By Robby Hall

Natasha Crain wrote a great article last year on what an apologist does when they believe they have cancer.  Little did I know at the time that 6 months later, I would get the news:  Stage 2 colon cancer.

I’ve tossed back and forth about writing this, but I felt two points I wanted to make were worth writing about.

Surrendering to Death

The Christian worldview is that those who are in Christ – that is, those who have repented (GR metanoeó) and put their trust in Christ, are forgiven of their crimes against a holy God, are made into new creatures and will be bodily resurrected on the last day.  So why on earth should a Christian feel fear at the news they have Cancer?

I realized that I wasn’t afraid to die per se, but rather of dying itself. The idea that this life was over. I had thoughts about my wife, my daughter, my family, and friends. But I hadn’t ever resided myself to the fact of dying. I had to be Ok with dying. Ok with my daughter growing up without her father, my wife being a widow. Ok with never accomplishing some goals. I knew I would be with my God in all of His glory, but it was at this point that I understood what it meant to let go of this world.

Faith In

So just how has the study of apologetics helped in dealing with my cancer diagnosis? Before I knew what state it was and what we were looking at, I had to trust Christ no matter the news. This was much easier to do based on what I knew about the truth of the Gospels. Every argument for Christianity you can think of did not come to mind, but rather this thought “either I trust Him, or I don’t.” If I didn’t, time to get busy being an atheist. If I did, time to get busy trusting and not worrying. The evidence for Christianity acts like a seawall. You see the waves of doubt, anger, sadness, and death coming for you. But the evidence reminds you of the truth, and you put your trust in Christ. Faith is not merely an intellectual assent, but rather an active trust. But the information that led you to that faith is a solid foundation.

As it turns out, the LORD has other plans for me at this time. The surgery I had removed all of the cancer. There was no spread to lymph nodes. I have to do a 6-month round of chemo, but this is for preventative measures, and it’s an oral pill. This has also made me begin to live healthier. In fact, I’ve started training in Gracie (Brazilian) Jiu-Jitsu. I’m also heading to Scotland in the fall for a missionary support trip.

But I have confidence in the LORD that if all had fallen apart, He would have remained the same God and I would have been able to trust Him still.

 


Robby Hall is in the Secure Access industry for Information Technology. He has been married for 3 years and has just welcomed his first child, Bridget. He is graduate of the Cross Examined Instructor’s Academy and leads apologetics small groups at his local church.

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

By Timothy Fox

The problem of evil (pain or suffering) is probably the number one argument against the existence of God. While it is definitely not a problem that can be answered quickly and simply, I’d like to offer some short, rapid-fire responses that can be used to begin a deeper discussion:

Free will – Freedom is a great good that God has granted us. But God can’t give us free will and then forbid us from using it. He can’t give us commands and force us to obey them. And when we disobey God, we – and others – get hurt…

Consequences – Bad decisions often have bad consequences. If there were no consequences for our wrong choices, what do any of our choices matter?

Learning from experience – When we face evil or experience the suffering of others, we (should!) learn from it. Evil teaches us what not to do and should inspire us to stop it.

God is king – God is not a beat cop or a superhero. God is King of the universe. A king makes commands and delegates authority to others. He is not a soldier; he commands soldiers. God has authorized parents to guide and protect their families. He has authorized rulers to promote good and punish evil (Rom. 13). God does not micromanage the universe, and neither is he a helicopter parent. Similarly, …

Minimal interference – What if God simply wants us to make the best of this world – problems and all – with minimal interference? Maybe he wants us to grow and to learn, to solve our own problems.

Inspiration – People who overcome great obstacles are an inspiration to others. The greater the pain, suffering, and other hardships, the greater the inspiration.

Priorities – Tragedy reminds us that life is short, fragile, and should not be wasted. It teaches us to pursue what really matters in life. Similarly, …

Life-altering events – There have been major events that have altered human history, such as the Holocaust and terror attacks of 9/11. Likewise, there are events that impact our individual lives and can steer them into a different direction. Experiencing an act of evil may not result directly in a “greater good,” but it can simply shift the trajectory of our lives and result in a greater end.

Evil chases us to God – What if someone had a perfectly pain-free life but never came to faith in Christ? Instead, what if someone experienced a great evil that led him or her to turn to God for strength? If knowing God is the greatest possible good, then a life with great pain and suffering that leads us to God is infinitely better than a pain-free life in which we never come to faith in Jesus.

Suffering binds us together – Suffering brings us to God, and it also draws us to each other. When friends and family suffer, we learn to lean on each other for strength and help. We develop love and compassion. Suffering can create a community that would not have otherwise existed.

Perspective – We experience evil from the “bottom-up.” We witness it firsthand and don’t understand it, causing us to question the existence of a good God. But we need to view evil – and everything else in life – from the “top-down.” Everything has a purpose. All of our actions are connected. We don’t have a God’s-eye view of reality. God does

When God prevents evil, we still complain – The great flood. The destruction of the Canaanites. The Bible gives accounts of God punishing the wicked and preventing further evil, and yet skeptics complain that God acted immorally. So no matter what God does or doesn’t do, some people are going to be unhappy.

Unknown evil – The previous point refers to evil; we know that God has stopped. But what about the evil that God has prevented without us even knowing? It’s possible that God has prevented far more evil than he has permitted, and only as much evil necessary to bring about the greatest amount of good.

Evil awakens our consciences – Because of sin, our moral compasses are misaligned. We believe some evils are good and are even apathetic towards evil. Great instances of evil may jolt our consciences awake, or snap them back into alignment.

Soul-building – Pain, and suffering strengthens us and builds our souls (Rom. 5:3-4, 2 Cor. 4:17). We develop virtues such as patience and determination and gain compassion towards others who suffer. Our suffering molds us into citizens worthy of the Kingdom of God. Remember, the purpose of life is not happiness but holiness.

Fallen world – Living in a fallen world, we should expect pain and suffering. Suffering reminds us that things are not the way they ought to be and to hope for a world in which there is no pain or suffering…

Heaven – Once we reach heaven, all of our sufferings, no matter how great it may be here on earth, will be a distant memory. There will be no sadness or pain there, and perhaps our past sufferings on earth will help us to appreciate heaven all the more.

Jesus – God did not sit idly by and watch us suffer from a distance. God entered into history and lived among us. He also suffered and died for us. Jesus Christ is the solution to the problem of evil.

These are some rapid-fire responses to the problem of evil. Remember, they are not exhaustive, but are simply starting points for deeper discussions. Maybe you can think of more responses yourself, or you can use the ones here to reflect on the pain and suffering you or your loved ones have faced. And for greater study, I highly recommend The Problem of Pain by C. S. Lewis and Why Does God Allow Evil? by Clay Jones.

 


Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Z03V2k

Alvin Plantinga desarrolló un argumento en contra del materialismo que puedes encontrar aquí. Pero si quieres una versión algo más fácil de digerir, puedes leer la versión de Craig aquí (solo inglés). Recomiendo leer ambos recursos para un mayor entendimiento del argumento en general de que la existencia de los estados intencionales (o la consciencia) son evidencia de que Dios existe.  Para los propósitos de este artículo, simplemente citaré la exposición de Craig sobre este argumento en el debate de Rosenberg:

Dios es la mejor explicación de los estados intencionales de conciencia en el mundo. Los filósofos están desconcertados por los estados de intencionalidad. La intencionalidad es la propiedad de ser sobre algo. Significa la atención hacia el objeto de nuestros pensamientos.

Por ejemplo, puedo pensar sobre mis vacaciones de verano o acerca de mi esposa. Ningún objeto físico tiene este tipo de intencionalidad. Una silla o una piedra o una bola de tejido muscular como el cerebro no atienden hacia alguna cosa. Solo los estados mentales o los estados de conciencia atienden a otras cosas. Como materialista, el Dr. Rosenberg reconoce eso y concluye que en el ateísmo realmente no hay estados intencionales.

El Dr. Rosenberg afirma audazmente que nunca pensamos realmente en nada. Pero esto parece increíble. Obviamente estoy pensando en el argumento del Dr. Rosenberg. Esto me parece una reducción al absurdo del ateísmo. Por el contrario, en el teísmo, porque Dios es una mente, no es sorprendente que haya mentes finitas. Así, los estados intencionales se ajustan cómodamente a una cosmovisión teísta.

Entonces podemos argumentar:

  1. Si Dios no existiera, los estados intencionales de conciencia no existirían.

  2. ¡Pero existen estados intencionales de consciencia!

  3. Por lo tanto, Dios existe.

Ahora, muchos detractores del argumento señalarán que se comete (entre otras) una falacia de petición de principio, ya que simplemente el argumento presupone la existencia de Dios. Pero como el Dr. Craig señala, ¡el Dr. Rosenberg cree que la premisa (1) del argumento es verdadera! Así que no parece una afirmación exclusiva del teísta que, en un mundo natural (sin ninguna clase de ser espiritual como Dios o los ángeles) los estados de consciencia no existen. Pero ¿existe algún otro no teísta aparte de Rosenberg que crea que la premisa (1) es verdad? Al parecer sí, y no de un parte de un filósofo, sino de un científico, me refiero al autor del canal de YouTube The Action Lab.

Dejaré el video aquí mismo para que veas las conclusiones a las que llega el autor sobre la consciencia basándose en los experimentos de Libet (que suelen citar los naturalistas para demostrar que el libre albedrío y la consciencia inmaterial no existen, nada más lejos de la realidad[i]). Pero si no quieres ver todo el video ni los divertidos experimentos que realiza o tu inglés no es lo suficientemente bueno para entenderlo, no te preocupes, puedes saltarte el video e ir directamente a la traducción que he realizado para este artículo.

Esto es lo que The Action Lab explica a partir del minuto 6:51 sobre los experimentos realizados:

Así que puede que no hayas pensado mucho en ello, pero ¿qué sucede realmente cuando haces esto (cierra y abre la palma de la mano)?, ¿cómo decidí mover mi brazo? Bien, cuando decides mover el brazo, parece un pensamiento consciente, piensas en moverlo y se mueve. Así que ahora mismo estoy decidiendo mover mi brazo, pero ¿mi cerebro consciente decidió moverlo o hay algo más?

Así que se han realizado múltiples estudios sobre esto y lo extraño es que en realidad hay algo que se llama potencial de preparación (muestra una gráfica sobre cómo el voltaje se eleva antes del tiempo consciente al 0s.) que sucede en tu cerebro antes del pensamiento consciente y el movimiento de tu brazo. Así que, lo que quiero decir, es que tienes el pensamiento consciente para mover tu brazo, pero lo que sucede antes es que hay un potencial que se eleva en tu cerebro, así que hay algo que sucede en tu cerebro incluso antes de tener la idea de mover el brazo.

Ahora, como algunos han leído este dato, significa que nuestro subconsciente realmente está tomando todas las decisiones, por lo que nuestro subconsciente realmente decide mover el dedo y luego después de decidir el potencial de preparación aumenta hasta que se produce la sinapsis que provoca la reacción en cadena que realmente mueve el dedo. Por lo que esto debería ser un poco molesto para ti, porque significa que nuestra consciencia no está realmente tomando la decisión de hacer algo, sino que en realidad es nuestro subconsciente el que toma la decisión y luego lo inserta en nuestra consciencia como si fuera nuestro propio pensamiento consciente haciéndolo.

Pero en 2016, los científicos en Berlín realizaron un experimento para probar si es la consciencia o la subconsciencia la que toma estas decisiones. De modo que, lo que hicieron estos científicos, es que utilizaron una computadora para medir estos potenciales de preparación en el cerebro y trataron de ver si este programa en la computadora podía predecir en tiempo real los pensamientos o los movimientos conscientes de alguien, por lo que esperaban medir el potencial de preparación en el cerebro antes de que la persona realmente tuviera el pensamiento consciente de mover alguna extremidad y pudiera predecir que se moviera algo. Pero la parte interesante, es que los sujetos en el experimento realmente aprendieron cómo engañar a la computadora, de modo que lo que sucedería en su cerebro es que el potencial de preparación se elevaría, pero el movimiento no se produciría porque la persona conscientemente había pensado que no haría el movimiento, por lo que parece contradecir la opinión de que la consciencia es un subproducto de la subconsciencia, porque ¿cómo conscientemente decides cancelar un movimiento que realiza tu subconsciente que en realidad está controlando tu consciencia? Parece que la consciencia es en realidad la que tiene el control, no la subconsciencia.

Pero esto se vuelve aún más raro. Por ejemplo, un científico llamado Benjamín Libet se dispuso a responder la misma pregunta de si es la consciencia o la subconsciencia la que está involucrada en la toma de decisiones y en la elección de lo que hacemos en nuestra vida diaria. Así que lo que hizo Libet fue que se sometió a pacientes a una cirugía cerebral, de modo que su cerebro estaba abierto y colocó electrodos en su corteza somatosensorial, de modo que pudo medir el impulso creado al tocar la mano de una persona. Así que él tocaba su mano y podía medirlo en su cerebro.  De modo que, lo que midió, fue que cuando tocaba su dedo había un retraso de aproximadamente 30 milisegundos de la señal que se movía hacia su cerebro y luego después de esos 30 milisegundos tenían el pensamiento consciente de que alguien había tocado su dedo, y, luego de que esos 30 milisegundos y del pensamiento consciente aumentaran, tenían alrededor de 500 milisegundos de actividad de picos de voltaje en su cerebro en esa área de la corteza somatosensorial donde eso corresponde a su dedo.

Toque de la mano 30ms Picos de voltaje 500ms
        La consciencia nota el toque   Picos de voltaje

Después, lo que hizo fue que, en lugar de tocar realmente su dedo, simplemente tocaba la parte de su cerebro que correspondía con alguien tocando su dedo y, en ese caso, el paciente tenía alrededor de 500 milisegundos de actividad en su cerebro y sentían que alguien les tocaba el dedo.

Toque del cerebro 500ms La consciencia nota el toque
    Picos de voltaje    

Luego lo que hizo fue estimular el tálamo en el cerebro del paciente y que daba lugar a un pico de voltaje inicial después de 30 milisegundos, pero no a los picos potenciales de voltaje 500 milisegundos en el cerebro, por lo que el experimento demostró que, para tener la idea consciente de que alguien tocaba su dedo, tenía que tener esos 500 milisegundos de la actividad cerebral en curso en la corteza somatosensorial.

Toque del tálamo 30ms Picos de voltaje No más actividad
        La consciencia NO nota el toque    

Pero la parte extraña de esto es como el paciente inicialmente siente y tiene el pensamiento consciente de que alguien tocó su dedo después de solo 30 milisegundos si se requieren 500 milisegundos de potencial en su cerebro para que tenga ese pensamiento. Lo que Libet propone es que los 500 milisegundos que suceden después en realidad se remiten antes en el tiempo, por lo que el paciente realmente es consciente de que eso sucederá después, porque si eso no sucediera después, no debería haber tenido el pensamiento consciente de que sucedió.

Ahora esto suena un poco loco, si Libet tiene razón, lo que significa es que nuestra consciencia está realmente a cargo y tenemos libre albedrío en nuestra consciencia, pero la información en realidad se remite hacia atrás en el tiempo para que nuestra subconsciencia obtenga el potencial de preparación listo antes de que realmente tengamos el pensamiento consciente de hacer algo.

Por supuesto, en la escala macro esto simplemente suena una locura, porque eso significaría que… digamos que tienes un balón de fútbol allí, luego el balón de fútbol comienza a moverse repentinamente y luego mueves tu pie para patearlo, y dices que la razón por la que el balón de fútbol comenzó a moverse fue porque lo pateaste más tarde en el tiempo, lo que no tiene ningún sentido, ya que la causa siempre tiene que venir antes que el efecto en la escala macro (aunque en la escala cuántica, a veces la causa puede ser posterior al efecto).

Así que no está claro si es nuestra consciencia o nuestra subconsciencia la que está liderando el camino y las decisiones que tomamos a diario. De hecho, la consciencia es uno de los aspectos menos entendidos en la ciencia, por ejemplo, ¿por qué una computadora, con todas las señales en movimiento y la información que ocurre en ella, no puede experimentar algo; pero para mí, cuando tengo todas estas sinapsis que están ocurriendo en mi cerebro, ¿puedo tener una experiencia?

Actualmente no hay nada en la ciencia que pueda explicar por qué tenemos sensaciones reales, los científicos pueden explicar el mecanismo que hay detrás, sabemos muy bien cómo ocurren las sinapsis y el mecanismo real del por qué están ocurriendo como si fuéramos una gran máquina en movimiento, pero no hay nada que pueda explicar la sensación real de ello. ¿Por qué experimentamos el color? Sabemos cómo se produce el color y qué es y qué lo causa, pero no sabemos por qué experimentamos el color. Y la consciencia es una de esas cosas de las que no estoy seguro de si alguna vez se resolverá en la ciencia. No estoy seguro de si alguna vez podremos explicar científicamente por qué tenemos sensaciones, por qué podemos sentir y experimentar cosas, mientras que algún otro objeto que tiene las mismas reacciones atómicas y movimientos mecánicos y un movimiento molecular no experimenta algo.

Ahora, la consciencia es tan difícil que ha sido apodada El problema de la consciencia en la ciencia. Esta es la razón por la que algunas personas pueden recurrir a la religión para explicar cosas como esta, por ejemplo, tal vez se deba a algo que no es físico, sino a algo espiritual que sucede dentro de ti y que realmente te hace tener consciencia. Ahora, hay muchas teorías religiosas, filosóficas y científicas, y tú eliges lo que decides creer de dónde viene la consciencia, porque la ciencia no ha resuelto esto aún.

Desconozco si The Action Lab se ha pronunciado alguna vez como ateo o agnóstico, pero es claro por todo lo que acabas de leer que no es algún tipo de teísta. Pero observen que él ofrece las mismas razones que el Dr. Craig y el Dr. Rosenberg sobre por qué parece imposible que los estados intencionales existan en un mundo puramente material. Y, lo más interesante, son las conclusiones distintas a las que llegan los no teístas: Rosenberg se aferra a su cosmovisión ateísta y decide creer que los estados intencionales no existen, ¡una postura bastante radical con tal de evitar la conclusión de que Dios existe! En cambio, The Action Lab termina sosteniendo una postura más débil y que a pocos ateos les agradará: los estados intencionales no pueden y probablemente nunca puedan ser explicados por la metodología científica. Por supuesto, él no admite que Dios sea la mejor explicación debido a su compromiso científico; pero tampoco cree que sea irrazonable postular causas sobrenaturales, al menos no en este terreno sobre la consciencia.

NOTAS

[i] Para una discusión teísta sobre estos experimentos: https://es.reasonablefaith.org/question-answer/P230/el-experimento-de-libet-y-el-determinismo

 


Jairo Izquierdo es miembro del equipo de Social Media y autor para la organización cristiana Cross Examined.  Estudia filosofía y teología, siendo su actual foco de estudio la lógica clásica, epistemología, doctrinas cristianas y filosofía del lenguaje.  Es cofundador de Filósofo Cristiano. Es miembro en la Christian Apologetics Alliance y director de alabanza en la iglesia cristiana bautista Cristo es la Respuesta en Puebla, México.

By Daniel Merritt

Editor’s Note: Previously, we ran an article that featured Dr. Merritt’s research into the story concerning Voltaire’s prediction that the Bible would not be read in a century and the use of his facilities as a Bible repository. After running the article, Dr. Merritt came across further evidence verifying this story. This updated edition features eyewitness accounts that Voltaire’s own printing press was used to print copies of the Bible. As Dr. Merritt and I discussed in conversation, the evidence clearly backs up this story to the glory of God.

Often, stories are passed along in Christian circles without having the merits of their veracity examined. At times, the stories are shown to be little more than urban legends. At other times, a story’s facts become even more intriguing than the fictions ascribed to them. Such is the case with the story concerning Voltaire’s prediction that the Bible would no longer be read within a century, and the later ironic use of his home being used for Bible distribution after his passing. Dr. Daniel Merritt offers one of the best-researched defenses for the story’s authenticity that I have read. You are about to read the results of his research. We are all indebted to Dr. Merritt’s scholarship as we shall see, what I believe, to be the hand of God working to prove his Word as faithful despite the cynicism offered by a skeptical world. – Brian G. Chilton

A story which Christian apologists have told for years involves the French philosopher Voltaire (1694-1778). The story purports that Voltaire, in his voluminous writings against Christianity and the Bible, predicted in 1776, “One hundred years from my day, there will not be a Bible on earth except one that is looked upon by an antiquarian curiosity-seeker.” As the story alleges, within fifty years after his death, in an ironic twist of Providence, the very house in which he once lived and wrote was used by the Evangelical Society of Geneva as a storehouse for Bibles and Gospel tracts and the printing presses he used to print his irreverent works was used to print Bibles.  The story has been used repeatedly through the years by Christians as an example of the enduring intrinsic quality of the Bible and the futility of those who oppose the Inspired Volume.

For years there have been those who dispute this story as to its validity. Humanists, rationalists, agnostics, and atheists have called it an apocryphal story fabricated by Christians to bolster their argument that the Bible is inspired and possesses an intrinsic quality that enables it to withstand attacks by unbelievers. David Ross wrote an article in the Journal of the New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists, vol. 77, no. 1, Autumn 2004, entitled “Voltaire’s House and the Bible Society,” in which he went to great lengths to dismiss the story as having any real basis in fact. Ross contends the story has been either fabricated or it began as a misunderstanding and has spread. Ross’ article and others like it are of such a convincing nature that books like Introduction to the Bible by Norman Geisler and William Nix, left it out of later editions.[1]

The question to consider, is there any validity to the story? Did Voltaire ever make such a prediction? Is there proof that the home in which Voltaire once lived, that after his death, was used as a storehouse for Bibles? After much research, this writer has come to the conclusion that the story is true and that those who seek to discredit the story do so because it gives credence to the argument of apologists of God’s providential preservation of His Word.

Voltaire was born in Paris, France in 1694.  As a philosopher, historian and free thinker, he became a most influential and prolific writer during what has been called the Age of Enlightenment. From the beginning, Voltaire had trouble with the authorities for criticisms toward the government. He twice served brief prison sentences in the Bastille for being critical of a Regent. His first literary work appeared in 1718. During his life he wrote more than 20,000 letters and some 2,000 pamphlets and books and was a successful playwriter. While a Deist, he vehemently opposed the Christian faith and wrote many rather scoffing works expressing his disdain for the faith and the Bible.  His railings against Christianity are filled with poisonous venom, calling the Christian faith the “infamous superstition.”

Several examples of his slanderous words against the Christian faith and the Bible are cited.

In 1764 he wrote, “The Bible. That is what fools have written, what imbeciles commend, what rogues teach and young children are made to learn by heart” (Voltaire, Philosophical Dictionary, 1764).   “We are living in the twilight of Christianity” (Philosophical Dictionary). In a 1767 letter to Frederick the Great, King of Prussia, he wrote: “Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd, and bloody religion that has ever infected the world…My one regret in dying is that I cannot aid you in this noble enterprise of extirpating the world of this infamous superstition.”[2] Voltaire ended every letter to friends with “Ecrasez l’infame” (crush the infamy — the Christian religion). In his pamphlet, The Sermon on the Fifty (1762) he attacked viciously the Old Testament, biblical miracles, biblical contradictions, the Jewish religion, the Christian God, the virgin birth and Christ’s death on the cross.  Of the Four Gospels he wrote, “What folly, what misery, what puerile and odious things they contain [and the Bible is filled] with contradictions, follies, and horrors”[3]. Voltaire regarded most of the doctrines of the Christin faith – the Incarnation, the Atonement, the Trinity, Communion – as folly and irrational.[4] And finally, “To invent all those things [in the Bible], the last degree of rascality. To believe them, the extreme of brutal stupidity!”[5]

Many more such quotes could be cited as to Voltaire’s disdain for Christianity, but those will suffice. Voltaire’s writings were so divisive that in 1754 Louis XV banned him from Paris. Relocating in December 1754 to Geneva, Switzerland, he purchased a beautiful chateau called Les Delices (The Delights). He lived there for five years until 1760 when as the result of his antagonistic writings and plays attacking Christianity, he was virtually driven from Geneva by the Calvinist Reformers. To escape the pressure from the Calvinists, Voltaire moved across the border to Ferney, France, where the controversial Frenchmen lived for eighteen years until the end of his life in 1778 at age 83. He continued to write until his hand was stilled in death.

Now the question arises as to the veracity of what some call an “apocryphal story.” While Voltaire’s disdain for the Bible is evident, did he ever make such a prediction and did any Bible Society ever use either of his residences, from where he wrote his blasphemous words against the Bible and the Christianity, as a warehouse to store Bibles? The answer to that question is an emphatic, “YES!”

The second part of the story will be dealt with first.

In August 1836, only fifty-eight years after Voltaire’s death, Rev. William Acworth of the British and Foreign Bible Society saw with his own eyes Voltaire’s former residence in Geneva, Switzerland, Les Delices, being used as a “repository for Bibles and Religious tracts.” The house at this time was occupied by Colonel Henri Tronchin (1794-1865), who served as the president of the Evangelical Society of Geneva from 1834-39.[6] The Tronchin family had long had associations with Voltaire that could be traced back to the 18th century.  One of Henri Tronchin’s ancestor’s, Francis Tronchin, was Voltaire’s doctor. The Tronchin’s were prominent and wealthy residents of Geneva and even helped finance Voltaire in the publishing of some of his works.[7]

While the Tronchin family was prominent and wealthy citizens of Geneva, they were not predominately spiritual. However, though it is not known exactly when, Henri Tronchin came to faith in Christ and embraced Protestantism. Studying literature at the Academy of Geneva, he later served as artillery captain on horseback in the Dutch army. Eventually rising in ranks to lieutenant-colonel of artillery, he married in 1824. A superb organizer and a great leader, he helped found the Evangelical Society of Geneva (c1833). He served as president of the Society from 1834 to 1839. Born 100 years after Voltaire, and occupying the former home of the infamous infidel, Tronchin used the spacious house to store Bibles and Gospel tracts. Rev. William Acworth of Queens College, Cambridge, appointed an agent of the British and Foreign Bible Society in 1829, was an eye witness to the stored Bibles and Gospel tracts.[8]

In The Missionary Register for 1836 of the BFBS, Acworth is recounting his travels in the spread of the Gospel. Having traveled over 2,000 miles in France on the business of the Society, in the summer of 1836 his travels took him to Switzerland in August of that year. Acworth recounts:

I went through Geneva, and was much refreshed by meeting the Committee of the Evangelical Society, with whose proceedings and objects I was so much gratified, that I wrote to this Society to make a liberal grant of 10,000 copies of the French Scriptures to promote the objects of that Society. Our committee have only granted 5,000; but I have no doubt they will, err long, send the other 5,000. Before I left Geneva, my friend observed. “Probably you will like to see the house where Voltaire lived, and where he wrote his plays.” Prompted by the spirit of curiosity, so characteristic of an Englishman, to visit the house of the celebrated infidel, I was about to put on my hat to walk into the county, when he said, “It is not necessary you should put on your hat” and he introduced me over the threshold of one room to another, and said, “tis the room where Voltaire’s play were acted for the amusement to himself and his friend.” And what was my gratification in observing that that room had been converted into sort of Repository for Bibles and Religious Tracts. Oh! my Christ Friends, that the spirit of infidelity had been there, to witness the results of other vaticinations [acts of prophesying] respecting the downfall of Christianity! I know that Voltaire said, that he was living “in the twilight of Christianity” but blessed be God! It was the twilight of the morning, which will bring on the day of universal illumination.[9]

Only fifty-eight years after his death the former home of Voltaire in Geneva, Switzerland, was indeed serving as a storehouse for Bibles and Gospel tracts. While the Evangelical Society of Geneva did not actually purchase the house, Henri Tronchin, president of the Society, resided in the house, and used some of the rooms to store Bibles which Voltaire so vehemently opposed and prophesied Christianity’s downfall! Yes, an ironic twist of divine Providence.

Let it also be noted, only sixteen years after Voltaire’s death, in 1794, the presence of the Bible began making in-roads in the town where he spent the last eighteen years of his life, Ferney, France. On the very printing presses which Voltaire employed to print his irreverent works was used to print editions of the Bible and which were printed on paper that “been especially made for a superior edition of Voltaire’s works. The Voltaire project failed, and the paper was bought and devoted to a better purpose [of printing Bibles]!”[10]

In the book Letters from an Absent Brother, by Daniel Wilson, Bishop of Calcutta, which chronicles his travels through parts of Netherlands, Switzerland, Northern Italy, and France, he writes to his sister from Geneva on Wednesday evening, seven o’clock, October 1, 1823, concerning the distribution of Bibles in the town where Voltaire once lived:  When I arrived at Paris, one of the first things I heard was that a Bible society had been established at Ferney, chiefly by the aid of Baron de Stael. What a noble triumph for Christianity over this daring infidel. One of the first effect of the revival of true religion or even of sound learning in France, I should think would be to lower the credit of this profligate, crafty, superficial, ignorant, incorrect writer. What plea can wit or cleverness, or the force of satire or the talent of ridicule or a fascinating style, or the power of brilliant description, form, in a Christian country, for a man who employed them all, with a bitterness or ferocity, of mind amounting to almost madness, against the Christian religion and the person of our Saviour.[11]

That a Bible society had been established in Ferney, France to help financially in the printing of Bible’s in the town where Voltaire once resided, is confirmed in the 1824 Report of the Protestant Bible Society at Paris containing the following sentence: A newly established branch at Ferney formerly the residence of Voltaire, has sent its first remittance, a sum of 167 francs.[12]

Further proof that the printing presses Voltaire once used to print his blasphemous works is contained in a transcript from the Quarterly Papers of the American and Foreign Bible Society of 1837: A Bible Society was some years since established at Ferney, once the residence of Voltaire—the prince of infidels. This noble enterprise for the propagation of the Christian religion is said to have commenced by Baron de Stael, and a few zealous Christians in that place. In the history of Bible Societies, this is truly a memorial event. That the antidote should issue from the very spot where the poison of infidelity for so many years disseminated; and the advocates of Christianity should in that very place print and circulate the sacred volume, as a sufficient shield against misrepresentations sophistry which he had there assailed divine revelation, are the events which the brilliant Frenchman would have pronounced impossible.[13]

In 1845 Bibles were still being printed on printing presses Voltaire once employed in Ferney, France. The 1846 anniversary address of The American and Foreign Bible Society, Rev. Charles G. Sommers gave a stirring report on how the Bible was making penetration into various places around the world. When speaking about the Scriptures advancements in countries around the world (including France) in the previous year of 1845, Rev. Sommers stated,

Much has indeed been accomplished, but much more remains to be done for the millions who are still without God, without Christ, and without hope in the world. It is true, indeed, and we thank God, that in nine years this Society has printed one million of books in forty-nine different languages, but hundreds of millions must be distributed among the famishing myriads of our race. By what other means can we hope to arrest the progress of infidelity and Romanism; now marching in triumph over the fields of our fair inheritance? When Pythagoras and Confucius were filling Europe and Asia with heresies, God raised up Ezra, the prophet, to compile and publish the books of the Old Testament, as an antidote to their delusions. And when Voltaire, Diderot, D’Alembert and Rousseau were laboring to crush the bleeding cause of Christ, God raised up against them the standard of the British and Foreign Bible Society; and it is a cause for grateful exultation that the same printing press which was employed to scatter the blasphemous tracts of the prince of French philosophers, has since been used at Ferney (France), to print the Word of God. The black confederacy raised their bulwarks to impede the march of truth, but they would have been equally successful, had they forged chains to bind the lightning, that cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west, as the precursor of the coming of the Son of man. Voltaire boasted that he had seen the twilight of Christianity, and that the pall of an endless night would soon cover it forever. Yes, sir, he did see the twilight, but he was mistaken as to the hour of the day—it was the twilight of morning, pouring its effulgence over the brim of the horizon of the nineteenth century, which he mistook for the rays of a setting sun.”[14]

Having established that Bibles were actually stored in Voltaire’s former Geneva residence and were being printed on printing presses he once employed in Ferney, France, did he ever make such a prediction that one hundred years after his death the Bible would no longer be read? A man who wrote 20,000 letters in his lifetime, it would be impossible to know all the statements he wrote or spoke. However, it was generally acknowledged and understood by those near the time Voltaire lived that he had made such a prediction either verbally or in writing which may no longer exist. Rev. Acworth in 1836, only fifty-eight years after Voltaire’s death, referred to the infidel’s “vaticinations [act of prophesying] respecting the downfall of Christianity! Such a remark indicates it was common knowledge that such a bold prediction had been made by Voltaire. In 1849, only seventy-one years after Voltaire’s death, William Snodgrass, an officer of the American Bible Society, stated in the giving of ABS’s annual report that “the committee had been able to redeem their pledge by sending $10,000 to France, the country of Voltaire, who predicted that in the nineteenth century the Bible would be known only as relic of antiquity.”[15] Again, such a remark indicates it was commonly acknowledged that Voltaire had made such a prediction.

Found in an interpretative book on many of the works of Voltaire published in 1823, only forty-five years after his death, the author, a contemporary of the Frenchman, details the fact that he brutishly sought to inspire contempt for the Christian faith and saw himself more influential than Martin Luther and John Calvin! Voltaire wanted a “religion to be without code, without laws, without dogma, without authority” and “laughed all these Christians who believed their religion was truly divine.” The author states that Voltaire in his fight against Christianity would stop “at nothing to annihilate” the Christian faith.[16] It is obvious those in Voltaire’s day believed his efforts were for the purpose of dismantling Christianity.

While this writer could not find the exact quote that usually accompanies the story, similar quotes could be found. In an 1855 biography of Voltaire, the author quotes him as stating in a letter to a friend, “It is impossible that Christianism survives.”[17]  In an effort to assist in bringing about what he perceived would hurry the demise of “Christianism,” in 1776, at age 82, Voltaire brought to a culmination his disdain for the Bible when he published La Bible Enfin Expliquée (The Bible Fully Explained).[18] The two-volume work was Voltaire’s commentary on the whole Bible. His purpose in writing was to “make the whole building [of Christianity] crumble.”[19] Writing with feigned credulity in a satirical and scoffing manner, he wrote viciously, mockingly critical and skeptically of practically every book and verse in the Bible. His sought to expose, as he saw it, the foolishness and irrationality of belief in the Bible. Of his massive tome, in which he derided the Bible on every page, he stated, “The subject is now exhausted: the cause is decided for those who are willing to avail themselves of their reason and their lights, and people will no more read this [Bible].”[20]

From such an arrogant declaration it is clear Voltaire delusionally believed as a result of his La Bible Enfin Expliquée, he had struck a death blow to the Bible’s believability and the sun was setting on the Book’s influence and in time the Volume would become irrelevant. However, instead of the Bible becoming irrelevant and no longer believed, the Inspired Volume begins to increase in circulation… his former house, only fifty-eight years after his death, being used as a storehouse to house Bibles and Gospel tracts and printing presses he once employed to print his anti-Christian sentiments was being used to print Bibles!

Like all stories that are repeated over the years, the exact details and wording may vary, but it seems clear the key components of the story are very much true.  The story of Voltaire serves as an example and a reminder that the foolish predictions and efforts of man to extinguish the Bible will come to naught. No skeptic’s scoffing hammer has ever made a dent in the Eternal Anvil of God’s Word. To those who attempt to do so, Jesus emphatically declares, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matthew 24:35).

Amen!

Notes

[1] Norman Geisler and William Nix, Introduction to the Bible, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1968), 124.

[2] Sarah Coakley, Faith, Rationality and the Passions, (MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2012), 37.

[3] Voltaire, Trans. Joseph McCabe, Selected Works of Voltaire, “The Sermon on the Fifty,” (London: Watts & Co., 1911), 178-180.

[4] Voltaire, ed. H.I. Wolff, Philosophical Dictionary, “Arius,” (New York, 1924), 253.

[5] Quote of Voltaire from his work God and Man, chapter xliv, found in James Parton, Life of Voltaire, Vol. II, (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co, 1881), 429.

[6] Stelling-Michaud, Suzanne,  Le livre du Recteur de l’Académie de Genève (1559-1878) (Vol 6). Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1980, 72; also, Jean-Yves Carluer, “Henri Tronchin,” December 16, 2017, http://le-blog-de-jean-yves-carluer.fr/2017/12/16/henri-tronchin/ (Accessed March 12, 2019). In 1929 the Les Delices property was purchased by the city of Geneva, and now houses the Institute et Musee Voltaire, a museum founded in 1952 dedicated to the life and works of Voltaire.

[7] On Voltaire’s relations with the Tronchin family, see Deidre Dawson, Voltaire’s Correspondence: An Epistolary Novel (New York: Peter Lang, 1994), 101–126; also, George Valbert, “The Genevese Councilor François Tronchin and his relations with Voltaire”, The Revue des Deux Mondes, 1895, 205-216

[8] William Canton, A History of the British and Foreign Bible Society, 1845-1926, (London: J. Murray, 1903), 98.

[9] The Missionary Register for 1836, William Acworth, “Bible Notices in Switzerland and Italy,” (London: L&G Seeley, 1836), 352.

[10] The Gentleman s Magazine, July, August, September 1794; Samuel Bagster, The Bible of Every Land (London, 1860), 167. Curiously enough, Bibles were printed on paper, which, according to Hannah More, had been specially made for a superior edition of Voltaire’s works. The Voltaire project failed, and the paper was bought and devoted to this better purpose. Monthly Extracts, 1848, August, p. 793.

[11] Daniel Wilson, “Letters from an Absent Brother, (London, 1824), 187.

[12] Report of the British and Foreign Bible Society, Vol. 7, 1822, 1823, 1824, (London: J.S. Hughes, 1824), 17-18.

[13] Quarterly Papers of the American and Foreign Bible Society, No 11, New York, July 1837, “Bible Society at Ferney,” 21-22.

[14] Ninth Annual Report of the American and Foreign Bible Society, Presented at New York, May 15, 1846, (New York: John Gray, 1846), 48.

[15] Annual Report of the American Bible Society, 1849, Appendix, 98.

[16] Claude Francois Nonnottee, Erreurs de Voltaire, (Paris, 1823), 285-305.

[17] Eugene Noel, Voltaire, (Paris: F. Chamerot, 1855), 99.

[18] Arnold Ages, “The Technique of Biblical Criticism: An Inquiry into Voltaire’s Satirical Approach in La Bible Enfin Expliquée,A Quarterly Journal in Modern Literatures, September 6, 2013, 67-79.

[19] Voltaire, La Bible Enfin Expliquée, (Alondres), 1776, 2.

[20] Voltaire, La Bible Enfin Expliquée, (Alondres), 1776; also; James Parton, Life of Voltaire, Vol. II, (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co, 1881), 543.

 


Daniel Merritt, a native of Sanford, NC, received his Ph.D. in Ministry from Luder-Wycliffe Seminary and his Th.D. from Northwestern Seminary. He also received his M.Div. from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and studied philosophy and religion at Campbell University. Dr. Merritt has pastored six churches in North Carolina, teaches at the Seminary Extension of the Southern Baptist Convention, and is currently the Director of Missions for the Surry Baptist Association in Mount Airy, North Carolina. Dr. Merritt has written several books including A Sure Foundation: Eight Truths Affirming the Bible’s Divine InspirationWritings on the Ground: Eight Arguments for the Authenticity of John 7:53-8:11and Bitter Tongues, Buried Treasures. 

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

  • Are people leaving Christianity for a “new” truth?
  • Does science keep piercing the truth of every religion?
  • Is the Bible full of contradictions?
  • Does God send 4 billion people to hell?
  • Is it really true that no one talks about these things?

Join Frank and he responds to these issues raised by Marty Sampsons, the Hillsong worship leader who says that his faith is now on “Incredibly shaky ground.” Frank also highlights some of the comments made about this by John Cooper, of the Christian rock band Skillet. Pray for Mr. Sampson. He says that he is familiar with the work of William Lane Craig, John Lennox, Ravi Zacharias, Michael Licona and Frank Turek. We pray he will get the answers he needs.

Frank also addressed a few of the questions you’ve sent in, including:

  • Why did God wait so long to stop the child sacrifice of the Canaanites?
  • How can you follow a God who promises eternal torture? (Does He actually promise that?)
  • Why did God give Adam and Eve access to the tree in the garden?

If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!

Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google

Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

 

By Wintery Knight

How did life begin?

I had to learn about David Gelernter when I was doing my Masters in computer science. We studied his book “Mirror Worlds”. A few weeks ago, I blogged about his impressions of the difficulty in forming a simple protein by chance – something that naturalistic mechanisms would have to do in order to avoid intelligent agency as a cause in nature. He found it very unlikely. But there’s more!

Recently, my friend Terrell sent me a video featuring Peter Robinson (who hosts the splendid Uncommon Knowledge show out of Stanford University), and three interesting people. First, there was Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, who is one of my two favorite thinkers. I’ve blogged on his work about the origin of life and the Cambrian explosion here many times. Then, there was Dr. David Berlinski, a secular Jewish professor of mathematics, who has studied origins issues. And then Dr. David Gelernter, who teaches computer science at Yale University, and is a legend in computer science research.

Here’s the video: (H/T Terrell)

Here is an article by Jennifer Kabbany in The College Fix about the video.

She writes about his recent Claremont Review of Books article, as well as the interview above:

In May, the Claremont Review of Books published a column by Gelernter headlined “Giving Up Darwin.” In it, he explained how his readings and discussions of Darwinian evolution and its competing theories, namely intelligent design, have convinced him Darwin had it wrong.

In particular, he cited Stephen Meyer’s 2013 book Darwin’s Doubt as well as The Deniable Darwin by David Berlinski. The professor expanded on his views in an interview with Stanford University’s Hoover Institution that was published last week.

Gelernter stops short of fully embracing intelligent design, both in his essay and during his interview. He said in his interview he sees intelligence in Earth’s design, and has no quarrel with ID proponents, but notes the world a mess, its suffering far outweighs its goodness.

“My argument is with people who dismiss intelligent design without considering, it seems to me — it’s widely dismissed in my world of academia as some sort of theological put up job — it’s an absolutely serious scientific argument,” Gelernter said during his interview. “In fact it’s the first and most obvious and intuitive one that comes to mind. It’s got to be dealt with intellectually.”

I found this part the most interesting, since we are seeing so much intolerance from the secular left, whenever anyone disagrees with their dogma:

Gelernter said he likes many of his colleagues at Yale, that they are his friends, but when he looks at “their intellectual behavior, what they have published — and much more importantly what they tell their students — Darwinism has indeed passed beyond a scientific argument as far as they are concerned. You take your life in your hands to challenge it intellectually. They will destroy you if you challenge it.”

“Now, I haven’t been destroyed, I am not a biologist, and I don’t claim to be an authority on this topic,” Gelernter added, “but what I have seen in their behavior intellectually and at colleges across the West is nothing approaching free speech on this topic. It’s a bitter, fundamental, angry, outraged rejection [of intelligent design], which comes nowhere near scientific or intellectual discussion. I’ve seen that happen again and again.”

Gelernter acknowledges “I am attacking their religion and I don’t blame them for being all head up, it is a big issue for them.”

Dr. Gelernter cited three arguments in his article: the origin of life, and the Cambrian explosion, and genetic entropy. In the first two problems, there is a problem of huge amounts of biological information coming into being. We know that software engineers can write code like that, but there is no Darwinian mechanism for writing that much code and that short of a time period. The third problem shows that Darwinian mechanisms not only don’t produce functional code – they actually break it down.

I’ve covered both of the arguments before on this blog, but if you really want the details, you should pick up the books that convinced Dr. Gelernter: Dr. Stephen C. Meyer’s “Signature in the Cell” and “Darwin’s Doubt”. Each book tackles one of the arguments. For the third problem, a good book is Dr. Michael Behe’s “Darwin Devolves”. Even if you just read something about each book, then you’ll know about the arguments for intelligent causes being the best explanation for the history of life on this planet.

 


Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2ZF1Sll

By Terrell Clemmons

[Although this essay was written at another time, Cross Examined considers its content to be current and relevant to share]

Few years ago, Current Biology, a research journal published by Cell Press, carried an article titled, “The Negative Association between Religiousness and Children’s Altruism across the World.” The report, authored by seven psychologists from four continents, related the findings of experiments with approximately 1,200 children ages 5-12 from six nations. The study was funded by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation, Science of Philanthropy Initiative.

The article highlighted three findings: (1) that children from religious households are less altruistic than children from secular households, (2) that they are more harsh and punitive than children from secular households, and (3) that their parents don’t see them as less altruistic and more punitive but rather as kinder than other children in terms of empathy and sensitivity to injustice. “Together these results reveal the similarity across countries in how religion negatively influences children’s altruism, challenging the view that religiosity facilitates prosocial behavior,” the summary concluded. In other words, if you’ll pardon the snark, kids exposed to religion are anti-social, and their parents are clueless. Religion is a social pathogen.

As you can imagine, this was a windfall for the secular press. “Religious upbringing linked to less altruism,” announced Science Daily. “Children from nonreligious homes are more generous, altruistic than observant ones,” trumpeted Newsday. And the UK Guardian‘s header bordered on the childish: “Religious children are meaner than their secular counterparts.” Science Codex at least showed enough restraint to headline its report in the form of a question, “Does religion make kids less generous?”

Well, does it? Science said it. Does that settle it?

Of course, it doesn’t. As apologist Frank Turek says, science doesn’t say anything. Scientists do. And because scientists, science writers, and mainstream journalists are all fallible human beings, a level-headed response calls for some critical thinking every time a new finding is being heralded in the name of science.

Experts, Shmexperts

Critical thinking begins with examining exactly what is being said and by what authority. Let’s start with the question of authority. In Shmexperts: How Ideology and Power Politics Are Disguised as Science, Marc Fitch addresses what he calls “the modern myth of experts.” He begins by defining “experts” for his specific purpose. (Personally, I like “shmexperts” better, but I will go with his terminology for now.) First, an expert is not the working professional informed by relevant experience and skill—the man or woman “whose motivation in their work is to produce a result: an actual, testable piece of hardware or a theory that can be proven empirically.” A professional whose product is subject to external standards in this way is not what Fitch is talking about. Second, he’s not necessarily referring to intellectuals—those who make their living in the realm of ideas, although the lines between intellectuals and experts are apt to get blurred.

Experts, for Fitch’s treatment, are primarily defined by their transgression of the boundaries inherent to their fields of expertise. For example, a cell biologist may have a perfectly good, morally sound opinion on the social advisability of religion-based models of childrearing. Or he may be a cold-blooded moral monster. The point is, knowledge in the realm of science does not make him a credible authority in the realm of values. This should not need pointing out, but apparently, it does. Whenever anyone makes statements about non-material realms of thought, or pushes a moral argument, under the banner of science, then the science is not being used in its proper context. It is being coopted to advance an agenda.

When expert “authorities” advance an agenda this way, they are “avoiding an ethical, moral, or political argument,” Fitch points out, and are imbuing “the realm of human ideals with the faulty notion that somehow chemical, biological, or physical sciences can offer an answer to the human condition.” When scientists do this, they are not acting as scientists. They are acting as philosopher kings. The same goes for the gullible (or complicit) media granting them platforms from which to reign.

Critical Examination 101

Now let’s take a look at the Current Biology report on children, religion, and altruism. The first question that ought to come to mind is, What exactly does religion have to do with biology? What has philanthropy to do with biology? Or altruism? Or generosity? Of course, the answer is nothing. Although the study itself was done by psychologists, its publication in a biomedical journal raises a glaring red flag. Realms of thought have been mixed, boundaries blurred.

Now, let’s look at how the experts reached their findings. To assess altruism, they conducted an experiment called the Dictator Game. Children were allowed to choose ten stickers, which they were told: “are yours to keep.” They were also told that not all the children in their group would get stickers because the experimenters didn’t have time for everyone. The children were then given an opportunity to share the stickers they were given, right there on the spot. The experimenters counted the number of stickers each child shared, and that number became the measure of that child’s altruism. So, if a child opted to take his stickers home to share with his little sister or his buddy next door, he did not count as altruistic.

Here’s how they measured moral sensitivity. The children were shown short videos depicting mean actions—one child shoving another, for example. Then their reactions were somehow categorized according to how they judged the mean act they’d been shown. So if the same child exhibited judgment when he saw a boy shove a girl to the ground—if he said, Hey, that’s not fair; that boy should be punished! For example—then he counted as harsh and punitive.

Technically, that may be accurate, but ponder the perverse moral reasoning by which moral sensitivity is being assessed here. Those children exhibiting an indifference to injustice are being appraised as the “nice” ones, the pro-social ones. Meanwhile, those who censured meanness counted as, well, mean.

Should nothing be punished? We might ask. Toward whom should the child have shown sensitivity? Toward the boy doing the shoving? Or toward the girl who was shoved? Wouldn’t a fair-minded observer say the child objecting to meanness is actually more sensitive to injustice than the one who’s indifferent?

To be sure, these are judgment calls. And that is precisely the point. Judgment calls were factory-installed into this study. Either the experts knew it and have not been upfront about it, or they’re blithely clueless regarding their own massive bias.

How they defined “religiousness” is equally overripe for critical deconstruction, but you get the point.

Bad Science

If psychologists want to try to map people’s altruism or generosity or philanthropy in relation to their religiosity—however, they choose to define and quantify such non-exact entities—that’s fine. They can define their terms and presuppositions and have at it. But “The Negative Association between Religiousness and Children’s Altruism across the World” is, at best, bad psychology. And whatever it is, it certainly isn’t biology. It might better be called secular snobbery masquerading as objective science.

Cell Pressbills itself as “a leading publisher of cutting-edge biomedical research and reviews.” How such bunk qualified as biomedical research is a question every self-respecting biologist should be asking every sitting member of Current Biology‘s editorial board. All 103 of them. Anyone with a working baloney-detector can see the egregious transgression of boundaries.

In his book, Fitch touches on several agenda-driven narratives that have been or are (still) being foisted on the public by “experts”: population control; the supposed scientific basis for a host of “victimhood” narratives; the politics of health care; pot legalization; and—the granddaddy of global political agendas—environmentalism. And there are others that he doesn’t take up, but we should: psychiatry, for example, and the deluge of sex and gender “science” flooding the pipeline. To avoid subversion by shmexperts, everything must be put through a critical filter—everything.

Bad Religion

There’s a lot at stake. The ramifications of the modern cult of experts include:

A heightened generalized anxiety. How does one know whom among the “authorities” or what out of the swarming buzz of opinions to believe? The cacophony is enough to tempt anyone to tune it all out because it’s just too hard or too upsetting or too confusing. But tuning out leads to—

A softening of the mind. Widespread outsourcing of thought—and worse, of moral reasoning—renders the public increasingly subject to demagoguery, fear-mongering, and mob mentality. Groupthink sets in like dry rot and totalitarian thought control follows. This creates an environment hostile to sustaining basic political liberties. We already see a soft tyranny suffocating freedom of thought and conscience at the university.

A devaluing of the individual. When awe-inspiring reverence is conferred on those with degrees and titles over the non-academic-but-supremely-practical working Joe, a gap—real or perceived—widens between the intellectual haves and have-nots. This serves no one’s best interest. It breeds narcissism among the elite and a menacing mix of servile dependency and brooding discontent among the rest.

An outsourcing of salvation. The media cite and defer to experts who, for various reasons, sow fears and recommend government interventions. Politicians for their part are happy to promote policies they see as contributing to their immortal legacy. And they will, of course, need the experts to administer the policies, so the ruling class expands. “We rely on a small troupe of Chicken Littles,” Fitch writes, “each telling the world that the sky is falling, the earth is warming, markets are collapsing, diseases are spreading, and people are starving. They present the world of death as a great beast slouching toward your homes [and] they call upon the government to intercede and take further control to alleviate the ‘crisis.'”

It is just assumed that we unthinking, unwashed masses need the anointed elites to save our poor, helpless souls from the big bad world out there. Fitch doesn’t frame it in religious terms, but at some point, the would-be ruling class does assume the role of in loco savior and lord. Except that it can never save. It can only lord.

Sound Minds, Sound Society

Fitch offers some good suggestions for filtering shmexpert fare. Learn to separate empirical data from ethics and morality, and the hard sciences from the inexact, soft humanities. In many cases, bad science doesn’t so much need to be countered as it needs to be exposed to the light of scrutiny and deconstructed, as we have done with the Current Biology mashup on religiousness and altruism.

Most of all, learn to think in broader worldview terms. It is true that the world is not a safe place, and there is a role for government and legitimate experts to play in meeting the challenges people face. And while it is also true that we all stand in need of a savior, no government nor any shmexpert is up to that task.

 


Terrell Clemmons is a freelance writer and blogger on apologetics and matters of faith.

This article was originally published at salvomag.com: http://bit.ly/33l73Jm

Pregunta

¿Cómo puede el argumento filosófico para el argumento cosmológico kalam probar el comienzo del universo cuando todo lo que muestra es que el tiempo tiene un comienzo, pero que la materia y la energía del espacio no tienen un comienzo? ¿No significa que el universo en su totalidad tuvo un comienzo?

Y también la segunda ley de la termodinámica. La energía utilizable tiene un comienzo no significa que el universo sí.

Y si este es el caso, entonces el kalam es una vez un argumento de la ignorancia antes de que sepamos sobre el Big Bang. ¿Hay algún caso en contra de estos?

Kittinant Manasurarangkul

Respuesta

Hola, Kittinant. Veamos de forma detallada los argumentos filosóficos del kalam:

Argumento basado en la imposibilidad de un infinito actual:

  1. Un infinito actual no puede existir.
  2. Una regresión temporal infinita de eventos es un infinito actual.
  3. Por lo tanto, una regresión temporal infinita de eventos no puede existir.

Argumento basado en la imposibilidad de la formación de un infinito actual por adición sucesiva:

  1. Una colección formada por adiciones sucesivas no puede ser actualmente infinita.
  2. La serie temporal de eventos pasados ​​es una colección formada por adiciones sucesivas.
  3. Por lo tanto, la serie temporal de eventos pasados ​​no puede ser actualmente infinita.

Con respecto a tu primera pregunta, observa que las premisas (1) de los argumentos se refieren a los infinitos actuales en general, cualquier colección de cosas que cuente como un infinito actual, incluyendo la materia, así que no solo se refiere al tiempo; por supuesto, la segunda premisa se específica en la imposibilidad de una regresión temporal infinita, ya que esta es la característica principal que entra en juego para determinar si el universo tuvo un comienzo o no. Así que, aunque los argumentos traten específicamente con el tiempo o series de eventos temporales, la premisa mayor incluye cualquier tipo de objetos, por ejemplo, el Hotel Infiito de Hilbert.

¿Qué hay de la segunda ley de la termodinámica? Dices que, aunque la energía utilizable tenga un comienzo no significa que el universo sí, pero Kittinant, ¡tú necesitas de un sistema físico para que haya energía! No se puede hablar de energía sin un sistema físico. También olvidas el hecho de que el universo es toda la realidad que conocemos, así que simplemente no puedes hablar de energía y de universo como si fueran cosas separadas.

Por último, el Kalam no es un argumento desde la ignorancia, ya que él mismo ofrece razones basadas en argumentos y sus premisas son apoyadas con evidencia. No es un argumento del tipo “dado que no se puede demostrar la imposibilidad de x, entonces x es el caso”.

 


Jairo Izquierdo es parte del equipo de Social Media y autor para la organización cristiana Cross Examined.  Estudia filosofía y teología, siendo su actual foco de estudio la lógica clásica, epistemología, doctrinas cristianas y lingüística.  Es cofundador de Filósofo Cristiano. Es miembro en la Christian Apologetics Alliance y ministro de alabanza en la iglesia cristiana bautista Cristo es la Respuesta en Puebla, México.

By Erik Manning

Is the argument from miracles hopelessly fallacious? Stephen Woodford, AKA ‘Rationality Rules,’ believes so. In his popular YouTube video ‘The Argument From Miracles-Debunked’ Woodford says the argument from miracles commits four major fallacies.

In my last post, I looked at Woodford’s first two objections saw that they didn’t really hold up under scrutiny. I’d recommend giving it a read before continuing in this post. Go ahead; I’ll be right here when you get back.

Alright, now let’s turn to his final two objections and see if they do any better. Oh, and if you want to watch Rationality Rules’ video in full, here you go:

God of The Gaps? 

Here’s Stephen’s 3rd objection:

“a third fallacy that ravishes miraculous assertions – this question is, “how exactly can we distinguish a miracle from an unlikely natural occurrence that we are yet to comprehend?” It’s a very simple question, but it’s a brilliant one (if I do say so myself) – because it forces the proponent to bare their Burden of Proof rather than allowing them to shift it to you by appealing to ignorance. or they simply appeal to ignorance – then guess what – their assertion is unsubstantiated, and therefore their argument is too – meaning that it’s game over; no ifs, no buts, it’s over.”

What Stephen is saying here is the argument from miracles commits the God of the gaps fallacy. The popular atheist website Rational Wiki says the God of the gaps fallacy: “is a logical fallacy that occurs when believers invoke ‘Goddidit’ to account for some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument) explain. This concept resembles what systems theorists refer to as an “explanatory principle.” “God of the gaps” is a bad argument not only on logical grounds but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of “gaps” being filled and the remaining gaps for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting “we don’t know yet” as an alternative that works better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena always remain possible, especially in the future where research may uncover more information.”

There’s a problem with this line of argument, however. As I argued in my previous post, the resurrection of Jesus would strongly imply theism and critics would agree. This is exactly why they attack the evidence. For example, they’ll argue against the historicity of the empty tomb or claim that the disciples’ experienced hallucinations to explain the data.

Since most skeptics clearly get the implications for Jesus’ resurrection, it seems crazy for Woodford to agree with Christians that Jesus was resurrected, but then to say that someday science will have a natural explanation for such an event.

As Christian thinker Michael Jones notes, this kind of reasoning commits the “future humans of the gaps” fallacy. A future human of the gaps argument would say “I don’t know the answer to the evidence we have, but I know that intelligent people in the future will have an answer and that it will confirm my atheistic worldview.” This is just blind faith and question-begging to the extreme.

Furthermore, the argument from miracles isn’t just about plugging God into gaps in our understanding. It just depends on the evidence that we have.

For example, if I were to come home and my back door was kicked in, my house was trashed, and my TV and computer was missing, I’d call the cops. If the police came, assessed the evidence and then accused me of committing a “burglar of the gaps” argument, I wouldn’t accept that. No sane person would.

Some things are clearly caused by agents, and not impersonal, natural causes. If Jesus’ resurrection happened, that would count as one such event. This is why we have to look at the evidence we have and see what best explains the data. We can’t just shrug and say, “we don’t know, but future humans will figure out that it happened naturalistically.”

Are Miracle Stories Just Based On Personal Anecdotes and Appeals to Emotion? 

In the last part of the video, Stephen refers to fake faith healers. He claims that these miracles are just based on personal anecdotes and emotional experiences, and hence reasons that all miracle claims are like these examples.

These objections certainly could explain some so-called faith healings. That said, I’d recommend Woodford check out Dr. Craig Keener’s two-volume work on miracles and see if he still thinks all prayer-healing testimonies are fake. But let’s set that aside for now. If we don’t rule out miracles from the start, we could see if they pass some minimum, religiously-neutral criteria to see if they could be reasonably accepted:

  1. Are they reported from far, far away?
  2. Are they reported a long period of time after the alleged events?
  3. Do they fit the prejudices of those whom they are reported to?
    What happens when we look at the resurrection through this filter?

While there was a messianic expectation during Jesus’ time, no one expected the Messiah to be crucified and resurrected ahead of the general resurrection that was to occur at the end of time. Tom Wright belabors this point in great detail in his magnum opus, The Resurrection of the Son of God.

Not only that, this miracle didn’t pass without inspection. Jesus’ opponents could have produced a body, and yet we read in Matthew and in Justin Martyr that the story given to explain the empty tomb was the disciples’ stole the body. (Matthew 28:12-13, Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. 108) Moreover, the disciples preached the resurrection in the city where Jesus was killed, in front of a hostile audience, within weeks after his death.

For comparison, if you want to start a faith-healing cult, you’re not going to go to Mecca to do it. You might not make it past baggage claim. But the disciples’ risked their necks to proclaim what they believed they witnessed.

For these reasons Jeff Lowder, one of the founders of infidels.org, says: “I remember thinking to myself that if I took the time to investigate the resurrection, I could make anyone who believed it look like a fool. Or so I thought… I was about to discard it as ‘another illogical religious belief,’… yet I found it extremely difficult to deal with as a critic.”

So far from debunking the argument from miracles, I think Woodford’s charges of fallaciousness miss the mark. We can’t excuse ourselves from looking at the evidence for miracle claims; they have to be judged on a case by case basis.

 


Erik Manning is a former atheist turned Christian after an experience with the Holy Spirit. He’s a freelance baseball writer and digital marketing specialist who is passionate about the intersection of evangelism and apologetics.

Is it arrogant to say you’re right? And many other questions.

So you think you’re right and everyone else is wrong! You’re arrogant!

Is that true? Frank answers many of the questions you’ve emailed to Hello@Crossexamined.org including:

  • Is love possible if atheism is true?
  • Unless you observe it directly, do you have to have faith to believe it?
  • Why pray when these shootings keep happening?
  • How can we love America when its founders were slave owners?
  • Why do we say the God of the Bible is the ground of morality?
  • Is once saved, always saved, true? What about those who fall away?
  • Did God create us, or did we create God?
  • Is it arrogant and pompous to say you’re right and others are wrong?

If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!

Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google

Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher