyone would ever get by reading only books in the apologetics section of the Family Christian Bookstore. Most of those books (e.g. the vast majority of what has been written by Geisler, Ravi, etc. on philosophical issues), seem to simply repeat, reshuffle, and re-present material mined from William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, Peter van Inwagen, Tim McGrew, and other folks who are genuine scholars that publish in peer-reviewed philosophical journals. I suppose those who make careers of recycling material mined from other folks can still provide a good service to the Church, but nevertheless these philosophers and the quality of their work are the gold-standard.
Chuck Colson was the guy involved in the watergate scandal. Just before he went to jail, he converted to Christianity. This guy was pretty amoral before converting to Christianity (He was a dirty, dirty politician). He also runs an organization that ministers to jail people.
Wow----No offense Malebranche, but two things--to not know who Chuck Colson is brings about a certain skepticism of your evaluation/opinion in the rest of your post. He has been at the forefront of advancing the Christian worldview for many years. Secondly, to categorize Norman Geisler as one who merely "makes a career of recycling material mined from other folks" is quite ignorant and offensive. There simply isn't space here to begin to catalog the man's contributions, not only to teaching and writing, but to the further development of much philosophical/apologetic thought.
If you would like to inform us of all of the ground-breaking original work Geisler or Ravi have put forth, or all of the articles they've published in peer-reviewed philosophical journals, feel free to let us all know. As far as I can tell, these folks make their living off of giving talks to the philosophically illiterate and publishing through publishers like Zondervan.
Malebranche is right. The apologists he mentioned do not publish in peer reviewed journals.
But I don't see why this is a liability to them. They are busy equipping the masses with the tools to think clearly in a morally and intellectually depraved time. They are appealing not to the 'scholars' of this world but to the every day men and women who don't have the luxury to spend every waking moment seeking advanced degrees or studying in the solitude of libraries.
I never denied that they provided a valuable service to the Church. I was simply pointing out what that service really amounts to. It certainly does not amount to doing scholarly work that is celebrated by scholars in philosophy. They, for some reason or other, avoid that. Rather, their philosophical work (I have nothing to say about more pastoral books or work they are involved in) consists largely in recycling material from other philosophers and disseminating it to the philosophically illiterate. Is there anyone here that would be interested in seriously disputing that?
Well Malebranche, I suppose it depends on your standard of 'scholarship'. If by this you mean those who are publishing in academic journals that are only intelligible to the upper crust lovelies and elite of academia, and are only written by such folks, then you would be correct in your fault-finding with these apologists.
But to apply such a standard in all cases of teaching within the body of Christ seems too stringent to me.
There are divisions of labor within the Church and different people are ministering at different levels. You needn't take a snooty attitude towards those you think are not up to the standards of intellectual accomplishment of yourself.
Don't know who Colson is, but I suspect it will be hard for him to compete with the quality of what you can (or soon will be able to) find at the following (this is just a guess based on the quality of the work I've read from Tim McGrew):
http://historicalapologetics.org/
The project is directed by Tim McGrew, a philosophy professor at Western Michigan University. McGrew is actually a Christian scholar whose education extends far beyond what anyone would ever get by reading only books in the apologetics section of the Family Christian Bookstore. Most of those books (e.g. the vast majority of what has been written by Geisler, Ravi, etc. on philosophical issues), seem to simply repeat, reshuffle, and re-present material mined from William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, Peter van Inwagen, Tim McGrew, and other folks who are genuine scholars that publish in peer-reviewed philosophical journals. I suppose those who make careers of recycling material mined from other folks can still provide a good service to the Church, but nevertheless these philosophers and the quality of their work are the gold-standard.
Posted by: Malebranche | August 30, 2010 at 02:57 PM
Chuck Colson was the guy involved in the watergate scandal. Just before he went to jail, he converted to Christianity. This guy was pretty amoral before converting to Christianity (He was a dirty, dirty politician). He also runs an organization that ministers to jail people.
Posted by: Laura | August 31, 2010 at 12:22 AM
Wow----No offense Malebranche, but two things--to not know who Chuck Colson is brings about a certain skepticism of your evaluation/opinion in the rest of your post. He has been at the forefront of advancing the Christian worldview for many years. Secondly, to categorize Norman Geisler as one who merely "makes a career of recycling material mined from other folks" is quite ignorant and offensive. There simply isn't space here to begin to catalog the man's contributions, not only to teaching and writing, but to the further development of much philosophical/apologetic thought.
Posted by: Joe | September 01, 2010 at 07:33 AM
Joe,
If you would like to inform us of all of the ground-breaking original work Geisler or Ravi have put forth, or all of the articles they've published in peer-reviewed philosophical journals, feel free to let us all know. As far as I can tell, these folks make their living off of giving talks to the philosophically illiterate and publishing through publishers like Zondervan.
Posted by: Malebranche | September 01, 2010 at 07:50 PM
Joe-
You paint with a very broad brush.
Posted by: ryan | September 02, 2010 at 05:44 AM
Sorry, I meant Malebranche, not Joe on last comment.
Posted by: ryan | September 02, 2010 at 05:45 AM
Malebranche is right. The apologists he mentioned do not publish in peer reviewed journals.
But I don't see why this is a liability to them. They are busy equipping the masses with the tools to think clearly in a morally and intellectually depraved time. They are appealing not to the 'scholars' of this world but to the every day men and women who don't have the luxury to spend every waking moment seeking advanced degrees or studying in the solitude of libraries.
I applaud their services.
Posted by: Truth Warrior | September 02, 2010 at 12:39 PM
I never denied that they provided a valuable service to the Church. I was simply pointing out what that service really amounts to. It certainly does not amount to doing scholarly work that is celebrated by scholars in philosophy. They, for some reason or other, avoid that. Rather, their philosophical work (I have nothing to say about more pastoral books or work they are involved in) consists largely in recycling material from other philosophers and disseminating it to the philosophically illiterate. Is there anyone here that would be interested in seriously disputing that?
Posted by: Malebranche | September 02, 2010 at 04:38 PM
Well Malebranche, I suppose it depends on your standard of 'scholarship'. If by this you mean those who are publishing in academic journals that are only intelligible to the upper crust lovelies and elite of academia, and are only written by such folks, then you would be correct in your fault-finding with these apologists.
But to apply such a standard in all cases of teaching within the body of Christ seems too stringent to me.
There are divisions of labor within the Church and different people are ministering at different levels. You needn't take a snooty attitude towards those you think are not up to the standards of intellectual accomplishment of yourself.
Posted by: Truth Warrior | September 03, 2010 at 10:08 AM