2019 - Page 4 of 25 - CrossExamined

Book Review: Time for Truth: Living Free in A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

Introduction

“Time for Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin” by Os Guinness has been on my reading list for several years now. It is a relatively short book, so I popped it in my bag to read during downtime on a trip to see family. By the time I had made it through the first chapter, I wished that I had made time to read it sooner!

In today’s cultural and political climate that seems to twist and spin reality to fit certain narratives, it is vital that people be able to distinguish between truth from falsehood. The history of the East demonstrates the implications of denying truth as an accurate reflection of reality. In “Time for Truth,” sociologist Os Guinness takes the reader through the philosophies and events that led to the fall of the East and compares them to current philosophies and events in the West. He warns that if the West continues on its current trajectory, it is headed for a similar collapse.

As usual, this review will take the form of a chapter-by-chapter summary and conclude with my thoughts and recommendation.

Book Introduction: But Not Through Me

Guinness opens his book by recalling the revolutionary event of the fall of communism in eastern Europe and Russia in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The significance of this at the time was that under communist rule, propaganda was taught instead of truth so much so that the populace believed what was false to be true. But it was only when some members of the populace pointed out that what was being taught by their government were lies told in order to maintain power and control. The taste of and for truth grew and grew until finally, the purveyors of false narratives were overthrown, and the truth set these nations free from the lies and tyranny.
Ironically, at the same time, this revolution of truth took place in the East, the West was busy relativizing truth the way the communists already did in the East. Guinness sets up the rest of his book by pointing out that such a postmodern view of truth violates reality and morality (why it was overthrown in the East), and the West is on the road to accepting the same view of truth. However, if the West does not recognize the mistakes of the past (in the East), then it will suffer a similar fate. But it is not enough to merely make observations about the past; the people of the West must take action now and become “people of truth” to prevent a repeat of history.

Chapter 1: Back to The Moral Stone Age

In order to show that the West is, in fact, on this same path, Guinness takes a look at the change in students’ reactions to the morally repugnant practice described in the story “The Lottery.” The 70s, 80s, and 90s saw a dramatic shift in the schools regarding moral judgments. The 70s and 80s saw students gradually shift their focus from outrage over the most heinous human behaviors (human sacrifice, in the case of “The Lottery”) to focusing on the more trivial aspects of the same tale. Fewer moral judgment were made, and more stylistic critiques became the main focus. In the 90s, this shift seemed almost complete, to where students were allergic to giving moral judgments about another’s cultural practices, no matter how heinous the action.

Guinness observes too that ethical training in today’s higher academy has also shifted from making any moral judgments to merely providing information about cultures and how to avoid punishments if one does not agree and wishes to participate in prohibited practices. On this new view, no one is truly deviating from any objective standard; they just act differently from others. Guinness ties this to the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche. These writings take the idea that “God is dead” and vehemently attacked the very concepts of knowledge and morality- stating that nothing can be known or trusted, and nothing is as it seems. Nietzsche supports a radical skepticism and distrust about everything and everyone, and thus, a meaningless and purposeless existence is all that any individual has.

Chapter 2: We’re All Spinmeisters Now

With Nietzsche’s idea that with God’s death comes the death of all knowledge and truth about anything, people are free to tell whatever stories they wish that will accomplish their personal goals (or a “greater truth”)- whether the stories are true or not. As multiple people tell their own contradicting stories and these lies are discovered, others’ trust in these people and those who support them dwindles. This causes a vicious cycle of skepticism that self-perpetuates. The singular truth stands alone in a multitude of lies promoted by their own multitude of untrustworthy sources. In this sea of “spin,” the truth ultimately becomes unidentifiable by the individual and even outside their grasp. The individual has nothing solid to grab onto to ground themselves in reality, so they are forced to make up stories of their own and live their own lie of a life.

Guinness illustrates this in practice with the very public figures of Mark Twain and Rigoberta Menchu. The stories that were told by both (Samuel Clemens, in the case of “Mark Twain”) were false, but they each acted as if they were true, and the culture responded accordingly. Clemens’ false story had more pop-cultural effects, while Menchu’s lies had political and educational ramifications. Even after the lies were discovered, both held firm saying that these were “their truths.” Guinness makes the point that when knowledge is not attainable, lies can perpetuate like this easily in a culture, and the culture is eager to accept them even if the stories are discovered to be false. On this postmodern view of truth, everyone is free to make up their own truth from moment to moment, all depending on their feelings at the moment or whatever they feel will accomplish their goal at that moment.

Chapter 3: The West Versus Itself

Quite often, this battle for the concept of truth has been seen as an “East vs. West” battle. Where the eastern philosophies held to relative and subjective views of truth and western philosophies held to the objective view of truth. Guinness observes that Geoge Washington and the other Founding Fathers saw their newly formed country as an experiment with “ordered liberty”- freedom exercised within the confines of objective truth. But postmodern views of truth have sneaked their way into western culture, not unlike a Trojan horse. This attack has been so successful since the formation of America that even the President of the United States in the 1990s saw and exercised the liberty to attempt to adjust truth to fit his own desires.
Guinness takes the time to demonstrate how seven unique characteristics of a postmodern mind were exhibited in President Bill Clinton during his sex scandal. Because of Clinton’s public face and the respect of Americans for the office of the President of the United States, his postmodern actions shifted western thinking more permanently toward postmodern views of truth. This view of truth has become so ingrained in western thought now that the battle is now the older western though versus, the newer western thought. The west is engaged in a war against itself for itself.

Chapter 4: Differences Make A Difference

Unfortunately, many people do not see why it makes a difference in what view of truth one holds. Guinness explains that the way one views truth can have great implications. He takes the atheist survivor of Auschwitz, Primo Levi, and the theist Russian revolutionary, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, to compare and contrast the views’ implications. Levi held that no God exists to ground truth. He tasked himself with ensuring that Auschwitz was never forgotten or repeated, but the weight of such a task, without any ultimate purpose or truth to ground his claims in, ultimately led to his suicide. On the other hand, Solzhenitsyn merely publically promoted his view of truth to release Russia from the shackles of the communist regime, that made a habit of presenting falsehood to its people as truth in order to subjugate them. Solzhenitsyn had an ultimate purpose and objective truth behind his actions that made them meaningful. Levi had no purpose and only relative truth behind his actions that made them meaningless.

These differences are not trivial; rather, they are impactful. Guinness offers that the West has become so hypnotized by the supposed “freedom” that having no objective truth brings, that it has not been able to experience true freedom. True freedom requires identity and limits. But if there is neither (what relative views of truth assert), then the individual must endlessly wrestle with their identity and what limits exist before they can even begin to experience true freedom. Because there is no objective truth about identity or limits, there is no end to their wrestling; thus they never will experience true freedom, and their pursuit becomes a prison. It is only when one recognizes that objective truth exists and the Foundation of Truth (God) that objective identity and objective limits can be discovered and freedom is even possible to experience.

Chapter 5: Turning The Tables

So far, Guinness has argued against relativistic views of truth by demonstrating the implications of such a view. But that is not always the most effective way to argue. It tends to be more effective if one argues on the skeptic’s own grounds. Guinness proposes two strategies for argumentation: one negative and one positive. The negative approach takes the relativist’s own relativism and follows it to its logical implications until it violates something of great value to the relativist. This usually doesn’t take long since the relativist values their own objectivity. While they desire that everyone else be a relativist, they do not apply such a requirement and fate to themselves. Seeing that their own views may be thought but not lived may be enough to jerk their thinking about truth back to reality.

Guinness argues that it is often not until a person is brought face-to-face with the dire implications and emptiness of their view of truth that they are willing to entertain an alternative. Ironically, when an individual or even a nation is at its philosophical and ethical breaking point, is when the opportunity to argue for the alternative is most effective. This opens the door to the positive approach. It also appeals to what the relativist values. With the inability for relativism to produce what the relativist values now in place, the positive approach shows how the objective view of truth genuinely provides what the relativist values. Guinness encourages the reader to consider that while it may seem that darkness has overtaken the individual relativist or a relativistic culture, that darkness may actually be an indicator that a new day is coming.

Chapter 6: On Record Against Ourselves

In Guinness’ final chapter, he encourages the reader to be a seeker of truth. As one is seeking objective truth, though, it is important to realize that there are subjective perspectives that do cause people to come to different conclusions about reality. While this is no excuse for seeing things inaccurately, it is an explanation for such and a beginning point to recognize in our own search for truth to guard against. One more thing can keep people from seeing reality as it is.
The biblical worldview holds that by nature, we are not just truth-seekers; we are truth-twisters. It is a sin in our lives that pushes us towards false narratives and rationalizations. Interestingly enough, it is the dual nature of man that explains both the successes and failures of modern and post-modern views of truth. Guinness explains that is it only the biblical worldview that can provide a foundation for not just the pursuit of truth but also how and why such a pursuit can go wrong. He encourages the reader to accept, because of its explanatory power, the biblical worldview of our sinfulness and our need for the Savior, Jesus Christ. Christ is the truth; thus it is in accepting Him that will allow us to truly be “people of truth,” and it is only as true “people of truth” that we can experience real freedom.

Reviewer’s Thoughts

“Time for Truth” was a fascinating read. I have to admit that I had picked up the book a couple of times in the past and (re)started before I was able to make it through this time. The introduction was a little slow, but once I passed that, it picked right up, and I was hooked! I really enjoyed how Guinness took the reader through several events in recent history that have led to the crisis of truth in American culture. I found myself stopping many times to reflect on events in my own lifetime that Guinness described and older events’ effects on what I experience today. The way that Guinness connects modern events with the crisis of truth that he speaks against is what will draw the reader in. This is not merely a theoretical treatise on truth; it is an analysis of events in our lifetimes and a warning of what will come if the West follows in the footsteps of the East regarding the ideas of truth.

Post-modernism has saturated our culture, and its effects are being played out before our eyes and in ways that are so subtle that we may not even recognize it. For anyone who is concerned about modern western culture’s treatment of truth, this book is highly recommended. For anyone who is fed up with the claims of “fake news,” this book is highly recommended. For anyone who is tired of seeing politicians change the truth for their own agendas, this book is highly recommended. For anyone who is concerned with history, this book is highly recommended. For anyone who is concerned with their children’s future, this book is highly recommended. Needless to say, this book is highly recommended for all serious readers and those who are fascinated by politics and modern culture. It will enhance your perspective on what is taking place today and give you not only an explanation for what is taking place but also provide a solution. Go get this book!

¿Por qué no soy Fideísta? Parte I

Español

Por Xavier González

No les ha pasado que cuando están debatiendo con un ateo e intentas dar sus mejores argumentos, un hermano en Cristo o un desconocido que se meten en la discusión y comienza a dar sus argumentos. Pero cuando te das cuenta es pura tontería lo que proponen, dicen cosas como “La filosofía va en contra de las escrituras” o “Jesús no vino a discutir”.

Bueno, me ha pasado y debo de decir que a veces me provoca darles un cabezazo para que no vuelvan a argumentar tantas tonterías…

En éste escrito vamos a tratar un tema que tal vez muchos cristianos desconozcan o alguna vez han oído, pero no han profundizado en él. Este artículo fue escrito con la intensión de corregir a ciertos hermanos en la fe que, por alguna razón en sus falsas o descuidadas congregaciones, se les ha enseñado que la Fe y la Razón no se juntan o que “no son compatibles”, en pocas palabras, Fideísmo.

Irónicamente, esto también lo “predican” la gran mayoría de ateos (Principalmente los Nuevos Ateos), pero vamos a demostrar que esto es falso y que realmente tanto en la historia de la iglesia como en la misma biblia nos dan razones suficientes para concluir que la Razón y la Fe son compatibles.

Definición

Antes de profundizar en el tema, creo que es importante dar una definición apropiada a lo que el Fideísmo es realmente:

«Sistema de pensamiento y de interpretación de los valores y hechos religiosos mediante el cual se da la primacía absoluta la fe con menosprecio de los otros rasgos que apoyan las creencias, la razón, la tradición, la autoridad.

En general el fideísmo roza el misticismo exagerado de quien, con motivos y actitudes afectivas más que racionales, deposita una confianza ciega en lo que se cree ser revelación divina. Sin embargo, sabemos que Dios ha hecho al hombre libre para creer y desea que también reflexione sobre su fe».

«Error que dice que la fe es la única fuente del conocimiento de Dios; la razón no lo puede conocer».
«El fideísmo es cualquiera de los varios sistemas de creencias que sostienen, sobre variados argumentos, que la razón es irrelevante a la fe religiosa. De acuerdo a algunas versiones de fideísmo, la razón es la antítesis de la fe».

De hecho, Alvin Plantinga define el fideísmo como “la exclusiva o básica dependencia sobre la fe sola, acompañada por un consecuente menosprecio de la razón y utilizada especialmente en la persecución de una verdad filosófica y religiosa”.

Con estas definiciones, se nos da a entender que simplemente la Fe de cualquier creencia (sobre toda la cristiana) es ciega e irracional. Pero antes de desmontar eso, vayamos por unos breves antecedentes históricos.

Historia del Fideísmo

Para eso, debemos viajar a la historia de la teología católica, el fideísmo como un movimiento de pensamiento se desarrolló en Francia a mediados del siglo XIX:

Este movimiento nació para ser antítesis hacia racionalismo y el liberalismo del siglo pasado y sus principales representantes suelen enlistarse a el abate Bautain (1867), A. Grahy (1872). A. Bonnettv (1879), fundador de los Annales de pílilosophie chrétienne, Bonald (1840) como Lamennais (1854).

La principal característica del movimiento fue una crítica cerrada contra la razón humana convertida por los enciclopedistas en el criterio único de verdad, en favor de una exaltación exagerada de la fe, fundamento de sí misma y capaz de reconocer la verdad de la revelación sin ninguna necesidad de signos exteriores o de motivos de credibilidad.

Aunque las desviaciones del fideísmo fueron condenadas varias veces por el Magisterio, sobre todo con Gregorio XVI (DS 2751-2756), con pío IX en la encíclica Qui pluribus de 1846 (DS 2778-2780) y finalmente por el concilio Vaticano I, -donde se reconoció expresamente la posibilidad de conocer a Dios “con la luz natural de la razón humanan (DS 3004; DS 3008-3009), todavía hoy siguen estando presentes ciertas formas larvadas de esta actitud en muchos católicos (como protestantes), que no conceden ninguna importancia a los problemas de credibilidad de la revelación.[1]

Por otro lado:

…estas fórmulas sistemáticas de fideísmo, nos encontramos a través de toda la historia de la filosofía desde la época de los sofistas hasta la actualidad una actitud fideísta de la mente, que se volvió más o menos conspicua en diferentes períodos. El fideísmo debe su origen a la desconfianza en la razón humana, y la secuencia lógica de esta actitud es el escepticismo. Es para escapar de esta conclusión que algunos filósofos, aceptando como principio la impotencia de la razón, han hecho hincapié en la necesidad de la creencia por parte de la naturaleza humana, ya sea afirmando la primacía de la fe sobre la razón o, de otro modo, afirmando una separación radical entre la razón y la creencia, es decir, entre la ciencia y la filosofía por un lado y la religión por el otro.

Tal es la posición adoptada por Kant, cuando distingue entre la razón pura, confinada a la subjetividad, y la razón práctica, que sola es capaz de ponernos por un acto de fe en relación con la realidad objetiva. También es una actitud fideísta que es la ocasión del agnosticismo, positivismo, pragmatismo y otras formas modernas de anti-intelectualismo

No es de sorprender, por lo tanto, que la Iglesia haya condenado tales doctrinas. En 1348, la Santa Sede proscribió ciertas proposiciones fideístas de Nicholas d´Autrecourt (cf. Denzinger, Enchiridion, 10ma. ed., núms. 553-570). En sus dos encíclicas, una en septiembre de 1832 y la otra en julio de 1834, el Papa Gregorio XVI condenó las ideas políticas y filosóficas de Lamenais. El 8 de septiembre de 1840 se le requirió a Bautain que suscribiera varias proposiciones directamente opuestas al fideísmo, la primera y la quinta de las cuales leen como sigue:

“”La razón humana es capaz de probar con certeza la existencia de Dios; la fe, un don celestial, es posterior a la revelación, y por lo tanto no se puede utilizar adecuadamente contra el ateo para probar la existencia de Dios “; y “El uso de la razón precede a la fe y, con la ayuda de la revelación y de la gracia, conduce a ella.” Y, finalmente, el Concilio Vaticano I enseña como un dogma de la fe católica que “un verdadero Dios y Señor puede ser conocido con certeza por la luz natural de la razón humana por medio de las cosas creadas”.[2]

Es bastante evidente que el despreciar las enseñanzas de los sabios, los descubrimientos científicos del pasado, y la voz de común acuerdo sería condenarnos a una infancia perpetua en el conocimiento, hacer imposible cualquier avance en la ciencia, ignorar el carácter social del hombre y hacer la vida humana intolerable: pero, por otro lado, es un error hacer de estos elementos el criterio supremo de la verdad, ya que son sólo reglas particulares de certeza, cuya validez está cimentada sobre una norma más fundamental. En efecto, es cierto que la certeza moral difiere de la matemática, pero la diferencia no reside en la firmeza o la validez de la certeza que ofrece, sino en el proceso utilizado y las disposiciones requeridas por la naturaleza de las verdades con las que tratan respectivamente.[3]

Promotores del Fideísmo

En la actualidad todavía hay ciertos cristianos siguen con este pensamiento irracional y que para nada concuerda ni con la historia de la iglesia primitiva ni con la misma biblia, de hecho, vamos a citar a ciertas personas que promulgan esto, no obstante, hasta un reformador se une a esta penosa lista:

«Si quieres moverte en lo sobrenatural tienes que dejar a un lado la razón»

—Guillermo Maldonado.

«No te pierdas en medio de tanto conocimiento de la Palabra. ¡Cree! Eso es lo importante.»

—Cash Luna.

«No Seas un Cristiano Razonable»

—Otoniel Font.

«Los hechos pueden decirte una cosa. Pero, Dios no está limitado por los hechos. Elige la fe a pesar de los hechos.»

—Joel Osteen.

Decepcionante… ¿Verdad? Y como pueden ver, en general son los predicadores de un evangelio a lo “pare de sufrir” o el evangelio de la prosperidad los que predican estas ideas.

Ahora bien, esta pequeña lista no trata de ser exhaustiva y tampoco trata de exponer un remanente del anti-intelectualismo en el protestantismo. Pues el catolicismo, por lo menos en el área popular también existe este tipo de ideas, así que, si es de una denominación u otra, es irrelevante, lo que nos importa discutir es el problema del fideísmo.

Por otro lado, los promotores y defensores del Ateísmo y principalmente del Nuevo Ateísmo, aplaudirían y se levantarían de sus sillas de lo más felices por escuchar estas palabras, de hecho, hasta comparten dichos pensamientos, aquí algunas citas:

«La fe es la gran excusa, la gran excusa para evadir la necesidad de pensar y evaluar las pruebas. La fe es creencia a pesar, incluso tal vez por la falta de evidencia».[4]

—Richard Dawkins.

«La fe es la rendición de la mente; es la rendición de la razón, es la rendición de lo único que nos diferencia de otros mamíferos».[5]

—Christopher Hitchens.

«La fe generalmente no es más que el permiso que las personas religiosas se dan mutuamente para creer las cosas fuertemente sin evidencia».[6]

—Sam Harris.

Debo de decir que, si un cristiano que va en esta línea de pensamiento (aunque lo desconozca y lo haga inconscientemente) se le pone en duda su creencia o doctrina, muy posiblemente pasen 4 cosas:

Ignorará las objeciones en contra de su fe o doctrina.
Insultara a su replicante.
Dara una excusa para no replicar con versículos de la biblia y con mucha seguridad, serán citas sacadas de contexto.

O en el peor de los casos…

Se alejará de su fe o doctrina.

De hecho, este tipo de cristianos se basan más en sus experiencias emocionales que en la misma biblia y debo de mencionar que esto es lo que asombra más de ellos, por varios motivos. La primera razón obviamente, es que a medida que estas personas crecen en su fe, prefieren vivir en un éxtasis que conocer y asegurar que la biblia es verdadera como también si su Fe es verdadera.

La segunda razón es que este tipo de cristianos, le tienen miedo al conocimiento de la palabra de Dios (Su estudio formal y sistematizado).

Y la tercera razón, más extraño aun, es un delirio que no quieran profundizar y conocer su fe, porque piensen que la “letra mata”. De las tres razones presentadas, creo que esta es la más disparatada.

Próxima parte, la historia que hay de cristianos con una fe razonable.

Referencias:

[1] R. Latourelle, Fideísmo y tradicionalismo, en DTF, 483-486: R. Aubert, El acto de fe, Barcelona 1965:

https://mercaba.org/VocTEO/F/fideismo.htm

[2] PERRONE, Praelectiones theologicae, vol. I: De ver Religione; OLLE-LAPRUNE, De la Certitude Morale (5ta ed., Paris, 1905); MERCIER, Critériologie générale (4ta. ed., Lovaina, 1900), III, ch. I; JOHN RICKABY, The First Principles of Knowledge (4ta. ed., Londres, 1901), chs. XII, XIII.

Párrafo 4 al 8.

[3] Ibíd, párrafo 9.

[4] Discurso del Festival Internacional de Ciencia de Edimburgo (1992)

[5] Penn y Teller: ¡Mierda! (Temporada 3, Episodio 5: “Holier Than Thou”)

[6] Carta a una nación cristiana (Vintage Books, 2008), 110.

Xavier González es de Venezuela, se dedica al estudio de la filosofía, cristianismo primitivo y teología. Se convirtió al cristianismo a los 15 años. Administró la página de Me Lo Contó Un Ateo y es el encargado de la sección de apologética de la página de la Iglesia cristiana la gracia (http://www.iglesialagracia.org).

November 11, 2019/by Guest

You Might Be a Deist

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

Atlanta native Jeff Foxworthy made a name for himself as a stand-up comedian doing a routine called “You might be a redneck.” Some of these classic one-liners include, “If you have a set of salad bowls and they all say Cool Whip on the side, you might be a redneck … If you have ever been accused of lying through your tooth, you might be a redneck … If you ever use your ironing board as a buffet table, you might be a redneck.” Foxworthy is a masterful comedian.

A theological system known as deism is no laughing matter. Deists hold that God is transcendent but is impersonal and has no dealings with the world. Therefore, deists deny such things as special revelation (that God can communicate with human beings) and miracles. Problematically, it seems as if many professing Christian theists are practicing deists. The following are three ways in which modern Christianity seems to be drifting towards a form of deism.

You might be a deist if you reject divine communication. Undoubtedly, many people abuse and misuse the phrase, “The Lord told me.” Some have claimed that the Lord told them that they needed to raise so many millions of dollars for a new jet or for a new building. While many of those claims are greatly suspect, the reaction to the extreme charismatic movement tends to move too far in the other direction. For instance, John MacArthur notes that “The truth is, there is no fresher or more intimate revelation than Scripture. God does not need to give private revelation to help us in our walk with Him” (quoted in Buettel, “The Lord Told Me,” GTY.org, https://www.gty.org/library/blog/B160122/the-lord-told-me). The problem with MacArthur’s response is that he is gravitating towards an implicit deism. John Morrison warns that modern theology has greatly been influenced by a cosmological dualism which tends to shut God out of the world from all “spatio-historical action and objective self-declaration” (Morrison, Has God Said, 2). Is it not then possible, at least, that God could communicate with individuals on a personal level? I think so. Furthermore, I think God communicates with us often, although not in an audible voice necessarily. Yet, I would caution that we do need to check everything by Scripture as God does not lie and, thereby, would not contradict what he has said in his word (Titus 1:2).
You might be a deist if you reject divine miracles. While it would be difficult to imagine that any Christian would dismiss God’s ability to perform miracles, the anticipation that God could work a miracle has seemingly declined in a modern rationalistic belief-system. This, too, comes from a philosophical ideology that holds that God cannot interact with space and time. However, is God not the one who created and developed the laws of nature that govern the universal system? If God is the one who created all things, including the laws that bind things together, then one could certainly hold that God continues to perform miracles as God sees fit. The rejection of God’s ability to perform miracles in the current age shows a bent towards deism rather than classical Christian theism.
You might be a deist if you reject divine relationships. Finally, it seems that some writers and scholars (and I use general language intentionally) have popularized a notion that divine relationships are not biblical. That is, a person should simply accept a theological truth and not pursue an intimate relationship with a holy God. However, that again leans towards a deistic understanding of God. Jesus says, “On that day you will know that I am in my Father, you are in me, and I am in you” (John 14:20, CSB) before saying, “Remain in me, and I in you” (John 15:4, CSB). Paul writes, “The Spirit himself testifies together with our spirit that we are God’s children, and if children, also heirs—heirs of God and coheirs with Christ—if we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him” (Rom. 8:16–17, CSB). A covenantal relationship with God is deeply personal. Thus, we should not think that our journey is one that is walked alone. Rather, the believer has the promise that God will be with them until the very end (Matt. 28:20).

This article is not to badmouth any theologian or writer. Certainly, the individuals who wrote against certain practices did so with a concern that certain people were abusing the name of God. Nothing could be worse than that. Yet, the history of humanity reveals that individuals typically have the uncanny ability to take issues to its extreme end. My concern is that by guarding individuals from New Age philosophies and radical forms of Christianity—some which have become quite cult-like—many are leading individuals into a form of deistic theology. Throughout the pages of Scripture, individuals have encountered God personally and radically. Their walk with God was quite personal and relational. While God is mighty and awesome, he is also tender, compassionate, and near to all of us. May we never forget that.

The Devil’s Delusion with Dr. David Berlinski

Podcast

Podcast: Play in new window

Frank interviews one of his favorite authors, the provocative and articulate Dr. David Berlinski. Dr. David Berlinski is an author, thinker, professor, and self-described secular Jew, who with wit and elegance dismantles the assumptions and assertions of Darwinists and other atheistic materialists in his interviews and his books. Berlinski has his Ph.D. from Princeton University, has taught at Stanford and Rutgers, and is a fellow at the Discovery Institute (along with frequent guest Dr. Stephen Meyer). He lives in Paris but did this interview from Los Angeles where he was for an interview with Ben Shapiro. Join Frank for a far-reaching discussion with Dr. Berlinski who is incapable of being boring.

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

November 9, 2019/by Guest

How to Work through Doubt and Uncertainty

Philosophy of Science, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Matthew Slama

In the guide to Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement from JCGM, it defines uncertainty as meaning doubt. It specifically defines uncertainty of measurement as meaning doubt about the validity of the result of a measurement.

I recently presented at a technical conference on methods of computing measurement uncertainty and was thinking about the applicability of these concepts to other areas of knowledge. We don’t see doubt and uncertainty in science the same as we do in religion. In religion, it is often viewed as a bad thing. But in science, it is often viewed as a good thing. The reason for this is in scientific endeavors; you are trying to achieve an end result – knowledge. In the scientific community, when one realizes that there is uncertainty, that is not the end. You do not just drop everything and realize you can’t go anywhere. That would be antithetical to the human tour de force or spirit. No, when we arrive at some level of doubt or uncertainty, we create a new test, we develop new methods, we try harder, we think smarter. We realize that we want to know something and use our innovative and inventive mind to reach that goal. When we have spent that effort, we end up with more confidence and more certainty in our end goal – knowledge.

But in the religious community for some reason, we think that if we have doubt it is something unpardonable and we must stop doubting. So instead of taking some guidance from the thinking faculties that God gave us (reason), we take our guidance from the pre-enlightenment era. This is a cultural affliction in many believing groups and has caused many to fall away. I have seen it first-hand.

Why has religion not followed up with science in terms of how we behave and respond to uncertainty or doubt?
Why is it that we don’t see uncertainty or doubt in religion as a stepping stone to the next breakthrough in our lives?
Why do we not plunge forward with the resolve that investigating uncertainty and doubt will result in something better, something stronger, or something greater?

I think that this is from the sinful nature of man – slothfulness and fear.

I should note that the scientific community is far from perfect… I have seen this slothfulness and fear time and time again in the scientific community. I’ve seen organizations run tests with no uncertainty analysis and make decisions off faulty data. They didn’t address the doubt or rather uncertainty that they had their measurement. I’ve seen this go sour many times and cost corporations millions of dollars. It’s because people didn’t do the due diligence of finding out what their uncertainties really are. I get it. I really do. It’s difficult to be prudent. It takes a lot of effort to survey the weak points in our systems. Sometimes it takes great humility. It’s hard to put together one’s uncertainties and find out what and where you need to improve

However, I see clients that do the hard work of finding out where there are uncertainties are then address these areas of uncertainty. These corrective actions result in measurement and knowledge that has lower uncertainty and results in moving forward in confidence that they’re making the right decision for their product development. I think it’s time we do the same in the Christian church community.

To do this, we need communities that are able to open up and share the struggles that they’re going through in their relationship with God. It takes asking the hard personal questions.

Do I know the core concepts of Christianity? Write down a core Christian concept without consulting a guide. How did you do?
Can I defend my faith? Look up a common Atheist, Muslim, or Jewish attack on Christianity and answer it without consulting a guide. Afterward find a theological solution and learn it
Why do I think that Christ is God? Describe a historical fact that gives credence to the authenticity of Christ as God without consulting a guide
Are there emotional issues I have that prevent me from Evangelizing? Go and share Christ with someone. If you are too afraid, find out why. Ask why am I scared? Create one action step to work on that “why” and do it.
What emotional issues am I bringing into my faith? Take the survey howwelove.com to find any childhood links that shape how we love and receive love. Anxiety can also drive mad amounts of doubt. This and other mental illnesses can shape very impoverished views of God.
What distortions of Christianity do I believe? Think of our cultural Christianity that did not exist in 1st or 2nd century Christianity. Think of how our country’s wealth shapes our thinking. Are you in the 1% of the world? ~43% of Americans are ( data from ASEC data 2017-2018)
What habitual sins do I need to talk with someone about? Find a close friend, pastor, or counselor to confess and work through sins and emotional baggage.

That only happens in small groups and communities that are showing the love of God because it takes a lot of patience and love to work through other people’s issues (and our own). We need to work on these things if we want to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.”

Yes, it is difficult, but it’s totally worth it.

This week, ask yourself one of the questions above and ask a friend a question. You might be surprised.

Racism, Racial Reconciliation & The Gospel

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Carter Keller

In recent years, America has once again become susceptible to racial prejudice on a cultural scale. It is difficult, however, to determine how widespread racism is in the nation. Especially since those currently in the spotlight, politicians, media, cultural influencers, etc., are constantly making charges of racism at every turn. However, it is undeniable for all of us that, at least, racial suspicion has come back with a vengeance. Often we ask the questions of “How?” and “Why?” and go down rabbit trails of factors such as poverty, institutional racism, white privilege, etc. I am not interested in getting lost in the weeds. I am interested in the core issue, how to fix the core issue, and then moving on to fry bigger fish. I ask you to join me, and our first step, naturally, is to define racism. Once we have done so, we can then discuss the core issue which drives racism and how to solve it.

Racism is the idea where one person or people group is superior to another person or people group based solely on the fact they are a member of this particular group. When we “dig a little deeper,” (to borrow a phrase from Mama Odie), we learn racism is another spawn of a deeper problem: hatred. Hatred takes many forms, and racism is just another rotten incarnation. And yet, this is still not enough. Where does hatred come from? Why does hatred exist in any form?

Without going too far into another topic for another paper, it is undeniably clear God exists. No man can escape him. C.S Lewis presented one of the greatest arguments against atheism in human history when he wrote in The Case for Christianity;

“‎Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course, I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.” (C.S Lewis; The Case for Christianity p. 32)

We are able to learn who this God is through the Bible. Among an infinite number of things, He is the Source of Life, Love, Truth, Good, and Peace. If one were to reject God, they reject everything about Him, including Life, Love, Truth, Good, and Peace. When one rejects Life, Love, Truth, Goodness, and Peace, the resulting world will be marked with Death, Hatred, Lies, Evil, and Chaos. Thousands of years ago, we rejected God in the Garden of Eden. Hatred came with sin, and sin separates us from God. When I drop a ball from the top of a building, it is only a natural consequence the ball will fall to the ground due to gravity. Just as falling is the natural consequence of gravity, death and hatred are the natural consequence of sin, as Scripture clearly states, “The wages of sin is death.” (Romans 6:23)

However, God did not want us to be slaves to such a fate! It is possible to be reconciled with God, as 2 Corinthians 5:20-21 states: “Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ since God is making his appeal through us. We plead on Christ’s behalf: “Be reconciled to God.” He made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us so that in him, we might become the righteousness of God.” God made a way through His Son, Jesus, as Scripture declares over and over again:

“For God loved the world in this way: He gave his one and only Son so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16)
“A thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I have come so that they may have life and have it in abundance.” (John 10:10)
“Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me, even if he dies, will live.” (John 11:25)
“If you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:9).

God wants us to be reconciled to Him in a perfect relationship with Him. God wants humanity to be saved from our fate of death and separation so we can live forever and abundantly with God. It is through faith in Jesus’ death on the cross and resurrection from the dead alone we can be saved. There is no other name under Heaven by which we may be saved, as God has also stated in His Scripture (Acts 4:12).

The Gospel, or Good News, is the truth which tells us we may be reconciled with God the way the Prodigal Son was reconciled with his father in the book of Luke, (Luke 15:11-32). So how, now, shall we live? Once we are reconciled with God, immediately, God indwells us as “temples” walking around the earth (1 Corinthians 6:19). Once we are reconciled with God, we are reconnected to God, and therefore we begin to live as such. Since God is the source of Life, Love, Truth, Good and Peace, in communion with Him, we begin to live our lives spreading Life, Love, Truth, Goodness, and Peace. Since God is love, we as believers and reconciled children who are saved by grace through faith must love our brothers and sisters, neighbors, and even enemies (1 John 4:7-21; Ephesians 2:8-9; Matthew 5:43-47). There is no room for hatred at the feet of Jesus, nor is there room for division at the foot of the Cross, for all of us equally have sinned against God (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:9-11; Romans 3:23).

When we are reconciled with God, we are reconciled with each other. This reconciliation is expressed in its fullness through our actions in fulfillment of Jesus’ words, “Love one another as I have loved you.” (John 13:34-35). And how did Jesus love us? By laying down His life for us. Sacrificing His life as a ransom for our souls in order that we may have His righteousness and perfection placed on us to fulfill His desire where we “may be perfect as [our] heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48). There is no special love or any rituals we must perform to be reconciled to one particular group of people. The mission of the Church is to spread the Gospel concerning reconciliation with God (2 Corinthians 5:20-21). When we are reconciled to God, we are able to be reconciled to each other.

Racial reconciliation should not be a special category of reconciliation. Racism and all other forms of hatred are utterly defeated and crushed when we just love each other without any goals, agendas, and without making a point about the skin color of the people in the room. Believe it or not, if we are reaching out to a specific people group because they are a specific people group, (for example, if we engage with a community outreach program just to reach a neighborhood because it is predominantly African-American), this is simply compounding and multiplying the problem. You are still focused on the color of their skin and not on the state of their souls. You are still focused on achieving diversity when, by default, humanity is already diverse because no two people are alike. You are still focused on racial division, and by acknowledging there is something different about them, you are simply exacerbating the issue. Children only learn racism from those who teach about it, and only act as if there is division if others tell them division exists. We do not make “black” friends, or “white” friends, or “red” friends. We just make friends. If we say “blackness” or “whiteness” is a “part of who I am,” then we have misunderstood what God says when He calls us to abide in Him and find our identity in Him and nothing else (John 15:4-5; Exodus 20:3).

Christ did not call us to reconcile the races. He called the one race named Mankind to be reconciled to God, and then be reconciled to each other. If we simply live out the Gospel in our lives, racism will die, hatred will retreat, and Love will win the day. The Gospel of Jesus Christ and the child-like innocence which follows (as Jesus used when talking of how to enter the Kingdom of God) are the only real and lasting cures for racism and its root causes. The Church needs to stop focusing on race. Our primary job is not social justice reform on this side of Heaven, nor is it our job to pursue diversity as a goal to be achieved. Our job is to spread the Gospel to the corners of the Earth and pray the Holy Spirit would move in the hearts of the lost so they would repent and be reconciled to God through Christ. Our only desire should be to see as many people as possible be saved by the blood of Jesus, the Messiah, King of kings, Lord of lords, Prince of peace, the great I AM and Creator, and Sustainer of all things. All other messages, mantras, and ideals fall to the wayside, and they pale in comparison to the glory and freedom of Jesus of Nazareth, risen from the dead, and ascended at the right hand of God. Our priority is the Gospel, and we have no other. We must abandon racial reconciliation as the goal. We must recognize diversity already exists, and abandon the pursuit of what we already have attained. We must embrace our only true mission, the only reconciliation which truly matters in all of human history: the lost sheep with the Shepard, the lost souls to the Creator, and the sinners to the Savior.

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

“Character, not circumstances, makes the man.”

Booker T. Washington

“I know that my Redeemer lives. Thank God I love humanity; complexion doesn’t interest me one single bit.”

George Washington Carver

Scripture references are from the following sources:

2 Corinthians 5:20-21 – English Standard Version (ESV) The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. ESV® Text Edition: 2016. Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.

John 3:16 – Christian Standard Bible (CSB) The Christian Standard Bible. Copyright © 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Christian Standard Bible® and CSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers, all rights reserved.

John 10:10 -Christian Standard Bible (CSB) The Christian Standard Bible. Copyright © 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Christian Standard Bible® and CSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers, all rights reserved.

John 11:35 – Christian Standard Bible (CSB) The Christian Standard Bible. Copyright © 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Christian Standard Bible® and CSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers, all rights reserved.

Romans 10:9 – Christian Standard Bible (CSB) The Christian Standard Bible. Copyright © 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Christian Standard Bible® and CSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers, all rights reserved.

1 John 4:7-21 – Christian Standard Bible (CSB) The Christian Standard Bible. Copyright © 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Christian Standard Bible® and CSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers, all rights reserved.

Romans 3:23 – New International Version (NIV)

Lewis, C.S. The Case for Christianity. Macmillan Company, 1942.

King, Jr., Dr. Martin Luther. Strength to Love. 1963.

Washington, Booker T., “Democracy and Education.” Institute of Arts and Sciences, 3o

September 1896, Brooklyn, NY. Address

The Washington Standard. “George Washington Carver: ‘Thank God I Love Humanity;

Complexion Doesn’t Interest Me One Single Bit.”.” The Washington Standard, 14

July 2016, thewashingtonstandard.com/george-washington-carver-thank-god-love-humanity-complexion-doesnt-interest-one-single-bit/

Molinismo, identidad y mundos posibles

Español

By Randy Everist

Is Molinism really compatible with the idea of people in other possible worlds? Can it really be possible that there is a counterfactual truth about me such as “If I had been born in the 18th century, would I have sided with the American colonists against the British”?

So, here, a lot depends on one’s theory of personal identity, as to what counts in discerning modal truths. I personally hold at least a basic account of Plantinga’s theory of creaturely essences, where there is an abstraction that is “made up of” all and only essential properties, including properties indexed to a world [1] (of course, this is an abstract account; my concrete theory of personal identity is that we are immaterial souls). So, Socrates in our world is the concrete instantiation of the abstraction that had this “maximal property”—call it “Socraiety”—and he had these properties de dicto (“about what is said”) because of the abstraction, but de re (“about the thing”) because of his own decisions. This includes counterfactuals .

Now consider that there is a truth to the matter of the following counterfactual (at least if it is not counterpossible):

(S) If Socrates had been born in 20th century Athens, then he would not have been killed.

Now, what if someone argues for a kind of origin essentialism, which is the doctrine that teaches that one’s origin cannot be significantly different from what it was in order to preserve personal identity (I use “preserve” in a colloquial sense, since no thing loses its identity in favor of something else)? Is S still possibly true? Origin essentialist explanations always or almost always depend on the idea of physical transmission of genetic material, and so depend on one’s parents being the same. If this is true, the claim can go, then such a counterfactual about Socrates is a counterpossible, and has nontrivial truth value. While I’m not sure about origin essentialism, I think we can admit it and still achieve the original desired result. After all, God presumably could have made it the case that Socrates’ parents were a special creation, made up of the appropriately relevant genetic material and information—or whatever Socrates himself was.

But if this is so, then it follows that all sorts of counterfactuals about Socrates are true, both in our world and in many other worlds. But then it follows that there are many indexical properties of the world that correspond to these true counterfactuals, and these indexical properties of the world together help (with all the other essential properties of Socrates) to constitute Socraness. So then it follows that if such counterfactuals were descriptive of actual situations (or states of affairs), then Socrates would be who he is.

I also think that we should be interpreted as saying something like, “It is possible that the set of true counterfactuals could have turned out such that _______________ (fill in the counterfactual under consideration).” It may or may not be part of the set of true counterfactuals; we have no way of knowing. However, most people take the real modal logical possibility to mean cases where the concept or situation (or state of affairs) under consideration is articulated without self-contradiction or violation of a necessary truth to rule it out. There doesn’t seem to be anything about the example provided that is self-contradictory, and I think the above suggests that we don’t have a sufficient necessary truth to rule it out. So while, for all we know, S is a false counterfactual, the set of true counterfactuals could have turned out to be different than it did, and in those related worlds (presumably not like Lewis’s nearby worlds, at least not close enough)—worlds where a different set of counterfactuals is true—such a counterfactual as S can be true. This also suggests that it is at least possible, for all we know, for one to exist in worlds sufficiently removed from the true set of counterfactuals (not exactly hard); this sense of existence is in an abstract, not a concrete, sense.

Plantinga does believe that we are immaterial souls; this is the concrete particular of abstraction that is creaturely essence. I dare call them universals, only because this raises the potentially controversial problem of multiple instantiation.

It seems at least possible that Socraiety, for example, has as part of its set the property of being killed in 21st century Athens at time t in world M-146. This could be either on the A-theory or the B-theory. On the B-theory, time is a block, and so located at that particular point in the particular block belonging to world M-146 could potentially be that counterfactual. On an A-theory, that property can be sustained, since it does not seem to be something that excludes the mere possibility of world M-146 (its feasibility is another matter entirely). And if this is the case, then Socraiety can include time-indexed counterfactual properties (properties we have about counterfactual scenarios), where the times are radically different. And I mean “can” in the mere sense of logical possibility, which is of course not the same as feasibility.

So my conclusion is that Molinism will work with potentially true counterfactuals about individual persons in various worlds that differ even radically from this one.

Grades

[1] Properties indexed to a world are defined by reference to one or more possible worlds, as (to maximum extent) unrestricted, because in modal logic S5 the properties of one world can affect those of others. (FC editor’s note)

About the Author: Randy Everist is very interested in philosophy and theology. He is working on his PhD in philosophy. He loves hockey, Jesus, his wife Jodi, and his little boy, Titus!

Please take some time to read all of Randy’s work on Possible Worlds

Original Blog http://bit.ly/3474MBc

Translated by Allan Sanchez

November 4, 2019/by Guest

No, it’s not wrong to argue for God’s existence.

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

There are dozens of arguments for the existence of God. To rattle off just a few: there’s the moral argument, ontological, religious experience, miracles, consciousness, reason, desire, and the families of cosmological arguments and design arguments.

Some Christians say that while these arguments are good for building up the faithful, they’re useless for apologetics and evangelism. After all, we’re not trying to make generic theists. Even the demons believe in God, but that doesn’t give them a saving relationship with Him! (James 2:20) Apologists using these arguments in conversations or debates are barking up the wrong tree at best, and at worst, are being unfaithful to God.

To make the point, these critics will often point to the case of Antony Flew. Flew was a notable philosopher of religion who argued against the existence of God for decades. Near the end of his life, Flew changed his tune. He became a believer in God because of the philosophical and scientific arguments for God. He even wrote a book about it. Here’s a quote that sums up Flew’s conversion:

“I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence. I believe that this universe’s intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source. Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half-century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science.” There is a God.

Flew’s turnabout sent shockwaves through academic circles and a lot of Christian apologists claimed it as a victory for scientific and philosophical apologetics.

Here’s the rub: Flew never became a Christian. He declared himself to be a deist. Deists, if you don’t know, reject direct revelation and miracles. If this is what successful apologetics looks like, then what’s the point?

Here’s the thing though — For every Antony Flew, you have dozens of people like me. Quick background story: During my teenage years, I was an atheist. But along the course of time, I gradually became convinced God existed. But I wasn’t satisfied with the idea of deism or a generic God. Why?

There are a couple of reasons for that: If God exists, it would be weird if God never communicated with us. And if God was going to communicate with us, he’s not probably going to do it only privately.

The problem with Deism and mysticism

Let’s think about it for a second: Why would a Supreme Being create intelligent beings with the ability for communication and then never speak to them? Not even a ”howdy”? Wouldn’t we expect this God to offer a few words of advice or the occasional helping hand? Deism might explain why there’s a cosmos, consciousness, or the moral law. But it doesn’t offer much of an explanation of God’s silence.

There’s also the problem of God speaking only through private revelation. Anyone could claim that God’s speaking to them, how do we parse that out and see who’s right? It would be spiritual anarchy.

As human beings, we all have the same basic needs and problems in life. It would make more practical sense for God to speak to us about these things publicly and collectively. An all-wise being would talk to us a way that anyone could access and understand. Scripture, or something like it, makes a lot of sense.

It’s this commonsense reasoning that led me to dig up a Bible and start reading. Even though I had issues with the idea of miracles at first, I eventually had an experience with the Holy Spirit and became a Christian. You might say this is just anecdotal, but I’m not the only person to make the jump from ‘generic theism’ to Christianity.

How Natural theology helped lead three former atheists to Jesus

A philosopher’s Journey

Ed Feser taught philosophy of religion for years as a college professor. After going through the arguments semester after semester, he eventually became a philosophical theist. Says Feser:

“I don’t know exactly when everything clicked. There was no single event, but a gradual transformation. As I taught and thought about the arguments for God’s existence, and in particular the cosmological argument, I went from thinking “These arguments are no good” to thinking “These arguments are a little better than they are given credit for” and then to “These arguments are actually kind of interesting.” Eventually, it hit me: “Oh my goodness, these arguments are right after all!” The Road From Atheism

Edward C. Feser is an American philosopher. He is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College in Pasadena, California

But that’s not where the story ends. Feser eventually became a Christian. He didn’t remain a mere philosophical theist. Not content merely knowing that the God of the philosophers existed, Feser continued his journey and eventually met Jesus.

A scientist’s story

Physicist Frank Tipler is another example of someone who became a Christian after looking at different proofs for God. While Feser was impressed with the philosophical reasons for the existence of God, Tipler became a believer based on the evidence from cosmology and physics, his specialty. While many atheists argue that science and reason will lead someone to reject faith, Tipler found the opposite was true. In the intro of his book The Physics of Immortality, he wrote:

“When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.”

Frank Tipler is a mathematical physicist and cosmologist, holding a joint appointment in the Departments of Mathematics and Physics at Tulane University.

So obviously Tipler didn’t stay in the camp of belief in a deistic or generic deity. His discovery left him wanting to know who this Creator and Designer was.

An Oxford Student’s testimony

I could multiply examples, but for the sake of space, I’ll offer just one more. Sarah-Irving Stonebraker is a history professor in Australia. In an article entitled, ‘How Oxford and Peter Singer Drove Me From Atheism to Jesus‘, Sarah outlines her journey.

“I grew up in Australia, in a loving, secular home, and arrived at Sydney University as a critic of “religion.” I didn’t need faith to ground my identity or my values. I knew from the age of eight that I wanted to study history at Cambridge and become a historian. My identity lay in academic achievement, and my secular humanism was based on self-evident truths…

After Cambridge, I was elected to a Junior Research Fellowship at Oxford. There, I attended three guest lectures by world-class philosopher and atheist public intellectual, Peter Singer. Singer recognized that philosophy faces a vexing problem in relation to the issue of human worth. The natural world yields no egalitarian picture of human capacities. What about the child whose disabilities or illness compromises her abilities to reason? Yet, without reference to some set of capacities as the basis of human worth, the intrinsic value of all human beings becomes an ungrounded assertion; a premise which needs to be agreed upon before any conversation can take place.

I remember leaving Singer’s lectures with a strange intellectual vertigo; I was committed to believing that universal human value was more than just a well-meaning conceit of liberalism. But I knew from my own research in the history of European empires and their encounters with indigenous cultures, that societies have always had different conceptions of human worth or lack thereof. The premise of human equality is not a self-evident truth: it is profoundly historically contingent. I began to realize that the implications of my atheism were incompatible with almost every value I held dear … One Sunday, shortly before my 28th birthday, I walked into a church for the first time as someone earnestly seeking God.

Before long I found myself overwhelmed. At last, I was fully known and seen and, I realized, unconditionally loved – perhaps I had a sense of relief from no longer running from God. A friend gave me C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity, and one night, after a couple months of attending church, I knelt in my closet in my apartment and asked Jesus to save me, and to become the Lord of my life”

Dr. Sarah Irving-Stonebraker is Senior Lecturer (in Australia, this is a tenured professor position) in Modern European History at Western Sydney University in Australia, where she teaches in the History and Political Thought major.

So after learning that God existed through the moral argument, Irving-Stonebraker didn’t stop there. She wasn’t content knowing that a generic God existed. The moral argument made her want to find just who this Moral Lawgiver is.

Arguing for God’s existence isn’t fruitless

So what’s my point?

While Antony Flew’s non-conversion might feel like a failure, there are many people like Feser, Tipler, Irving-Stonebraker, and myself who didn’t stop at generic theism. And the writer of Hebrews tells us that belief in God is a necessary precondition to pleasing God. (Hebrews 11:6) The next part is seeking Him. So when someone like William Lane Craig argues for the existence of God, they’re laying some foundational groundwork and we’re wrong to think little of that.

Once you become convinced God is real, then unless you’re apathetic, you’ll want to get to know him personally. And it’s not as if Craig or others like him stop after offering the arguments for God, they almost always then argue for the resurrection.

And as I said before, intuition and common sense tell us that if God exists, he’s not going to remain silent and stand aloof. And if he’s as smart as design arguments show, he’s going to communicate with us in an accessible way. God can and has used these arguments to get past someone’s intellectual hang-ups or blind spots and to take a step towards him. How could that possibly be a bad thing?

Major Moral Argument Mistakes (Part 3)

Podcast

Podcast: Play in new window

Frank continues his detailed response to a retired attorney who objects to the moral argument. People often find this the most personally relevant argument for God, and that’s perhaps why atheists often object to it the most. However, Frank points out, their objections are often due to misunderstandings or misapplication of evolutionary theory to morality. Listen to this and the first two parts to make sure you’re ready to give a reason for the hope that you have (1 Pet. 3:15).

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

November 1, 2019/by Guest

Yes, We Do Need to Put God in A Box

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Bob Perry

“You can’t put God in a box.” It’s a popular saying within the Christian community. And it seems reasonable to say. After all, God can do anything He wants to do. Who would question that? I submit that every thinking Christian should question that … because it’s not true. God’s character does put him in a box. And our failure to recognize that creates a false — and therefore dangerous — picture of God. There is a box God needs to be in. And his character defines it.

God Cannot Do Whatever He Wants

God cannot do whatever he wants to do. If you think that sounds sacrilegious, you first have to understand that God cannot do things that are contrary to his nature. Before we can determine if God can do anything he wants to do, we have to first understand what that nature is. There are several elements to God’s nature but here are a few to consider.

God is Logical

God made an orderly universe. He built the laws of logic into our world and made it predictable. This is why we can communicate with one another. It’s the reason we can use science to understand how the world works. If God made the universe that way, it means that he must also be logical. It means that logic is an extension of his character. And that means God cannot do illogical things.

He can’t make a square circle, a married bachelor, or “a rock so big he can’t lift it.” This is an important point to understand as it relates to the rest of his character traits.

God is Omnipotent

God is all-powerful. But having supreme power doesn’t mean God can do anything. It means he can do anything that power can do. Being immeasurably powerful is what allows God to do miracles or create a universe as immense and complex as the one we see around us. But power does not allow God to do illogical, sinful, hateful, or unjust things. That’s an important distinction to make.

God is Goodness

God is pure goodness. He is “the final standard of good and all that God is and does is worthy of approval.” Because he is good, God is willing and able to demonstrate love in all its forms through mercy, patience, and grace. God loves everything he created. And since human beings are the pinnacle of that creation, God loves humanity in a way that we are incapable of comprehending.

God is Just

Justice occurs when someone gets exactly what they deserve. This can be positive or negative. We know that good acts deserve a reward and evil acts deserve punishment. And we know this intuitively. No one had to teach this to us. Even little babies demonstrate that they know it. All of us inherently value — and seek — justice. God is the source and embodiment of that idea. His character demands it. And since his character is morally perfect, any act of rebellion against that moral perfection — no matter how small — deserves to be punished.

God is Eternal and Self-Existent

God is not the type of being who needs a cause for His existence. The fact that anything exists at all means there must be a permanent, unmovable foundation that sustains it. That’s God. He is the foundation of all being. This is why the question, “Who made God?” is such a silly one. God isn’t the type of thing that you make. He upholds all reality at every instant but does not need to be upheld himself.

God is Omnipresent

The fact that God upholds all reality at every instant means that he is present everywhere. Always. He is not limited by time or space. Don’t get this confused with the ideas that God is everything. That’s pantheism. God’s omnipresence means that he is present everywhere in his creation but also distinct from it.

Putting Them All Together

There are plenty of other character traits that theologians use to describe God. If you are interested in digging more deeply into these kinds of topics, I suggest investing in a book on Systematic Theology. But considering the definitions I’ve briefly mentioned here, I doubt that anyone who takes God seriously would find them to be controversial in themselves. Our problems arise when we forget that God exhibits all these character traits simultaneously. All facets of his nature have to work together. He can’t exercise one if it violates another.

Theological Inconsistencies

Focusing on one aspect of God while ignoring another invites us to accept a false view of him. And many Christians unwittingly do this all the time.

“God showed up!”

When they have an emotional experience in worship, it is common to hear some proclaim that “God showed up today!” But God doesn’t “show up” anywhere. He is always everywhere. Don’t confuse the issue. God doesn’t need our praise to show himself. We need to praise him to remind ourselves of our dependence on him.

“God is so good!”

This is a common refrain to hear from someone who has just received good news of some kind. And while it’s great to acknowledge God’s blessings, it’s wrong-thinking to acknowledge them only when things are going our way. God is good regardless of our personal circumstances. It’s easy to express our love for him when things are good. But it’s imperative that we do the same when things are bad.

“Where was God when …?”

On the flip side, we seem to think God has gone missing when catastrophes occur. We assume that God’s omnipotence means he can and should destroy evil forever. But God made the loving decision to create us as free-will beings. He willingly limits his own power to give us the freedom to choose to follow him. And that means that no matter how powerful he is, God has created a world that allows us to make bad choices. The moral evil we witness all around us depends on our actions, not on God’s absence.

“God is love”

This idea is absolutely true. But contrary to the claims of the universalists and inclusivists among us, God is not just love. The idea that “God is love” is true as far as it goes, but there is more to the story. Ultimate goodness and love are different ways of describing God’s moral perfection. Being pure love and goodness means he cannot sin and he cannot lie. And that means he cannot allow moral imperfection into his presence. When our actions violate his moral law, his justice requires that there be consequences for our decisions. God’s character won’t allow him to accept whatever moral choices we make. This is a reality that often gets ignored by those who insist that a loving God would never allow us to be separated from him. The fact that God loves us does not mean he condones anything we do.

The Box God Needs to Be In

These are just a few examples of how our failure to keep God in the proper box leads not only to theological inconsistencies but to a corrupted view of reality itself. That’s what I mean when I say that we have to put God in a box. It’s a box defined by the sum total of all the elements of his character. Isolating our favorite trait is a bad idea because it doesn’t tell the whole story. And, as is always the case, accepting bad ideas leads to bad real-world consequences.

It turns out that we better keep God in a box. And we better understand how that box is defined. It helps us avoid most of the silly, false, and even dangerous ideas that have become all too common among Christians these days. It’s not always an easy thing to do. But being clear-thinking Christian demands that we acknowledge that God puts himself in a box. And we would do well to keep him there.

Book Introduction: But Not Through Me

Chapter 1: Back to The Moral Stone Age

Chapter 2: We’re All Spinmeisters Now

Chapter 3: The West Versus Itself

Chapter 4: Differences Make A Difference

Chapter 5: Turning The Tables

Chapter 6: On Record Against Ourselves

Reviewer’s Thoughts

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Definición

Antes de profundizar en el tema, creo que es importante dar una definición apropiada a lo que el Fideísmo es realmente:

Historia del Fideísmo

Promotores del Fideísmo

—Guillermo Maldonado.

—Cash Luna.

—Otoniel Font.

—Joel Osteen.

—Richard Dawkins.

—Christopher Hitchens.

—Sam Harris.

Referencias:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Scripture references are from the following sources:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Grades

The problem with Deism and mysticism

How Natural theology helped lead three former atheists to Jesus

A philosopher’s Journey

A scientist’s story

An Oxford Student’s testimony

Arguing for God’s existence isn’t fruitless

Recommended resources related to the topic:

God Cannot Do Whatever He Wants

God is Logical

God is Omnipotent

God is Goodness

God is Just

God is Eternal and Self-Existent

God is Omnipresent

Putting Them All Together

Theological Inconsistencies

“God showed up!”

“God is so good!”

“Where was God when …?”

“God is love”

Recommended resources related to the topic: