Did Jesus Exist

¿Existió Jesús?

By Evan Minton

I don’t know why, but 99% of the atheists I talk to on the Internet hold the ridiculous position that Jesus never existed. But then, they’re atheists. I don’t expect them to believe in the divinity of Jesus. How could they? If they did, they wouldn’t be atheists. They would be Christians. No. I’m not talking about believing in the divinity of Jesus here, but about believing in Jesus as a historical figure. That’s what I find so ridiculous. Those who deny the Christ myth are clinging to a historical hypothesis that would make them the laughing stock of every university in the world. Almost every scholar of ancient history holds this view, and those who are in a minority, a minority, a minority are rightly seen as charlatans. By the way, those who believe that Jesus was a flesh-and-blood historical figure are not Christians. Atheist and agnostic scholars also believe that Jesus was a historical figure. Bart Ehrman, an agnostic and one of the most outspoken critics of Christianity, believes that Jesus was a real, flesh-and-blood historical person. He writes: “I think the evidence that Jesus existed is so overwhelming that it is foolish to claim otherwise. I don’t know anyone who is a responsible historian, who is trained in the historical method, or anyone who is a biblical scholar and who works that way, who gives any credence to any of that.” 

Why is this the case? Why do almost all scholars of ancient history believe that Jesus was a flesh-and-blood figure in history? Is the evidence for Jesus’ historicity as overwhelming as agnostic scholar Bart Ehrman claims? Let’s see.

*The existence of Jesus is more than amply attested in secular sources, non-Christian extra-biblical sources, and in the New Testament documents.

Jesus is mentioned in so many sources in the first century and early second century that it is absurd to claim that He never existed. What are those sources? Well, we have the gospels and the epistles of the New Testament. But everyone already knows them, so I am not going to cite them. Instead, I am going to cite merely the non-Christian, extra-biblical sources.

1: Flavius ​​Josephus

Josephus mentions Jesus (and other New Testament figures) in his writings. In Flavius ​​Josephus’s Antiquities of the Jews (written in 90 AD), Josephus writes:

“About that time there was a certain Jesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man, for he was a wonder-worker, a teacher of men who welcomed the truth. Many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles were attracted to him. They called him the Christ, and when Pilate, acting on the suggestion of the chief men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him from the beginning did not forsake him; he appeared to them resurrected on the third day, just as the divine prophets had foretold, and they said ten thousand other astonishing things about him. The existence of Christians, the name they took from him from that time on, continues to this day.”

“Antiquities of the Jews”, 18.3.3

Second, in Book 20 there is what might be called a brief reference to Jesus in a paragraph describing the murder of Jesus’ brother James at the hands of the high priest Ananus.

“But as we said, the young man Ananus who received the high priesthood was of a courageous temper and exceptionally bold; he was a partisan of the Sadducees, who were severe in passing judgment on all the Jews, as we have already shown. Since Ananus was of such a temper, he thought he had now a great opportunity since Festus was dead and Albinus was still on the way; so he formed a council of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ, whose name was James, together with others; and having accused them of being offenders, he handed them over to be stoned.”

Here we have an early secular source that mentions Jesus and a handful of followers who clearly believed He was the promised Messiah (or Christ) of their Jewish religion. It also mentions Pontius Pilate and says that Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate at the suggestion of the Jewish Sanhedrin. This is pretty good non-Christian and non-Biblical evidence that affirms the existence of Jesus, the existence of Pontius Pilate, that Jesus had a handful of followers who considered Him to be the Christ, and that the Sanhedrin brought Jesus before Pontius Pilate and that he condemned Him to die on a cross. Josephus also claims that Jesus had a brother named James who was murdered by the Sanhedrin.

“BUT!” The one who believes that Christ is a myth may protest . This passage has obviously been interpolated by a Christian. Josephus was a Jew, not a Christian. And yet he says things like “He was the Christ”  and “He appeared to them resurrected on the third day .”  Therefore, we cannot include this passage from Josephus because it was not a genuine passage that he wrote. It was more likely written by a Christian scribe who included this passage in order to subliminally evangelize people. But are the skeptics right? Is this passage really not historical evidence for the existence of Jesus? There are a few things to consider.

First, very few scholars believe that the entire passage was invented by a Christian. Certainly, it is indisputable that there have been interpolations in this passage, but that does not mean that the whole thing was invented. Most scholars believe that there was an original passage about Jesus included in the Flavian testimony, but that it was subtly modified by a Christian scribe.

There are very good reasons why scholars have adopted the theory of “partial authenticity.”

1: A good portion of the text is written in Josephus’s dramatic style and vocabulary. That is, the fragments believed to be original to Josephus reflect his typical writing style.

Christopher Price wrote: “Perhaps the most important factor leading most scholars to accept the partial authenticity position is that a substantial part of the TF reflects the language and style of Josephus . Moreover, when the obvious Christian references—which are rich in New Testament vocabulary and non-core language—are removed or restored to the original, the remainder of the core passage is coherent and flows appropriately. We can be confident that there was minimal reference to Jesus… for once the clearly Christian sections are removed, the remainder makes good grammatical and historical sense. The peculiarly Christian words are connected parenthetically to the narrative; therefore, they are grammatically free and could easily have been inserted by a Christian. These sections, moreover, are broken up, and when they are removed, the flow of thought is improved and more harmonious.”

Graham Stanton claims that “once the obvious Christian additions are removed , the remaining comments are consistent with the vocabulary and style of Josephus”  (Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus, p. 143). The most recent and comprehensive study of the Flavian testimony was undertaken by John P. Meier in A Marginal Jew, Volume 1. According to Meier,  “many key words and phrases in the testimony are either absent from the NT or are used in it in entirely different ways; instead, nearly all of the core words of the testimony are found elsewhere in Josephus’ work—indeed, much of the vocabulary turns out to be characteristic of Josephus”  (Meier, op. cit., p. 63).

  1. The reference to James, the brother of Jesus, suggests an earlier reference to Jesus.

The validity of Josephus’ reference to the martyrdom of James increases the likelihood that the TF is also valid. In Josephus’ reference to James, he names Jesus as “the so-called Christ” without further explanation . That’s all he says. When he refers to James, he says he is the brother of “ Jesus, the so-called Christ.” Josephus gives no further explanation of who Jesus was , what he did, no reference to his death or resurrection from the dead, no mention of any miracles, or anything like that. All he says is that James is the brother of Jesus. The way the passage about James reads makes it seem as if Josephus was assuming that his readers already knew who he was talking about. This would make sense if the Flavian Testimony were a legitimate passage. Because in that passage, Josephus has already briefly explained who this Jesus was and what he did, so that by the time his readers got to the passage about James, no further explanation would be necessary. However, Josephus’ lack of elaboration as to who Jesus was in the passage about James would make no sense if there were no earlier explanation of who he was, such as in the Flavian Testimony. Incidentally, no one doubts that Josephus’ reference to James is authentic.

For these two reasons and several more, most scholars believe that Josephus’ Flavian testimony is a genuine passage, even though it is obvious that some Christian scribe changed a few lines here and there. For more information on why Josephus’ passage was partially interpolated rather than completely invented, please click on the URL below.

“Did Josephus Refer To Jesus?” by Christopher Price —  http://bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm

The Mona Lisa

This topic arose from a talk given by Dr. Timothy McGrew. The talk was about extra-biblical evidence indicating the historical reliability of the New Testament. By the way, you can listen to this talk on YouTube. Anyway, Tim McGrew posted a picture of the Mona Lisa. The Mona Lisa had a mustache, and he compared it to Josephus’ interpolations of the passage about Jesus with the Mona Lisa having a mustache. He said:

“This is not a Leonardo da Vinci painting, and if the lights weren’t so bright, you can see why. It looks a little bit like the Mona Lisa… but… it has a moustache and a bit of a beard. Should we conclude, then, that there was no original painting? Or should we conclude that there was and that there is something that has been added… by someone else’s hand? What should we make of a moustache on the Mona Lisa? Well, fortunately in 1971, Shlomo Pines published some work he had been doing on an Arabic manuscript that contained this passage.”

And it is in this Arabic text that we find the passage without the confusing fragments that seem to be Christian interpolations.

“whose conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people from among the Jews and from other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to crucifixion and death, and those who were his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him.  THEY  REPORTED that he appeared to them 3 days after his crucifixion. Consequently , they believed that he was the Messiah just as the prophets had said ”  (emphasis mine)

Tim McGrew then asked the audience, “Do you see the difference? My guess is (and this is the opinion of most scholars) is that the passage was originally written by Josephus as we have it in this Arabic text… and then some Christian scribe couldn’t resist the urge to put a mustache on the Mona Lisa. He didn’t realize that what he was doing would raise doubts as to the authenticity of the report of this genuine passage and that of Josephus himself. As with the Mona Lisa, our inference is that there was indeed an original and it was not invented by the person who added the mustache and beard. Our best guess regarding the testimony is that Josephus actually wrote it and that it was interpolated. And fortunately, we have discovered a text that shows us why most scholars think more or less that is how it happened.”

2: Tacitus

Another secular document is the Annals of Cornelius Tacitus. In Annals 15.44, Tacitus recounts the burning of Rome to its foundations and says that everyone blamed Nero for burning the city. Nero tried to shift the blame to the Christians, and so he began to persecute them. Tacitus’ Annals date from 115 AD.

“But all the help that could come from man, all the rewards that the prince could grant, all the expiations that could be presented to the gods, were of no avail to free Nero from the infamy of supposing that he had ordered the conflagration, the burning of Rome. Therefore, to silence the rumours, he falsely accused and then punished the Christians, who were abhorred for their enormities. Christ, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition which had been for a time suppressed, broke out again, not only throughout Judea where the mischief originated, but also throughout the city of Rome, where everything disgusting and disgraceful that springs from all parts of the world finds its centre and becomes popular. Therefore, first of all those who were found guilty were arrested; Then, after his declaration, an immense crowd was accused, not so much of the crime of burning the city, but of their hatred of humanity.”

Again, Jesus and Pontius Pilate are mentioned in secular documents. Tacitus claims that Jesus existed and was crucified by Pontius Pilate. He then states that the movement that arose after Jesus died out for a time, then flared up again originating in Judea, and then spread to Rome. The New Testament claims the same thing; Jesus existed, was crucified by Pilate, his followers kept quiet for the next 50 days, and then at Pentecost, began to spread the gospel throughout the ancient world. And unlike the Josephus passage , no one debates this Tacitus passage. Everyone acknowledges that this passage from Tacitus’ Annals is authentic.

3: Pliny the Younger

Pliny the Younger (62?-c.113 AD) was the governor of Bithynia. His correspondence with the Emperor Trajan in 106 AD included a report on proceedings against Christians. In an extensive note to his supervisor, Pliny explained that he forced Christians to “curse Christ, which a true Christian cannot be induced to do.” He also described their actions and practices:

“They affirmed, however, that their whole fault, or their whole error, was that they were in the habit of meeting together on a certain appointed day before daybreak, when they would sing in alternate verses a hymn to Christ as if to a god, and bind themselves by a solemn oath never to do any infamous action, except never to commit fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, never to deny the faith if called upon to testify.”

Kyle Butt, author of many articles at Apologetics Press, had this to say regarding the Pliny passage I just quoted. Here is what Kyle Butt of Apologetics Press wrote.

“Pliny used the word ‘Christian’ or ‘Christians’ seven times in his letter, thereby corroborating it as a generally accepted word that was recognized by both the Roman Empire and its emperor. Pliny, moreover, used the name “Christ” three times to refer to the initiator of the “sect.” This is the undeniable case that Christians, with Christ as their founder, had multiplied to such an extent that it attracted the attention of the emperor and his magistrates in the days when Pliny wrote the letter to Trajan. In light of this evidence, it is impossible to deny the fact that Jesus Christ existed and was recognized by the highest officials within the Roman government as a real, historical person.”  – Kyle Butt, Apologetics Press, from the article titled: “The Historical Christ–Fact or Fiction? ”

4: Celsus

Celsus, a pagan philosopher of the second century, produced a vehement attack on Christianity entitled “The True Discourse” (in AD 178). Celsus argued that Christ owed his existence to the result of fornication between Mary and a Roman soldier named Panthera. When this Jesus grew up, he began running around Palestine making extravagant claims of divinity. Celsus tells us that because of Jesus’ wild claims about himself, he displeased the Jewish authorities so intensely that they killed him. Although Celsus harshly ridiculed the Christian faith, he never went so far as to suggest that Jesus did not exist.

5: Mara bar-Serapion

Mara bar-Serapion was a Syrian who wrote about Jesus Christ sometime in AD 73. He left a manuscript as an inheritance to his son Serapion.

“What did the Athenians gain by killing Socrates? Famine and plagues came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What did the men of Samos gain by burning Pythagoras? In a moment, their land was covered by sand. What did the Jews gain by executing their wise king? It was after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and expelled from their land, live in utter dispersion. But Socrates did not die for doing good; he lived on in the teachings of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for doing good; he lived on in the statue of the goddess Hera. Nor did the wise king die for doing good; he lived on in the teachings he had imparted.”

This reference reveals several key points:

1) Jesus was considered a wise king.

2) Jesus was killed.

3) Jesus’ teachings endured.

Several of those who maintain that “Christ is a myth” have tried to argue that the “wise king” to whom Mara is referring is Jesus, but this is really a pathetic argument. For the sake of brevity, I will not address in depth the objections to the Mara bar-Serapion passage, but James Patrick Holding addresses these arguments at the following URL.

http://tektonics.org/jesusexist/serapion.php

In conclusion

For the sake of brevity, I could not go into all the secular sources that mention Jesus. But here is a list of all the historical sources that mention him.

Secular sources: Josephus , Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Lucian, Phlegon, Celsus, Mara Bar Serapion, Suetonius and Thallus

New Testament sources:    Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, the author of Hebrews, James, Peter, and Jude.

Non-biblical Christian sources: Clement of Rome, Clement 2, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, The Martyrdom of Polycarp, Didache, Barnabas, The Shepherd of Hermas, Fragments of Papias, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Quadratus, Ariston of Pella, Melito of Sardis, Diognetus, The Gospel of Peter, The Apocalypse of Peter and Epistula Apostolorum.

Heretical writings: The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphal Book of John and The Treatise on the Resurrection.

We have an abundance of historical evidence to prove the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. In fact, the amount of historical evidence is staggering considering how unclear his person was. He had, at most, a three-year public ministry. Yet, He is mentioned in more sources than the Roman Emperor! If you count all the non-Christian sources that mention Jesus, He is mentioned in one more source than the Roman Emperor Caesar Tiberius! If you count the Christian sources (including the New Testament documents), Jesus beats Caesar 42 to 10! If you consider Jesus a mythological person in light of this historical evidence, you might believe the same about Caesar Tiberius, since we have more evidence confirming the existence of Jesus than Caesar Tiberius. To claim that Jesus is a myth and that Caesar Tiberius was a real person is to be inconsistent.

Now, why is this important? Because when historians examine history, they use certain tests for authenticity. If a passage in a history book passes one of these “tests,” then the historian concludes that the recorded event is more likely to be true than false. There are many such tests, but the one I am using in this post is known as “The Principle of Multiple Witnesses.” The Principle of Multiple Witnesses says that if an event is mentioned in more than one source, and if the sources do not support each other, then it is much more likely that that event actually happened. The more often a recorded event is mentioned, the more certain there is that the event recorded in that document is true. Why? Because the more independent the sources that something is found in, the much less likely it is that ALL of those people involved made up that exact same story.

Here I am applying the principle of multiple witnesses to the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus is mentioned in so many early independent sources that it is irrational to claim that ALL of these people made up this same fictional character… and then go on to talk about it as if he were real.

On top of that, several of these sources are hostile sources , as they are not only neutral to the claims of the Christian faith, but they even ridicule Jesus, in fact. These would be sources such as Tacitus and Pliny the Younger. These sources make their accounts historically true due to the principle of enemy testimony.

Objection: But these are not contemporary sources. These are late secondary sources! Show me contemporary sources or else I will not believe that Jesus existed!

Ah yes. The tired old argument of “There are no contemporary accounts of Jesus.” Actually, we do have contemporary accounts of Jesus – they are known as the Gospels. As I have mentioned in other posts, we have good reason to believe that the vast majority of New Testament documents were written before 60 AD. But even if it were true that there were no contemporary accounts of Jesus, what would that prove? Would that be proof that Jesus never existed? Hardly. We don’t really have any contemporary historical evidence for many of the characters in history, but we know they existed because historical scholarship can compensate with techniques such as “declarations of interest” and independent corroboration. We have 9 secular sources for Jesus’ existence (the works of Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, etc.) that while not contemporary accounts, are still reliable since they are not that far removed from the events they reported on – and yet we do have 9 secular sources for Jesus’ existence (the works of Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, etc.) that, while not contemporary accounts, are still reliable since they are not that far removed from the events they reported on – and we do have 9 secular sources for Jesus’ existence (the works of Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, etc.) that were not contemporary accounts, but are still reliable since they are not that far removed from the events they reported on. And as for the gospels, which are contemporary accounts, they are rejected a priori because they were written by people who believed in Jesus and are allegedly partisan (although almost everyone who writes about history has some kind of partisanship). Furthermore, the kind of partisanship that the New Testament writers had was to say nothing about Jesus and all the things he did because that would get them thrown out of their synagogues, tortured, and killed.

For some reason, just because it is a non-contemporary account does not mean that it is not a reliable source. Secondary accounts, even if they are not highly regarded by a historian as first-hand or eyewitness accounts, are not considered worthless. Regarding some events and people in history, all we have are secondary accounts. So are we to conclude that they never happened? Of course not. Yet that is what those who hold that Christ is a myth do when it comes to the life and death of Jesus. They reject all secondary accounts (Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny) and they also reject the contemporary accounts that we do have (i.e., the gospels). Are they not aware of the fact that historians do not need contemporary accounts for recognized history? (If you think that is so, then you will have to rewrite most of what happened in history.) They accept both first-hand history and secondary accounts, among other factors.

Also, the thing about Josephus and Tacitus is that, although they were not alive when Jesus was on this earth, they were alive when there were still those who knew him and could tell them about him (Jesus, according to virtually all scholars, was crucified sometime between 30 AD or 33 AD and Josephus was born in 37 AD). I used an analogy of me talking about Richard Feynman, an American physicist well known for his work in quantum mechanics and who helped develop the atomic bomb. Although I was born after he died (Feynman died in 1988 and I was born in 1992), I am close enough to the events for them to be relevant. After all, I am growing up in an age when adults who did know Richard Feynman are still alive, and they can tell me about him (just pretend for a moment that I don’t have video recordings; Josephus didn’t have any either to go on). Are you saying that my testimony about Feynman should be invalidated because I was not a contemporary of his, even though I have parents, grandparents, and friends of my parents who were contemporaries of Feynman and from whom I was able to get all my information? Absurd. My point is that they are close enough to the events to be relevant sources, and almost all scholars in the field accept their testimony as valid evidence as to the historicity of Jesus, including non-Christian scholars (so we can be sure that they have no theological foundation to shred).

Objection: Why aren’t there more sources?

Some skeptics complain that there are not more historical sources that mention Jesus. They argue that if Jesus had been as influential an individual as the gospels claim, there would have to be many more historical documents that mention him. Of the secular sources, we only have 9 that mention Jesus. From there, they argue that He either did not exist or was not as influential as the Bible claims.

For some reason, very few documents of ancient history have survived to this day. As Ryan Turner, who works as a writer for CARM (Christian Research and Apologetics Ministry), put it in an article on Carm.org:  “There are a number of ancient writings that have been lost, including 50% of the work of the Roman historian Tacitus, all of the writings of Thallus and Asclepiades of Mendes. In fact, Herod the Great’s secretary Nicholas of Damascus wrote a universal history of Roman history, which consisted of nearly 144 books of which, none have survived. Based on the textual evidence, there is no reason to doubt the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.”

The point is that there may have been more secular documents that talked about Jesus than we know about. But they have most likely deteriorated, been destroyed, or have not yet been discovered by archaeologists. If the documents were not copied over and over and over again at a fast enough pace, they probably would not have survived for 2,000 years. Furthermore, the evidence we have for Jesus is still pretty strong. His existence has been very, very, very, very, very amply demonstrated in 9 secular sources, 9 biblical sources, 20 non-biblical Christian sources, and 4 heretical sources.

Now, historians consider themselves extraordinarily lucky when they find 2 independent sources that mention something, but when it comes to Jesus’ existence, we have 42!  Some of these are contemporary sources; others are secondary. We have to ask ourselves: is it really rational to believe that such an individual is a fictional character when so many historians wrote about him? Jesus’ existence and crucifixion are mentioned in numerous independent and early sources. It is possible that there are more than we already know about, but they are eroded by the fact that this happens with documents that last thousands of years.

Objection: Jesus is a copy of pagan myths

Another argument that those who argue that “Christ is a myth” make is that Jesus was merely a copy of pagan gods. They cite the “similarities” between the two and claim that Christianity is simply a religion plagiarized from early pagan myths. Theoretically, let’s assume that we believe that Jesus was merely a myth and not a real, historical, flesh-and-blood individual. I’ve already written two separate articles pointing out the absurdity of this argument, so I won’t go into it here. Instead, I suggest you read these blog posts, and you can check them out when you have the time to do so.

1:  Is Jesus A Copy Of Pagan Myths ?

2:  Cartoons and Comics That Plagiarized Christianity (Satire)

Bottom line:  “Christ is a myth” is absurd. Jesus obviously existed, as did other New Testament characters. You can believe that Jesus was just an ordinary man if you want, but to claim that He never even existed is just ridiculous. The debate among ancient history scholars is not, “Did Jesus exist?” No. The debate is,  “Was Jesus more than a man? Did he say what the gospels say he said? Did he rise from the dead?”  These questions are topics of debate among scholars. But Jesus’ historical existence is taken for granted. And why shouldn’t it be? You’ve already seen the evidence.

If you wish to study this topic in more detail than I have presented here, see James Patrick Holding’s book, Shattering The Christ Myth, as well as Bart Ehrman’s book, Did Jesus Exist?

 

Evan Minton is a Christian apologist and blogger at Cerebral Faith ( www.cerebralfaith.blogspot.com ). He is the author of “Inference To The One True God” and “A Hellacious Doctrine.” He has participated in several debates which can be viewed in the “My Debates” section of Cerebral Faith. Mr. Minton lives in South Carolina, USA.

Translated by Natalia Armando.

Edited by Maria Andreina Cerrada.

Original Blog: http://bit.ly/2DD2a5N

/by
Human Nature According to Darwin – A Christian Response

Naturaleza humana según Darwin – una respuesta cristiana

By Ken Mann

The following was delivered as a plenary session at a Biola on the Road conference in April 2017 at Faith Bible Church in Houston, Texas.

Introduction

Charles Darwin. Evolution. Perhaps no other man and no other idea has had a broader influence on Western culture. In On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, first published in 1859, the way we perceive our world and ourselves has been transformed. For those who have embraced Darwinism, humanity and every other living thing are the end products of a natural process. There is no Creator. There is no purpose. There is simply survival. Humanity is a cosmic accident.

Since 1888, scientists and academics have claimed that Darwinian evolution is as certain a fact as gravity. The momentum behind Darwin’s theory has been strengthened in the 20th century, to the point where almost every aspect of human behavior and culture has been subjected to a process of evolutionary explanation. Today, scientists who are merely skeptical of evolution risk losing their jobs if their views become known.

In the face of such an attack, what should a Christian think? In my own experience, I was always convinced that evolution was false. Not because I knew anything about it, rather, I was certain of the existence of God and the reliability of the New Testament. I believed I had adequate justification for believing in a literal Adam and Eve, in the Fall, and in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

But for many years I was plagued by an internal conflict. Evolution aside, I have always loved science. Ever since I was a physics major in college, I have adhered to the adage that science is “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” Despite the myriad apparent conflicts between science and religion, I suspected that Psalm 19:1—“The heavens declare the glory of God”—meant that the study of creation was compatible with the Christian worldview.

Then, in 2010, I enrolled in the Science and Religion program at Biola. During my first year, I took a class that focused on Darwin. At the time, Darwin seemed like the Mount Everest of a “Science and Religion” program. Looking back on it now, this topic embodied everything that made the program so valuable. The tools I learned and the confidence I gained have transformed my faith.

I always rejected evolution, not because I understood the science, philosophy, or history surrounding it, but because I trusted God more. Today, I know the reasons why Darwinian evolution is not a fact, and I must emphasize that none of them are based on Christian doctrine.

That may alarm some of you, so let me explain. There are many myths and distortions about the relationship between science and Christianity. Perhaps the worst is that science and Christianity are in hopeless conflict, that the Christian Church has been an impediment to science since Galileo. In reality, the foundations of modern science, the assumptions that made science possible, come from the Christian worldview. The pioneers of modern science were all committed Christians, most of whom saw science, in Kepler’s words, as “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”

In other words, science and Scripture are simply two sources of revelation. There is the “book of nature” and the “book of Scripture.” These two “books” cannot contradict each other because they have the same author, God. When they seem to contradict each other, then something has gone wrong with our understanding of Scripture, nature, or both.

Since Galileo’s confrontation with the Catholic Church in the 17th century, there have been conflicts between the doctrines promoted by the Church and the conclusions of science. In Galileo’s time, almost everyone accepted an earth-centered view of the cosmos that originated with the Greeks and was later sanctified using certain passages from the Old Testament. Galileo questioned the conventional wisdom of his day and advocated an idea that would not be widely accepted for another century.

In the 19th century, Charles Darwin also challenged widely accepted ideas about God’s role in the creation of the world. Christianity has since been challenged by a variety of conclusions based on his writings.

How should we deal with these challenges? The first and most important step is to understand them. We should not run away from something that attacks our Christian worldview. We should run toward it. Engage, learn, and trust that God is sovereign.

As we engage with evolution today, I want to assure you that we are not going to wander into the tall grass of the biological sciences. We are not going to talk about the Prevalence of Functionally Significant Glutathione S-Transferase Genetic Polymorphisms in Dogs. (That is the topic of a research project my daughter, a biochemist, cell and molecular biology major, has been working on since last summer.) Not because the science is not important, but because it takes much longer than we have available today. Plus, there are much more obvious problems with Darwinian evolution.

Darwin’s theory is supposed to have been the triumph of science over the myths of religion. It is said that Darwin was not influenced by religion; he studied nature and “discovered” how it really worked. From his empirical observations, he proposed an idea that explained how life developed through natural processes without the direct intervention of a creator. In reality, Darwin had certain assumptions about God and how He would create that which were inconsistent with what he found in the natural world. In short, Darwin was convinced that his theory was true because his God would not have created the world as we find it.

My top priority this morning is to be understood, so I want to be clear about what I mean. I also want to inform, which means some of what I share may be challenging and new to some of you. I ask for your patience as we move forward. I’ll be here to answer questions and the content of this talk, along with a list of some relevant books that you can find on my website under “resources.”

I’m going to cover two things this morning. First, I’m going to discuss some terms that are central to this topic. Next, we’re going to consider theological ideas that were at work in the 19th century and that still influence public perception of the relationship between science and Christianity.

Terminology

Whether you’re interacting with someone with a different worldview or just trying to learn more about a topic, navigating terminology is a crucial task. You have to be aware of words you haven’t heard or seen before. Whether I’m reading or having a conversation, I’m always on the lookout for these words. If I’m reading, I’ll stop and look up the word. In a conversation, it’s difficult, but still important to interrupt and ask the other person what that word means. If they can explain the term to you, it will definitely improve the conversation greatly. If they can’t, you may or may not be able to continue. Regardless, it’s important to avoid either party in a conversation assuming what certain words mean.

Evolution

So what does the word evolution mean? That depends on the context and the author’s intent. On this topic alone, there are actually six different definitions that are routinely used. Only one definition is in plain view this morning, but if you read articles or blogs about evolution, you may encounter one or more of these definitions. You may even find authors who use the word in one sense, then switch to a different meaning later in the same article.

  • They change over time.  To quote Screwtape’s letters, “…to be in time means to change.” The study of nature frequently involves discerning what happened in the past from evidence we can examine today. Clearly, no one is going to disagree with this definition.
  • Change in the distribution of different physical traits within a population.  This refers to a field within biology known as population genetics. It studies the genetic makeup of biological populations and the changes in genetic makeup that result from the operation of various factors, including natural selection.
  • Limited common ancestry.  “The idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.” The best-known example of this is the finches found on the Galapagos Islands. Today there are many examples of different species that probably have a common ancestor.
  • The mechanism of limited common descent, natural selection acting on genetic mutations.  Darwin’s theory had three premises: organisms varied, variations could be inherited, and all organisms were under pressure to survive. Variations that improved survival were passed on to other generations. Again, in a limited sense, such variation is observed, and it is plausible that survival could select for certain traits over others.

None of the definitions so far are controversial. However, the next two are where most of the disagreements occur.

  • Universal common descent.  This definition of evolution states that every organism descends from a single original organism. As controversial as it may seem, it is not the final word on what most scientists believe evolution is all about.
  • Thesis “The Blind Watchmaker”

The term “blind watchmaker” was coined by Richard Dawkins in the title of his 1986 book, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence for Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design. Dawkins was ridiculing an argument made by William Paley published in 1802. Paley argued that the existence of a watch implies the existence of a watchmaker, whereas a rock merely implies the processes of geology over time.

This definition of evolution says that all organisms have ascended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless material process. This process is entirely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.

Or more succinctly, “Molecules to men by means of chemistry and physics.”

This final definition is what really drives the worldview conflict between materialism and Christianity. It has a couple of other names: “Darwinism” or “neo-Darwinism.” (The term below is a more technical and specific one in that it refers to the integration of Darwinism and the science of population genetics in the mid-20th century.)

While you should always push for definitions, when you hear Darwin or evolution invoked in a discussion of human origins or the development of life, you can be sure that the idea of ​​”molecules for men” is what is meant.

Science

The term science does not need a definition with so many warning labels. Since it is in the title of my specialization, I will not be surprised if I have developed some opinions on the subject. I will limit myself to two ideas.

First, science cannot be limited by a specific detailed definition. There is no definitive list of criteria that says, “that’s science, but this other field isn’t!” In other words, specific examples of science (e.g., physics, biology, and paleoanthropology) seem obvious, however, coming up with a list of criteria that separates astrology from astronomy, for example, is harder to do. Almost everyone will agree that simply studying the motion of stars and planets does not make astrology a science.

Second, beware of an exaggerated view of science as a source of knowledge. The view known as “scientism” claims that the only things that can be known come from the natural sciences. It is a tactic designed to give the man in a lab coat, as opposed to a theologian or philosopher, a privileged status that ends discussion. It is also a self-refuting concept because there is nothing we can learn from science. However you define science, that proves scientism.

Theology

Theology is the study of the nature of God. I believe that the Bible is the best source of theology. But we can also learn something about the nature of God from other disciplines, such as science and philosophy.

Human nature

Now that I have defined Darwinism, I should also touch on the term human nature. Obviously, this is a topic of vast human experience. An entire lecture could be devoted to addressing this topic. How you define human nature is determined by your worldview. One can approach this question from a scientific, philosophical, or theological perspective. For my purposes this morning, I simply want to address the crucial differences between human nature according to Darwinism and human nature according to Christian theism.

From the perspective of Darwinism, humans and all living things are simply the end result of a blind, unguided physical process. In other words, we are simply animals. The process of natural selection has been invoked to explain almost every aspect of human culture and behavior. Many of these explanations are simply unsubstantiated stories, but they have captured the imagination of many. From religion to sexual infidelity to altruism, there is an evolutionary story for everything related to human nature.

Darwinism denies the possibility of the soul; it leaves no room for the existence of the immaterial. As a consequence, one must confront the idea that everything we do, everything we think, everything we feel is not evidence of our soul, but is simply the result of a physical process.

According to Darwinism, the difference between human beings and any other animal is a matter of degree , not kind . Let me illustrate with an example what I mean by these two words.

Steph Curry and Russell Westbrook have reputations for being among the best point guards playing in the NBA right now. The difference between them is a matter of degree . However, if we were to compare Curry or Westbrook to a basketball, we would have to say that the ball is a different kind of thing.

Since we’re just animals, it shouldn’t be surprising that ethical decisions about humans and animals are a little different for Darwinists. Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics at Princeton University, popularized the term speciesism , which refers to privileging members of a particular species over others. In other words, it’s not always wrong to kill human beings under circumstances such as severe mental or physical disadvantages. Some environmentalists have seized on this idea to argue that the death of a logger or the economic destruction of a community is acceptable when weighed against the safety of one type of animal.

The Christian view of human nature is radically different. In addition to being grounded in Scripture, it is also consistent with our deepest experience and intuitions.

According to Christianity, human beings are unique in creation, a completely different kind of creature from any other animal. We are physical creatures. We are similar to other animals in many ways. However, we also have an immaterial nature, a soul if you will. I have always liked this passage from Screwtape’s letters:

Humans are amphibians, half spirit and half animal… As spirit, they belong to the eternal world, but as animals they dwell in time. This means that while their spirit can be directed toward an eternal object, their bodies, passions, and imaginations are continually changing, because to be in time means to change. (p. 37)

I would object to Screwtape insofar as we are not “half spirit and half animal” but are embodied souls. Our soul completely occupies and animates our bodies. Our soul can also exist apart from our bodies, but a human body cannot continue without a soul.

The most essential aspect of human nature, what makes us unique, is found in the phrase “the image of God” first mentioned in Genesis 1:26-27.

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and the birds of the sky and the livestock and all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

To briefly unpack this sentence, if we consider the Hebrew words used here for “image” and “likeness” and the Greek word (eikōn), it would seem that God created us to be similar, but not identical to himself.

Consider just three ways we are similar to God.

  • We are spiritual. Part of our nature is an immaterial soul or spirit united with a physical body.
  • We are personal, that is, we are conscious and rational beings. We have a mind, will and emotions.
  • We have the power to choose. Sometimes called free agents, we have the ability to deliberate and make decisions.

Finally, no discussion of the Christian view of human nature would be complete without considering the Fall. As unique as we are, as much as we were created to be in communion with God and with each other, the most certain and painful fact is that something is terribly wrong.

Darwinism and the materialistic worldview it supports must deny our daily awareness of evil. In ourselves, in our culture, even to some extent in creation itself, we are constantly confronted with the results of human rebellion.

Christianity explains the existence of evil, our acceptance and repulsion of it, and offers a solution in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Theological foundations of Darwinism

In Matthew 16, Jesus asked His disciples, “Who do you say that I am?” This is the most important question any person will ever answer. Understanding who Jesus is and what He did is an essential step toward trusting Him as your personal Savior.

That question is so relevant that God the Father asked it. What you believe about God has a profound effect on every aspect of your life. Our perception of reality, how we choose to live, how we choose to solve our problems, everything about us is ultimately affected by our view of God.

This is no less true in science. As long as people have tried to understand nature, their beliefs about what or who created the world have impacted how they understand nature.

In the 19th century, there were several trends in theology that set the stage for Darwinism. Consider one example. It was argued that it would degrade God to believe that each animal species was a unique act of creation. Rather, God would be a wiser and more capable creator if the ability to create species by some natural process was built into creation. This view also downplayed or discounted other things that God did, such as miracles in the New Testament. This was sometimes referred to as “The Great Theology of God.” Ideas like this and others we will now consider motivated Darwin to reconcile what was observed in nature with the theology of his time.

Natural Theology and the “Theory of Creation”

The idea that God created is not really controversial in Christianity. It’s right there in the first verse, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Now a tremendous amount of words have been written about this verse and all that it means, yet no one doubts that central phrase: “God created.”

In the 18th and 19th centuries, the view of creation was that from the movement of the heavens to the myriad animals and plants occupying the earth, all of creation was a perfect, harmonious system that reflected God’s wisdom and benevolence. Beginning in the 17th century, a variety of theologians and scientists promoted the idea that evidence for God could be found in the study of nature. Known as “natural theology,” this field reached its peak in the works of William Paley in the early 19th century. Natural theology argued, some would say brilliantly, that evidence for design could be found in nature.

However, there was a significant flaw in Paley’s view. Paley believed that God’s purpose in creation was the happiness of his creatures. Creation was idealized in such a way that God’s Benevolence and Wisdom were seen everywhere. Let me read a quote from Paley’s book, Natural Theology:

“Es un mundo feliz después de todo. El aire, la tierra, el agua, rebosan de una existencia encantada. En un mediodía de primavera o una tarde de verano, en cualquier lado que gire mis ojos, multitudes de seres felices se amontonan ante mi vista. Los insectos jóvenes están volando. Enjambres de moscas recién nacidas están probando sus alas en el aire. Sus movimientos deportivos, sus laberintos, su actividad gratuita, su continuo cambio de lugar sin uso ni propósito, dan testimonio de su alegría y de la exaltación que sienten en sus facultades recientemente descubiertas. Una abeja entre las flores en primavera es uno de los objetos más alegres que se pueden contemplar. Su vida parece ser todo un placer, tan ocupada y tan feliz: sin embargo, es solo un ejemplar de vida de insecto”.

En resumen, los teólogos naturales afirmaron que la naturaleza demostró la sabiduría y la bondad de Dios, pero ignoraron su providencia, juicio o uso del mal.

El problema del mal natural

El problema del mal es algo que ha acosado la creencia cristiana durante mucho tiempo. Si no has escuchado esa frase antes, se refiere a la tensión que existe entre las instancias obvias del mal que encontramos en el mundo y las características típicamente atribuidas a Dios. A veces se plantea como una pregunta: “¿Cómo puede Dios ser benevolente y omnipotente, y permitir el mal que experimentamos en el mundo?”

La mayoría de las discusiones sobre este tema hacen una distinción entre el mal moral y el mal natural. El mal moral es simplemente lo que las personas han estado haciendo desde que Adán y Eva se rebelaron en el Jardín. El mal natural, en términos generales, es cualquier cosa en la naturaleza que causa la muerte o el sufrimiento. Esto podría incluir desde terremotos, enfermedades y todas las cosas horribles que los animales le hacen a los demás.

Darwin, como otros naturalistas, no vio felicidad y alegría en la creación. Vio la muerte, el sufrimiento y el desperdicio que no podía conciliar con la creación “feliz” de Paley. Estaba particularmente molesto por el sufrimiento y la muerte que se encuentran en el reino animal. Un ejemplo particular fue un tipo de avispa que deposita sus huevos en el cuerpo de una oruga. Después de la eclosión, la larva comienza a consumir el huésped mientras aún está vivo.

La solución de Darwin, consistente con la gran teología de Dios, era que Dios no creó la avispa parásita ni ninguno de los otros males naturales en el mundo. Más bien, Dios creó un sistema de leyes naturales que resultó en el mundo que estudió. En una carta a Asa Gray (un botánico estadounidense) Darwin resumió su punto de vista de esta manera. “Me inclino a considerar todo como resultado de leyes diseñadas, con los detalles, ya sean buenos o malos, dejados a la resolución de lo que podemos llamar azar”.

Para decirlo de otra manera, Dios, directamente actuando en la creación, fue rechazado con el fin de hacer que la existencia del mal natural sea comprensible para los seres humanos. Si Dios no creó directamente cada especie individual, sino que simplemente creó el sistema natural que resultó en la especie que tenemos hoy, entonces Dios no es directamente responsable del mal natural.

“La naturaleza no es perfecta”

Un segundo aspecto de la teología natural al que objetó Darwin, es que toda la creación reflejaba la perfección de Dios. Por supuesto, lo que se entiende por perfección aparentemente estaba abierto a una gran variedad de interpretaciones. Para Darwin y muchos otros, ésto ha sido la afirmación de que muchas cosas que se encuentran en la naturaleza están mal diseñadas.

Tal vez el ejemplo más popular de mal diseño en la naturaleza es el órgano vestigial. Cuando un órgano o estructuras ya no se necesitan, es un “vestigio” del proceso evolutivo. Fue necesario en una especie ancestral, pero la evolución todavía tiene que eliminarlo. En 1895, un anatomista alemán publicó una lista de 86 órganos vestigiales en el cuerpo humano. No estoy al tanto de un solo ejemplo creíble hoy. Los órganos vestigiales no son evidencia de evolución. Son una combinación de asumir que la evolución es verdadera e ignorar la función de un órgano en particular.

Un ejemplo más moderno de un reclamo de mal diseño se conoce como “ADN basura”. Este término fue originalmente acuñado en 1972. Cuando comenzó la investigación sobre cómo funcionaba el ADN, lo primero que se descubrió fue la correlación entre ciertas secuencias de bases de ADN (“peldaños” en la escala de ADN) y la producción de ciertos aminoácidos (20 moléculas orgánicas diferentes que componen las proteínas). La función de vastas regiones de ADN fuera de esta “codificación de proteínas”, más del 98% del genoma humano fue descartada como “basura”, hasta hace unos cinco años. El proyecto Enciclopedia de elementos de ADN (ENCODE) comenzó a publicar resultados que demuestran que se están utilizando vastas regiones del “ADN basura” en el genoma humano.

Similar a los órganos vestigiales, la ignorancia combinada con una aceptación de la evolución, resultó en la conclusión de que la investigación posterior ha demostrado ser incorrecta. En resumen, la existencia del “ADN basura”, algo que una vez fue dogma, ahora se está convirtiendo en otra predicción fallida del darwinismo.

Naturalismo teológico

Una tercera idea teológica que motivó Darwin y muchos otros en el siglo XIX tiene que ver con: cómo Dios actúa en la creación. Para aclarar esto, debo hacer una distinción entre causas primarias y causas secundarias. Un evento que es causado por Dios e imposible por cualquier otro medio, un milagro, es un ejemplo de causalidad primaria. Algo que ocurre de acuerdo con la ley natural es un ejemplo de causalidad secundaria. Por ejemplo, la separación del Mar Rojo cuando los judíos huyeron de Egipto fue la causa principal, la muerte del ejército egipcio capturado cuando se liberó el agua era una causalidad secundaria.

Para muchos teólogos y científicos, desde antes de Darwin hasta nuestros días, la ciencia no es posible si Dios actúa en el mundo. Si la causalidad primaria es posible, entonces es imposible saber la diferencia entre un evento causado por la ley natural y un evento causado por Dios. Para estudiar la naturaleza, para entender la estructura de las “leyes” que la rigen, debemos suponer que Dios nunca actuó en la creación.

El efecto neto de esta visión no niega que Dios fue el creador del universo, simplemente significa que no hay evidencia de que lo haya hecho. Por supuesto, eso no es lo peor. Si Dios no ha hecho nada desde el momento de la creación, la encarnación y la resurrección de Jesús no podrían haber sucedido.

Tal vez la forma más sencilla de resumir este punto de vista es que no se puede confiar en Dios. Si Él es capaz de actuar en la creación, Él es capaz de engañarnos. La ciencia se convertiría en el “estudio” de los caprichos y el comportamiento impredecible de un ser omnipotente.

El naturalismo afirma que todo surge de las propiedades y causas naturales; las explicaciones sobrenaturales o espirituales están excluidas o descontadas. Para los teólogos en el siglo XIX, esto significaba que Dios actuó en la creación a través de las leyes que Él creó. Argumentaban que Dios era más grande, que se glorificaba más si no intervenía en la creación. El Dr. Cornelius Hunter se refiere a esto como   naturalismo teológico porque el razonamiento teológico lo motivó.

Hoy la posición predeterminada de la ciencia es una vista conocida como naturalismo metodológico. Esta es la idea de que cuando estás haciendo ciencia, solo puedes considerar las causas naturales. Las acciones de un agente inteligente no pueden ser consideradas.  Dios no actúa en la creación. A partir de ahí, es un viaje corto al ateísmo, donde Dios no existe.

Pero permítanme enfatizar este punto: los orígenes del naturalismo que motivaron a Darwin y que se han convertido en dogmas dentro de la ciencia hoy en día fueron filosóficos. El naturalismo no fue una conclusión de la ciencia; fue un punto de partida.

Conclusión

La naturaleza humana según Darwin, ¿cómo debería responder el cristiano? Primero y, ante todo, cuando te enfrentas a una cosmovisión opuesta, debes entender lo que cree y por qué. Al explorar algunos términos y fundamentos teológicos, les ofrezco una introducción a la cosmovisión del darwinismo.

Proporcioné un resumen de algunas de las ideas sobre Dios y su papel en la creación que motivaron a Darwin. Ya que en el origen de las especies fue publicado hasta el día de hoy, el darwinismo se ha basado en una percepción de Dios que no se puede encontrar en las Escrituras. O Dios está ausente de la creación y no puede intervenir, o es incompetente porque la naturaleza está llena de “mal diseño”. La evolución se acepta como verdadera porque una visión distorsionada de Dios y la creación parece ser falsa.

Esto no es solo acerca de la ciencia. No se trata solo de religión. Es un ejemplo de cómo las suposiciones sobre Dios y la religión dirigen el proceso de la ciencia. El darwinismo no es una realidad. El darwinismo es menos que una ciencia, es menos que un punto de vista teológico que reclama el apoyo empírico de la ciencia.

La naturaleza humana según el darwinismo, incluida su negación del alma y la negación de la singularidad humana, no se aprende de diversas disciplinas científicas. Es implícito por la ciencia y, por lo tanto, es aceptado porque el darwinismo es aceptado. Sin embargo, si el darwinismo es falso, entonces todo lo que dice sobre la naturaleza humana también es falso.

El tiempo no permitió abordar la evidencia utilizada para apoyar y criticar el darwinismo. Lo que puedo decir en términos de un resumen es que la evidencia del darwinismo solo es convincente si ya estás convencido de que es verdad. En la página de recursos en mi sitio web, la charla de hoy está disponible junto con una lista de varios libros que cubren el material de hoy en más profundidad. También te animo a que revises los libros que se centran en las críticas científicas del darwinismo.

Me gustaría dejarte algunas preguntas para hacerle a alguien que cree que en “de moléculas a hombres por medio de la física y la química” es la mejor explicación para la gran diversidad de vida que encontramos.

  1. ¿Cuál es la evidencia de la evolución?
  2. ¿Cuál es la visión cristiana de la creación?
  3. ¿Cómo se originó la vida?

Cada una de estas preguntas, dependiendo de las respuestas que recibas, podría seguirse con dos preguntas. (1) ¿Qué quieres decir con eso? (2) ¿Cómo llegaste a esa conclusión? Estas dos preguntas de la técnica de Columbo de Greg Koukl buscan aclaración y evidencia que lo ayudarán a comprender mejor la perspectiva de la otra persona.

It has been my prayer, as I prepared for today, that the summary I would offer here would encourage believers. It is also my prayer that you will leave today motivated to learn more about this topic and others that will be discussed today. As Christians, we are heirs to a tremendous heritage of thought that I fear has been abandoned. We worship a Being who created all things, sustains all things, and knows all things. Our trust in God must not be limited to our salvation. God is sovereign over everything. He is sovereign over every domain of human knowledge. He is sovereign over every lie that can deceive.

Don’t run away from a challenge. Commit, learn, and trust that God is Sovereign.

 

Translated by Malachi Toro Vielma.

Edited by Maria Andreina Cerrada.

Original Blog: http://bit.ly/2QaZJJ5

/by
Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence

Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

, ,

By Evan Minton 

Sometimes, in conversations with atheists, they try to say that “Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence” Are they right?

One problem with this statement is that it could possibly be self-defeating. Think about it, the claim itself, to say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is to make an extraordinary assertion.  How does the person know that the statement is true?  Think about it.  It is a universal statement!  Isn’t that extraordinary?  Is it a universal principle?  If so, that is amazingly important.  So, please show us the extraordinary evidence that the statement is true. I’m not sure about this, but the claim could be self-defeating depending on whether the claim is itself an extraordinary claim.

ANY claim, whether they seem extraordinary or not, only requires SUFFICIENT evidence. The amount of proof or evidence needed to establish a fact only needs to be sufficient to warrant belief in it. What type of claim is extraordinary or not could possibly be arguably subjective. People vary on what they find unbelievable. Plus, no criteria are given for what counts as extraordinary evidence. Because no criteria are claimed for what would count as extraordinary evidence, no matter how much evidence and rational argumentation you give for your position, the one who holds the opposite view could just keep moving the bar up. He could just keep shaking his head saying “Nope, not enough evidence. You need to provide more.” So that you could never provide enough evidence to warrant support for the position you believe to be true. Do extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? No. They only require sufficient evidence for belief. Of course, you might ask “What counts as sufficient evidence?” To that, I do not know the answer. Although evidence is objective, how much evidence is enough to convince a person seems somewhat subjective. Now, I’m not saying that truth is subjective (opinion based) nor am I saying that evidence is subjective, but rather that what amount of objective evidence to convince someone of something differs from that another. Some people can come to believe something on less evidence than someone else. Although this seems to raise another issue. It seems the same problem arises from saying “Any Claim Requires Sufficient Evidence” as it would if one were to say “Extraordinary Claims Require Evidence.” Someone could just keep shaking their head, raising the bar higher and saying “Nope, this is not sufficient enough evidence required to believe your claim.” What do we do about this?

Well, for one thing, I think that when I provide evidence to back up my claim, if someone is still skeptical I should like to know why. For example, if I give The Kalam Cosmological Argument and provide evidence for the 2 premises of the argument, then why does the person I’m talking to continue to disagree with the conclusion, that “Therefore The Universe Has A Cause” and that the cause is a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful, supernatural, personal cause? Is one of the premises of the argument false? If they’re both true, then the conclusion follows logically and necessarily by the laws of logic (in that specific case, modus ponens; if P then Q, P, therefore Q.) As William Lane Craig has said, “skepticism is not a refutation.” If you’re not convinced by my arguments, I’d like to know why. That’s how debate works. You tell me what’s wrong with the logic of the argument or WHY the evidence is not sufficient enough to warrent the belief of the premises of the syllogism. This is how we solve the problem. Someone could NOT just keep shaking their head, raising the bar higher and saying “Nope, this is not sufficient enough evidence required to believe your claim.” If someone did, we would rightfully ask “Why? How am I wrong? Is my logic flawed? Are my facts flawed? Or are both my logic and facts flawed?” Again, skepticism is not a refutation.

Another problem with the atheists using this slogan is that it can be thrown right back at them. The atheists sometimes tout “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” But it seems to me that all physical reality popping into being, uncaused, out of absolutely nothing, having it’s laws of physics fine-tuned to a fantastic degree, and having an immensely complex factory (i.e. the cell) assemble together all by itself in a so-called primordial soup, to be a claim extremely extraordinary. Yet, the atheist tries to cast all the burden of proof on the theist by claiming a position of neutrality (Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief that there is no God) and not give evidence and good reasons to believe his ridiculous view.

Don’t get me wrong, theists do bare the burden of proof when we claim that there is a God, but when atheists claim that there is no God, it is THEM that bare the burden of proof. Anyone who makes a positive truth claim bares the burden to provide reasons to believe that truth claim. Anyone who makes a positive assertion needs to provide reasons to believe that assertion if anyone is going to take him seriously. And if they (the atheists) really believed that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” one has to think on just which view is truly more extraordinary, is it harder to believe that outboard motors and codes can assemble by chance + some supposedly undiscovered natural laws, or is it harder to believe that things look designed because they really were designed? I think the latter is far easier to believe. If something looks, sounds, walks and quacks like a duck, shouldn’t at least part of the burden of proof be on those who are claiming that it isn’t a duck? If things appear to be designed, shouldn’t the atheist put forward some reasons to believe they weren’t designed? I think the answer to that question is; yes.

Of course, I would never use the “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” slogan on the atheist anyway because I believe the view is false and the reasons I believe it is false are listed above. But it is true that if you make a certain claim, it’s not unreasonable for someone to ask you to back up that claim with reasons.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2phSfbF

/by
Committed Christians Are Now a Minority and Kids Need to Know It

Committed Christians Are Now a Minority and Kids Need to Know It

,

By Natasha Crain

I grew up in a smallish town in Arizona (about 25,000 people at the time). Almost everyone I knew fit into one of four buckets: 1) committed Christians, 2) nominal Christians, 3) those who didn’t call themselves Christians but accepted “Judeo-Christian” values, and 4) Mormons.

In my view of the world at the time, believing in God—and being a Christian specifically—was the default for most people. There were certainly a few kids who fell into other buckets (atheist or New Age), but they were the exception; there was something different about them.

My beliefs were “normal.”

Oh, how things have changed.

According to Pew Forum research on the religious landscape of America, Christians statistically are still the majority. But those statistics are highly misleading because religious categorization is based on self-identification, and the “Christian” category includes a wide range of beliefs and commitment levels.

The Pew Forum, however, just released an eye-opening new method of categorizing America’s religious beliefs, and it reveals a more realistic picture:

  • Less than 40% of Americans are “highly religious” (seriously committed to their faith; this includes non-Christian religions such as Judaism and Islam).
  • About a quarter of the “highly religious” are what researchers call “diversely devout,” meaning they mostly believe in the God of the Bible but hold all kinds of views inconsistent with Christianity, such as reincarnation.

From the publicly available data, I don’t see a way to break down the remaining 30% of highly religious people into those who hold beliefs consistent with historic Christianity, so for our current purpose, we’ll just have to say that committed Christians represent some portion of that 30%.

In other words, a minority.

I’ve noticed lately that my subconscious assumption that this has become the case has had a number of implications for how I talk with my kids. For example, some phrases that have regularly worked their way into our daily conversations are “the world tells us,” or “the world would like us to think,” or “the way the world is.” In other words, I find myself constantly placing an emphasis on making sure my kids know that what they are learning to be true about reality is literally opposite of what the world around them—the majority—believes.

This is so different than how I—and many of you—grew up. We were part of a pack. We moved along without having to think much about our beliefs versus those of “the world.” Our parents didn’t have to coach us on why we were so very different… because we weren’t very different. Sure, there were probably some great differences between our homes in how prominently faith actually played out, but we didn’t readily see that on the playground. We didn’t have social media to make the differences abundantly clear. We didn’t have the internet to give us access to the many who are hostile toward our beliefs.

In a world where your beliefs will constantly rub up against opposing views, however, you need parents who will give it to you straight:

Our entire view of reality is unlike the view most others have. We. Are. Different. And that will affect your life in profound ways.

I don’t say this as a mere suggestion that this is a conversation we should have with our kids at some point. I say this believing it’s a critical part of how we approach our parenting every single day.

It has to become a way of life.

Here’s why. When you raise your kids to understand they have a minority worldview, it does three important things:

1. It sets expectations.

This is, perhaps, the most important function of all.

If kids expect that their views will be like those of others, they will be shocked when they consistently see how different they actually are.

If kids expect that holding a minority worldview won’t result in sometimes being treated poorly by others, they will be wounded by what they weren’t prepared for.

If kids expect that divergent worldviews won’t lead to heated debates about how our society should best function, they will be frustrated by lack of agreement between Christians and nonbelievers.

But when we consistently help them understand that their worldview will clash frequently with the world around them, they will begin to have very different expectations that lead to healthier outcomes.

They will expect to be different, and not be surprised when they don’t fit in.

They will expect that the world will hate them for their beliefs, and understand that has always been part of what it means to be a Christian (John 15:18).

They will expect that divergent worldviews will often affect their relationships with others, and be motivated to learn how to navigate those differences with both truth and love.

Action point: Find ways to regularly compare and contrast what others believe and what Christians believe. Make sure your kids understand how different their beliefs are, and, importantly, the implications of that—it affects how we see where we came from, why we’re here, how to live while we’re here, and where we’re going. It’s no small matter. You can point this out in movies, song lyrics, news stories, things that friends say, things that other parents say, signs you see, billboards, messages on clothing, and much more.

2. It allows us to emphasize that different isn’t (necessarily) wrong.

Humans have a tendency to assume that there is truth in numbers. My twins are in fourth grade and are getting to the age where they notice what their peers do a lot more. They tell me, for example, that everyone else has their own phone, that everyone else gets to go to sleepovers, and that everyone else plays Fortnite. They assume that if the majority gets to do something, then that must be what’s right.

Similarly, when kids eventually see that most people believe something very different about reality than what they do, it’s natural to wonder if their minority view must be wrong. Here’s the conversation we should be having with our kids from the time they are very little: different doesn’t mean wrong.

It doesn’t necessarily mean right, either.

The question we must plant firmly in our kids’ hearts and minds is, What is true? The truth about reality isn’t a popularity contest. It’s a question of which worldview is the best explanation for the world around us.

Action point:  Find ways to regularly compare and contrast why others believe what they do and why Christians believe what we do. If we don’t want our kids to assume that different is wrong, they need to have good reason to believe that their different view is right. They need to hear regularly from their parents that Christianity is a worldview based on evidence, and that faith is not blind. If you have kids in the 8-12 range, J. Warner Wallace has three kids books that are amazing for helping them start to think evidentially about their faith: Cold-Case Christianity for Kids,God’s Crime Scene for Kids, and Forensic Faith for Kids (this one JUST came out this month and is a perfect place to start). Even if your kids are a little younger, they can benefit tremendously from reading these with you. My 7-year-old is reading Forensic Faith for Kids and is super excited about doing the corresponding worksheets and watching the videos available for free at www.casemakersacademy.com/forensic-faith/. Honestly, these books should be required reading for every kid in this age range.

3. It fosters worldview vigilance.

Talking regularly about “the world” versus Christianity leads kids to constantly have a worldview radar up. Because they expect to constantly see ideas that clash with the Christian worldview, they become vigilant about sorting everything they see into “consistent with Christianity” or “inconsistent with Christianity.” This is extraordinarily important today, as kids so often quietly absorb secular views into their thinking without even realizing it. But the more they know that most of what they will see and hear will not fit with Christianity, the more they learn to vigilantly separate Christian ideas from others.

Action point:  Encourage your kids to spot the “secular wisdom” all around them. These examples are everywhere but they are, of course, never marked with worldview labels. The more you point out examples, the more kids learn to think critically. When this becomes a habit in your family, your kids will see it on their own and show you examples. We were at a store the other day and my 9-year-old son came around the aisle carrying this sign:

All you need is love

He looked at me with a big, disappointed sigh and said, “Mommy. Look. Love is all you need.”

He recognized this as bad secular wisdom as soon as he saw it. I asked him to explain what’s wrong with it, and he said, “there’s no moral setting.” As I pushed him to explain what he meant, he said there’s no context for making this statement. If God doesn’t exist, then what love means is just a matter of personal opinion—and no one has the authority to state that anything is all you need. I concurred and (gently) hit him on the head, saying, “I could claim that love means hitting people on the head in that case!” But if God exists, then He defines what love is. When we follow the greatest commandment—to love God—it informs what it means to follow the second commandment—to love others. It’s no longer up to us to define the word. This sign means nothing outside of a worldview context—a “moral setting” as my son put it.

It’s clear that being a Christian (or even holding Christian values) is no longer the default. Whether we like it or not, it’s the reality of the world in which we’re parenting. It’s our job to help our kids swim faithfully against the tide so they can be constantly aware of the waves around them and know how to respond.

 

Natasha Crain runs her Christian apologetics blog for parents, ChristianMomThoughts.com. She obtained her MBA in Marketing and Statistics from UCLA and obtained a Christian apologetic certificate from the University of Biola. She currently resides in California with her husband Bryan along with her three young children.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2PMb0PI

/by

Problems with Progressive Christianity

Podcast: Play in new window

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS

From Christian recording artist to daring defender of the faith, Alisa Childers shares her experience with the “Progressive Christianity” movement. She shares with Frank why she wants to raise awareness about this dangerous and toxic view of Christianity. In this podcast they discuss:

What is “Progressive Christianity”?

What are the signs your church might be heading toward progressive Christianity?

What kind of reactions does Alisa get after writing against this movement?

And much more, don’t miss it!

/by
Captain America & the Moral Argument

Captain America & the Moral Argument

,

By Joel Furches

The Marvel Movie franchise is arguably the most epic enterprise in movie history. The series has a number of stand-out characters; however, two stand out more than the others. In fact, their differences stand in such firm relief so as to culminate in a film where they were driven toe-to-toe whilst still harboring a slight underlying sense of respect for one to another.

These characters are, of course, Iron Man and Captain America.

When an actor takes the stage, the first question the thespian asks is “what’s my motivation”? The actor seeks to find the one underlying quest that drives all of his or her emotions and actions. In the Marvel universe, most of the characters are driven by the usual things: Thor is driven by his loyalty to the kingdom, family and friends – as is Black Panther. Spider-man is driven by a sense of responsibility undergirded by guilt – as is Hulk. Hawkeye and Widow are driven by duty.

However, in every good piece of fiction, one finds three specific characters – archetypes first outlined by Freud. These three include one character driven largely by self-interests and desire and one driven largely by dedication to principle and self-control. These two are usually at one another’s throats as they represent entirely opposite ends of the emotional spectrum. The third character serves to balance the other two, to keep them from fighting and destroying one another. In any given piece of fiction, one typically finds these three.

In the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the Id – the self-interest – is represented by the narcissistic Tony Stark (Iron Man), whose actions are largely motivated by his own ego and interest in self-glorification. The Super-ego – the character devoted to larger principles – is filled by the super soldier: Steve Rogers (Captain America).

Steve Rogers holds a unique and underappreciated role in the Marvel pantheon. As a man out of time, Rogers is not motivated by loyalty to any person or institution – given that all of the people and institutions that mattered in his life are long expired. The exception, of course, being his best friend with whom his relationship is complicated.

From the moment he graced the screen, Steve was shown to be a God-and-country idealist, who would willingly place his life on the line to stand up against bullies in defense of any cause he felt was just. This selfless dedication is preempted from the moment he willingly took a beating as a fragile teenager, never once backing down despite the impossibility of his winning. As Rogers’ military sponsor predicted, this attitude of selfless dedication to the larger good translated over from his fragile teenage state into the powerful monolith he eventually became. As Steve Rogers eventually wades into the larger world of superheroes and villains, he never once loses the “kid from Brooklyn” humility or morality.

What does all of this have to do with the Moral Argument?

Succinctly, the Moral Argument states that if morality is objective, then there is a God. The full formulation of the argument is a little more involved and nuanced, but it essentially boils down to this.

As a comic character, Captain America is a bit of an anomaly. Many of the iconic superheroes were birthed during the time of the World War. Superman, with his devotion to truth, justice and – yes – the American Way – was the creation of a couple of Jewish kids from Cleveland at the height of the World War. Wonder Woman – a Grecian figure of mythology – nonetheless wore star-spangled colors and an eagle crest. These all have lost their status as American icons as the country has become steadily less nationalistic. But by virtue of his name and costume, Captain America could never escape his status as a symbol of patriotism. His storyline also has him perpetually locked into the mindset of the so-called “greatest generation,” as – with history marching ever forward – he has still only recently stepped out of World War 2.

What this means practically is that writers of both comic and film have to somehow keep him a hero despite his outdated way of thinking. And so, are forced to concede to some standards which remain fixed and admirable, even as everything else changes.

Captain America is the iconic soldier. He puts aside all self-interest and gives his life over to the protection of a cause higher than himself. That Captain America can remain somehow relevant nearly a century after he was first conceived is evidence that there are some underlying standards of right and wrong that prop up society even as everyone disagrees about the particulars.

The argument from Steve Rogers is no home run for proponents of moral absolutism, but nevertheless, it does point to a much more obvious feature which prevails in media from time immemorial. That is to say that, we tell tales of heroes and villains – and have always done so. The tales themselves are built on the unspoken premise that heroism and villainy are actual features of reality. Consequently, there must be some standard against which actions may be judged. This is so instinctual that the viewer of media need not be told which character is hero and villain. They recognize it for themselves.

Morality is like pornography: you recognize it when you see it. It is intuitively obvious – and needs no deep consideration to identify. Deep, analytical thought is only required to find some manner of anchoring morality without appeals to the transcendent.

 

As a writer and artist, Joel Furches has primarily served the Christian Community by engaging in Apologetics and Christian ministry. Joel is an accomplished journalist, author, and editor, having written for both Christian publications – like Christian Media Magazine – and journalistic organizations – like CBS. Joel also edits academic research papers for universities. Joel does professional editing and reviews for all communities, including the science community. Joel currently has an undergraduate degree in Psychology and a Master’s degree in Education. Joel has worked for a number of years with neglected, abused and troubled youth. This has given him some uncomfortable but valuable insights into the human condition. Joel is on The Mentionables speaking team.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2NSMYFp

/by
Christianity is not a sitting religion

Christianity is not a sitting religion

By Michael Sherrard 

Will you go? Will you do more than just learn? Will you act upon your desire to persuade others that Jesus is the messiah? You need to wrestle with this. You need to decide if you are going to be one that takes our Lord’s mercy and grace to others or be one that hoards it for yourself. I am going to plead here for an active style of evangelism. Christianity is a going religion, not a sitting one. We don’t wait for the world to come to us. We go.

We don’t rest upon the grace of Jesus and use it as a cushion for our pews. We don’t cherish the love of God wrapping ourselves in it while we look out our window and watch people freeze to death. We are not the ones who gather on Sunday to have our church leaders stick pacifiers in our mouth and rock us to sleep singing soft easy words into our ear.

Or are we?

It seems some troubling trends exist in the West and weak brand of Christianity has arisen. Is it merely enough to sing about the wonderful cross rather than pick it up? Is it right to jump from church to church seeking one to “feed you” as we neglect those truly hungry? The luxury of prosperity and freedom has made us soft and selfish, I think. We view our religion as an end to itself. Church programs seek to build more church programs as we hire more staff to support them. “Bring the world to us,” we think. And as churches grow in size, the Christian voice becomes fainter and fainter in the West. Our impact is greatly disproportionate to our size. It seems that our religion is for us and our good alone. The rest can go to hell.

But let this not be so any longer. Sin is ruining lives. It is causing much great pain. The world is seeking peace and rest, and they are not finding it. For true rest and peace come from Jesus and Him alone. It is only the forgiveness of sins that brings rest. We know this.

We have witnessed sin tear families apart. We have seen sin hurt our children. We have experienced the deceitful nature of sin. We all have at one time taken sin’s yoke thinking that it brings a light load filled with peace and joy. We all once learned from another master, one who is not gentle or humble and found his yoke very heavy. We have seen firsthand the folly of sin. We have run from Jesus thinking that we would find freedom. We took what we thought to be an easy road only to find that it was filled with step hills, and mud, and hidden roots, and slippery rocks, and a perilous cliff that beckoned us to our death.

Though we have witnessed sin’s power, many have become desensitized to sin’s ruination. Christians can get locked in their own subculture and forget the devastating nature of sin. Those that have faithfully abided in Christ and obeyed his teaching have been blessed and protected from much of the hurt that is out there. It is hard to remember the depth of pain from a previous life when filled with joy and peace. And this is good. I am glad that faithfully following Jesus results in a wellness. I am grateful for joy and peace in Christ and the freedom found therein. Further, I am glad knowing that my holiness protects my children from gratuitous pain. Surely it does not preclude all pain. But following the Lord avoids the worst kind of pain, pain brought forth by your own stupid, foolish sin. In my blessed state, I cannot forget the land from where I was delivered nor those that still remain.

I must go.

 

Michael C. Sherrard is a pastor, a writer, and a speaker. Booking info and such can be found at michaelcsherrard.com.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2xrrJAt

/by
Lógica 06 utilizando las reglas de inferencia y equivalencia lógica

Lógica 06: utilizando las reglas de inferencia y equivalencia lógica

Para esta publicación, pondremos en práctica lo que hemos visto sobre argumentación y lógica proposicional.

Veamos un ejemplo sobre argumentación:

Si Dios no preconoce el futuro, o lo determina todo o juega al azar. Si Dios determina todo, entonces él es el autor del pecado. Si Dios juega al azar, entonces él no es soberano. Dios es soberano, pero él no es el autor del pecado. Dios es soberano. Dios no es el autor del pecado. Por consiguiente, Dios no determina todo. Se sigue que, Dios no juega al azar. Dios no determina todo y Dios no juega al azar. No es el caso que, o Dios determina todo o Dios juega al azar. Como resultado, no es el caso que Dios no preconoce el futuro. Por lo tanto, Dios preconoce el futuro.

Lo que haremos es formalizar el argumento anterior y ver si realmente tiene una estructura lógica válida (no nos enfocaremos en el contenido; es decir, la veracidad de las premisas). Para ello primero debemos asignar variables a las proposiciones que se están utilizando en el argumento:

F = Dios conoce el futuro

D = Dios lo determina todo

A = Dios juega al azar

P = Dios es el autor del pecado

S = Dios es soberano

Es importante que tengas a la mano la simbología de la lógica proposicional para este ejercicio si es que todavía no te la has aprendido, ya que no explicaré qué significa cada símbolo, abreviación ni tampoco de qué va cada regla utilizada, sólo me dedicaré a explicar el procedimiento utilizado.

Ahora traduzcamos el argumento del lenguaje natural al formal:

  1. ¬F → (D v A)
  2. D → P
  3. A → ¬S
  4. S ^ ¬P
  5. S (Simp, 4)
  6. ¬P ^ S (Conm, 4)
  7. ¬P (Simp, 6)
  8. ¬D (MT, 2, 7)
  9. ¬¬S (DN, 5)
  10. ¬A (MT, 3, 9)
  11. ¬D ^ ¬A (Conj, 8, 10)
  12. ¬ (D v A) (De M, 11)
  13. ¬¬F (MT, 1, 12)
  14. F (DN, 13)

¿Complicado? No te preocupes, ahora iremos paso a paso para que puedas entenderlo mejor.

En el artículo sobre lógica y argumentación, vimos que en el discurso se pueden encontrar varias proposiciones que sirven de premisas para varias conclusiones; este es uno de esos casos. En el argumento se establecen cuatro premisas. En el siguiente cuadro, a la derecha se presentan los enunciados y a la izquierda su respectiva forma lógica:

1.      ¬F → (D v A)

 

 Si Dios no preconoce el futuro, o lo determina todo o juega al azar.
2.      D → P

 

 Si Dios determina todo, entonces él es el autor del pecado.
3.      A → ¬S

 

 Si Dios juega al azar, entonces él no es soberano.
4.      S ^ ¬P

 

 Dios es soberano, pero él no es el autor del pecado.

Observa que en la primera proposición se ha omitido el indicador de consecuente “entonces”, ya que no siempre es necesario utilizarlo para hablar sobre enunciados condicionales, muchas veces lo presuponemos. También observa que la cuarta proposición no hay un “y” que indica la conjunción, esto es porque el “pero” también sirve para indicar conjunción; a veces la coma y el punto y coma tienen la misma función, recuerda poner atención en estos detalles. Sigamos con la explicación:

5.      S (Simp, 4)

 

 Dios es soberano.

Enumerar nuestras premisas y conclusiones del argumento es importante para indicar en qué premisa hemos aplicado una regla de inferencia. Cuando formalizan argumentos de esta manera, se recomienda colocar a la derecha de la premisa y entre paréntesis la regla de inferencia que se ha utilizado en su forma abreviada, por lo que en este caso, la premisa (5) se ha inferido de la premisa (4) por la regla de simplificación. Continuemos:

6.      ¬P ^ S (Conm, 4)

 

 Dios no es el autor del pecado y Dios es soberano.
7.      ¬P (Simp, 6)

 

 Dios no es el autor del pecado.

Para simplificar una proposición compleja (6), se aplica la regla por conmutación, dejando así la proposición que queremos utilizar (¬P) del lado izquierdo y deshacernos de aquella proposición que no queremos (S) en el lado derecho. Por supuesto, la conmutación se puede omitir porque se presupone fácil, pero en este caso quiero llevarlos paso a paso por cada regla utilizada sin omitir ninguna.

8.      ¬D (MT, 2, 7)

 

 Por consiguiente, Dios no determina todo.

La proposición (8) es la conclusión de (2) y (7) por medio de la regla de modus tollens. Observa más claramente este movimiento:

  • (2) Si Dios determina todo, entonces él es el autor del pecado (D → P)
  • (7) Dios no es el autor del pecado (¬P)
  • (8) Por consiguiente, Dios no determina todo (¬D)

¿Ves? Ahora, sigamos:

9.      ¬¬S (DN, 5) No es el caso que Dios no es soberano.
10.  ¬A (MT, 3, 9) Se sigue que, Dios no juega al azar.

Hay que recordar que la regla de modus tollens es negar el consecuente, así que lo que ocurre en lenguaje formal es que la proposición que niega el consecuente siempre tiene que ser un negativo, por eso en el argumento enunciado de forma natural no hay ninguna proposición como “no es el caso que Dios no es soberano”; pero sí lo está en su forma lógica, (9), ¿por qué? Porque ocurre lo mismo que con la regla de conmutación, en el lenguaje natural también se suele omitir la regla de doble negación; pero no porque sea inútil o sea innecesaria; sino porque se presupone fácil. Recuerda la regla por modus tollens:

  1. P → Q
  2. ¬ Q
  3. ¬ P.

¿Así que, qué ocurre cuando tenemos un condicional cuyo consecuente es ya un negativo? Pues hay que negar esa proposición negativa:

  1. P → ¬Q
  2. ¬¬Q
  3. ¬P

Este es el razonamiento por el cual se procede en el lenguaje formal, aunque en el lenguaje natural nunca utilicemos una doble negación por simple economía; negamos una proposición negativa solo con usar su positivo o afirmativo (recuerda que la doble negación es una regla de equivalencia lógica). Veámoslo con el modus tollens de nuestro argumento presente:

  • (3) Si Dios juega al azar, entonces él no es soberano (A → ¬S).
  • (5) Dios es soberano. (S)
  • (10) Se sigue que, Dios no juega al azar (¬A).

Para concluir (10) usamos (5) en lugar de (9) en lenguaje natural, pero como dije anteriormente, no quiero omitir ningún paso en el lenguaje formal para que ustedes estén al tanto de todas las reglas que se tienen que utilizar para validar un argumento. Sigamos con los últimos pasos que quedan:

11.  ¬D ^ ¬A (Conj, 8, 10) Dios no determina todo y Dios no juega al azar.
12.  ¬ (D v A) (De M, 11) No es el caso que, o Dios determina todo o Dios juega al azar.
13.  ¬¬F (MT, 1, 12) Como resultado, no es el caso que Dios no preconoce el futuro.
14.  F (DN, 13) Dios preconoce el futuro.

Ahora, observa que (1) tiene esta forma:

  1. ¬F → (D v A)

Como lo que queremos es demostrar que el antecedente es falso (Dios no preconoce el futuro), necesitamos negar el consecuente (Dios lo determina todo o juega al azar) por medio de modus tollens. Para ello necesitamos las negativas de ambas proposiciones, en este caso son (8) y (10), y dado que son conclusiones lógicamente válidas, podemos conjugarlas (11). Pero con la forma lógica de la conjunción no podemos utilizarla como premisa para realizar un modus tollens ya que son formas lógicas distintas:

Consecuente de (1): (D v A)

Conjunción: (¬D ^ ¬A)

Para poder negar el consecuente, requerimos de la forma lógica ¬ (D v A) y no (¬D ^ ¬A), ¿cómo la obtenemos? Muy fácil, por medio de una regla de reemplazo o equivalencia lógica, en este caso usamos las Leyes de Morgan, que nos dicen que la negación de una conjunción es la disyunción de las negaciones:

¬ (D v A) ↔ (¬D ^ ¬A)

La nueva forma lógica será nuestra premisa (12), por lo que ahora podemos realizar el modus tollens correspondiente:

  • Si Dios no preconoce el futuro, o lo determina todo o juega al azar (¬F → (D v A)).
  • No es el caso que, o Dios determina todo o Dios juega al azar (¬ (D v A)).
  • Como resultado, no es el caso que Dios no preconoce el futuro (¬¬F).

Y por último, sólo nos resta aplicar la regla de doble negación sobre (13), que es la proposición no es el caso que Dios no preconoce el futuro (¬¬F) para para obtener su afirmativa, Dios preconoce el futuro (F).

Espero que con este ejemplo puedas ver la utilidad de conocer las reglas de inferencia y equivalencia lógica al momento de construir argumentos.

Bibliografía recomendada

  • P. Moreland y William Lane Craig, “Logic and Argumentation” en Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview.
  • Irving M. Copi y Carl Cohen, Introducción a la Lógica
  • Irving M. Copi, Lógica Simbólica
  • Anthony Weston, Las Claves de la Argumentación

  

Jairo Izquierdo es el fundador de Filósofo Cristiano. Es autor y director de Social Media para la organización cristiana Cross Examined. Es miembro en la Christian Apologetics Alliance, estudia filosofía y es ministro de alabanza en la iglesia cristiana bautista Cristo es la Respuesta en Puebla, México.

/by
When Is It Time To Leave Gentleness And Respect Behind

When Is It Time To Leave Gentleness And Respect Behind?

By Michael Sherrard

I am sickened by Planned Parenthood. They are exploiting women for profit all in the name of equality and empowerment. Selling the body parts of aborted fetus’ should disgust all and bring to mind horrific images of some futuristic dystopia. If you’ve not seen the undercover footage, stop what you are doing and watch it here.

So when does the horror and calamity from ignorant practices require us to take the gloves off? I ask this in apparent contradiction as I am the author of Relational Apologetics: Defending the Christian Faith with Holiness, Respect, and Truth. One might assume my answer. But I think there is a time when gentleness is not an option and respect should not be given. Let me explain.

When one that I love is drowning, gentleness is not my concern. I will use whatever force I need to pull them from the raging waters. When one that I love does something evil, I give no respect to their actions or the thinking that caused them. I will expose them for what they are, and sometimes only harsh language can convey the tragedy and folly of wickedness.

It’s obvious that force and strong language can be used for good and respect for evil actions is not necessary. But it is too easy to miss apply these principles. So let me set a couple of ground rules.

Premeditated violence is not the way of the follower of Jesus. We are not to create a holy army and wage a literal war for we do not merely fight against flesh and blood. A war fought against such would not bring the change we desire. We fight ideas. The battleground is the mind. Guns and swords aren’t much use there. What is useful are stories and art and logic. We must wage a war of ideas and capture our cultures imagination. And in this, we must be aggressive.

Using words to make people feel inferior to us is not the way of the Christian either. We are not to beat people into submission with language. But we can use words to shame people for holding utterly stupid ideas. This is a delicate art. One that must be undergirded by love. In the same way, I make my precious daughter feel silly for being childishly selfish, so too can we use things like sarcasm and mockery to expose ridiculous thinking. When love is felt, words attack ideas and not people. If the church is going to use harsh words, its love must be felt.

When something we love is dangerously close to disaster, our presence must be felt. As a body, we must unite and spur one another onto good works grounded in the love of Christ. We cannot now retreat in the name of turning the other cheek. Nor can we storm the gates with hate in our hearts. Wisdom and humility must be our generals, and our Lord must be our Lord. It is easy now to respond to the current cultural crisis for our name’s sake, our own well being. But let us gladly lay down our lives for the good of this world and the glory of God. Let us seek the renewal of our culture. And let us use the tactics that are necessary but also worthy of our calling.

 

Michael C. Sherrard is a pastor, the director of Ratio Christi College Prep, and the author of Relational Apologetics. Booking info and such can be found at michaelcsherrard.com.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2OaoQv2

/by
Did Jesus Even Claim to Be God

Did Jesus Even Claim to Be God?

,

By J. Brian Huffling

I sat down with some Jehovah’s Witnesses who were visiting with me. The elder who was leading our study stated that Jesus never claimed to be God. Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that Jesus is a created being. Liberal “Christians” argue that Jesus never claimed to be God. Many other groups say the same. If such is the case, then Christians have some explaining to do as they teach that Jesus is God. But did he ever claim this title for himself? Let’s look at what he actually said.

I am going to argue that, yes, Jesus, in fact, did claim to be God. This can be seen by the fact that he claimed to be identical with God in various ways.

Jesus Claimed to Be Identical with God

Jesus made statements about himself that were expressly made of Yahweh in the Old Testament. Let’s look at the OT claims and then Jesus’ claims.

“I AM”

One of the clearest passages of Jesus claiming to be God is his claiming to be Yahweh as being the great I AM of Exodus 3:14.

OT Claim: “God said to Moses, ‘I am who I am.’” The designation “I am” was solely reserved for Yahweh and was recognizes by the Jews as such. (Exodus 3:14)

Jesus Claim: “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.‘ 59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple” (John 8:58-58). Clearly, the Jews understood Jesus to be making himself equal with God. That’s why they wanted to kill him.

First and the Last

OT Claim: “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last; besides me, there is no god.’” (Isaiah 44:6)

Jesus’ Claim: “When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, ‘Fear not, I am the first and the last, 18 and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.’” (Note for Jehovah’s Witnesses: This can’t be Jehovah since for them Jehovah never died.)

Having the Glory of God

Jesus claimed to have the glory that only God had.

OT Claim: “I am the Lord; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols.”

Jesus’ Claim: “And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.”

His Acceptance of Worship

The OT and NT also forbade the worship of any other being, idol or otherwise (Exodus 20:1-4; Deut. 5:6-9; Acts 14:15; Rev. 22:8-9). However, Jesus accepted worship on several occasions and never reprimanded anyone else for it (Matt. 14:33; Matt. 20:28; John 9:38; John 20:28). In this last example, Thomas explicitly calls Jesus God and Jesus didn’t correct him.

He Claimed to Have Authority and Equality with God

Throughout Matthew 5 Jesus claims his words have the same authority as God. Repeatedly he says regarding the OT, “You have heard it said, but I say to you . . .” (See 5:22, 28, 32)

In the baptismal formula he gave at the Great Commission, he claimed equality with the Father and Spirit: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matt. 28:18-20)

He claimed to be able to forgive sins, which only God could do: “And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, ‘Son, your sins are forgiven.’ 6 Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, 7 ‘Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?’” (Mark 2:5-7)

Perhaps the clearest passage is John 10:30-33: Jesus claimed to be one with the Father. “I and the Father are one.” 31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” 33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”

Objections to Jesus Being God

Objection: Some will object that Jesus can’t be God. God, they say, is infinite and unlimited; however, Jesus claimed to be limited in various ways. For example, in Matthew 24:36 Jesus said, referring to his second coming, “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.”

Response: We have to understand that Jesus did in fact claim (and prove) to be God. The traditional Christian teaching is that Jesus had two natures even though he was just one person. One nature was his divine nature that he shares with the Father and Spirit. The other is his human nature. Sometimes he refers to his divine nature, such as having glory with God, being the first and the last, etc. However, sometimes he refers to his human nature. When we ask questions about his ability to do something or know something we have to be clear as to whether we are talking about his divine or human nature. In this verse, Jesus is referring to his limited human nature. This does not deny his divine nature.

Objection: Jesus also said “The Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28)

Response: The same basic answer is used here. The Father is greater in office while not being greater in nature, that is, in Jesus’ divine nature. Of course, the Father is greater than Jesus’ human nature. An illustration may make this clearer. The President of the United States is greater than me. However, he is only greater in office. We are both of the same nature.

Objection: in Matthew 19:17 we read: “And behold, a man came up to him, saying, ‘Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?’ 17 And he said to him, ‘Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good.’” In other words, only God is good, so why are you calling me good?

Response: Notice there is no explicit denial of his deity. He is likely saying, “Do you realize that in calling me good you are calling me God?” However, even if this is not what he is saying, there is no explicit denial of being God, and we have already seen several (select) examples of him claiming to be God.

Conclusion

Above are a few of the many passages where Jesus claims to be equal with God in various ways. The notion that he didn’t claim to be God is simply false. He was also understood to be God by his followers and the Church. Objections to this idea fail when properly examined. Jesus, in fact, claimed to be God.

*I am indebted as a student of Dr. Norman L. Geisler for the above connections and general thought. See for example his Christian Apologetics.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2QiYEzE

/by