Theology and Christian Apologetics Archives | CrossExamined.org

In 2013, I had the privilege of participating in both a written and panel dialog/debate with K. Scott Oliphint of Westminster Seminary and Jason Lisle founder of the Biblical Science Institute. Oliphint is a theologian and Lisle is an astrophysicist. Both are proponents of the apologetic method of Presuppositionalism in the tradition of Cornelius Van Til.

Recently a student of mine asked me how I would respond to one of Jason Lisle’s challenges to me.

I contend that all knowledge begins in the senses and is completed in the intellect.

(Lest the reader misunderstand what I specifically mean by my use of the term ‘knowledge’ in this context, he is encouraged to read my blog article titled “Discussing Aquinas” here.) Lisle asked:

“How does he know that he’s not in the ‘Matrix’ and that his sensory experiences have nothing to do with the real world?”[1]

In helping the student by answering Lisle’s question directly, I also wanted to take the occasion to set Lisle’s question in a broader philosophical context to see how his question conceals certain philosophical assumptions that need to be surfaced and examined.

Lisle’s question is ultimately impossible. I claim that it is undeniable that one can know reality through the sensory faculties—seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, smelling. The reader should note the subtle shift here. Above, I said that all knowledge begins in the senses. Lisle’s challenge is in effect asking how any knowledge can arise from the senses. More to the point, Lisle is asking how I can know that my senses are reliable—how can I “know” that I “know.” Lisle’s challenge is less complicated to answer than my original contention is to defend. I will take the less complicated route here. It remains that the fact that any knowledge can arise from the senses is a necessary condition for the claim that all knowledge arises from the senses (and is completed in the intellect).[2]

The most common responses or challenges to my claim are this one that Lisle poses (how do you know your senses are reliable?) and questions to the effect of how can one acquire knowledge about non-physical truths like logic, morality, metaphysics, and God by means of the senses.

He makes the charge (in teeing up his challenge) that I have “tacitly presupposed (among other things) that our senses correspond to reality.”[3] As we shall see, I have done no such thing.

Lisle’s question implies that I could know that I know reality only if I know that my senses are reliable. Let’s momentarily grant his point for the sake of argument. I’ll come back to answer it directly. For now, consider what questions one would need to ask about Lisle’s challenge. Since my senses are themselves part of reality, how could I know that my senses are reliable when I claim that it is in them that my knowledge of reality has its origin? In other words, whatever means (be they other faculties besides the sensory faculties or something else) I use to deliver to me the conclusion that my senses are reliable, I would then have to ask how I know that this means was itself reliable. By whatever means #2 I might offer as to how I would answer that, how could I know means #2 is reliable when it tells me that the first means was reliable in telling me that my senses were reliable in telling me about reality? If I posit means #3 to tell me that means #2 is reliable when it tells me that the first means is reliable when it tells me that my senses are reliable in telling me what reality is, then ….

You get the picture. You have an infinite regress. Lisle thinks that he doesn’t have an infinite regress because he thinks he knows that God has told him about reality (or, more strictly, that God has told him that his senses are reliable). But how does Lisle know that God told him that? He thinks it’s because he has the Bible. He says, “Sensory experience is only reliable if our senses correspond to reality; and only the Christian worldview can rationally justify this.”[4] Lisle goes on, “Presuppositional apologetics is the method of defending the Christian faith that relies on the Bible as the supreme authority in all matters.”[5] But how can Lisle know that the book he’s referring to is a Bible and that the words he’s reading off the page are what he thinks they are? Isn’t Lisle using his eyes to read his Bible? But how can Lisle know that his eyes are telling him the truth of what’s written there, or, for that matter, whether there’s anything written at all? He can’t use the conclusions he gets from what his eyes are telling him he’s reading in the Bible to give him the certainty that he’s reading a Bible that tells him that he’s reading a message from God that is telling him that his eyes are reliable. It’s a vacuous, vicious circular argument.

Surprisingly, Lisle gladly acknowledges that his position is circular, though he will deny that it either vacuous or vicious. He seems to think he’s on to something when he says:

“It may surprise some people to learn that circular reasoning is actually logically valid.”[6]

But this is a trivial observation about validity. It would not surprise anyone with a basic understanding in formal logic. By definition, an argument is valid just in case it is impossible for the argument to have all true premises and a false conclusion.[7] This allows one to prove an argument is valid by showing how it would be impossible for a given argument to have a false conclusion where all the premises are true.

Consider this in light of what it is to be circular. A circular argument is one where the conclusion of the argument is the same as one of the premises in the argument. Being the same would mean that the conclusion and the premise would have the same truth value. If the conclusion is true, then the premise that makes the same claim as the conclusion would also be true. If the conclusion is false, then the premise that makes the same claim as the conclusion would also be false. Note, therefore, how this makes it impossible for a circular argument to be invalid. If the conclusion was false (to apply the test for invalidity by having a false conclusion with all true premises), then the premise to which it is identical would have to be false. Thus, it would be impossible for the argument to be rendered invalid since a false conclusion would necessitate one false premise (since they affirm the same thing and, thus, have the same truth value). Since such an argument cannot be rendered invalid, it is proven to be valid.

As it turns out, to point out that a circular argument is valid is to say nothing particularly significant about the argument.

Neither is it saying anything important about circularity. After all, any argument that has at least one premise that is a contradiction could not fulfill the conditions of invalidity either. This means that any argument that has a contradictory premise is valid.[8] Suppose someone accused Lisle of having a premise in his argument for Presuppositionalism that was a contradiction. How silly would it sound for Lisle to respond “It may surprise some people to learn that any argument where one of the premises is a contradiction is actually logically valid!” If Lisle is interested in putting forth a cogent deductive argument for his Presuppositionalism, what really matters is not merely whether the argument is valid, but whether the argument is sound—a valid argument with all true premises.

Having made his relatively unimportant comment about circularity and validity, Lisle then retorts that every epistemology is circular and proceeds to try to show why his circularity is not vacuous while the circularity of all other epistemologies is vacuous. He comments,

“The notion that circular reasoning is always wrong reveals a bit of philosophical naivety. In fact, all ultimate standards must be defended in a somewhat circular way (by a transcendental argument).”[9]

In this he is echoing what his presuppositional mentors have directed. Van Til says,

“To admit one’s own presuppositions and to point out the presuppositions of others is, therefore, to maintain that all reasoning is, in the nature of the case, circular reasoning. The starting point, the method, and the conclusion are always involved in one another.”[10]

Greg Bahnsen carries on Van Til’s position.

“So if, when it comes to the fundamental question of Christian faith, arguments are ultimately circular (since metaphysics and epistemology depend on one another), then the matter reduces to one of submission or rebellion to the authority of the revealed God. … Hence a Christian’s apologetical argument (working on a transcendental level) will finally be circular …”[11]

Scott Oliphint is right in line with the presuppositional orthodoxy.

“I admitted to him that I certainly was arguing in (some kind of) a circle. … Then I made clear to the other presenters that they were all asking that their own views, based on their own reasoning and sources, be accepted as true. In every case, I said, every other presenter appealed to his own final authority. ‘So, ‘ I asked, ‘on what basis should I accept your circle over mine?’”[12]

Are the Presuppositionalists right in maintaining that all reasoning is circular? No, they are not. Before I am done, I will explain why. For now, I should like to turn my focus back to the question at hand. In reading Presuppositionalists, I have discovered how often it is that they offer their Presuppositionalism as the only “solution” to philosophical problems that arise (for the most part) out of modern and contemporary philosophy (i.e., from the 17th century onward). By offering their Presuppositionalism as the “answer” to these problems, they show their tacit commitment to the assumptions of the very philosophy that created the problems in the first place. In Part Two of this article, I will, God willing, explore several of these philosophical problems.

Such a concession to the assumptions of modern and contemporary philosophy is never more evident than with Lisle’s challenge to me. He (perhaps unwittingly) has bought into the philosophical method of critical realism.[13] Critical realism is the approach to epistemology that tries to maintain the conclusions of philosophical realism (we will see in a moment what philosophical realism is) with the methods of critical philosophy (the otherwise legitimate expectation philosophers have of reasons or arguments demonstrating philosophical conclusions).

The term “realism” and its cognates have several different usages.

A person who sees himself as one who avoids romantic delusions about his circumstances or about the world might call himself a realist. In philosophy, the term is used in two very important yet distinct ways, only one of which concerns me here. One way has to do with whether one grants the reality of “universals” and, if so, how one regards the nature of a universal, especially in relation to “particulars.”[14] The other use has to do with whether one maintains that there is a physical world that exists external to us as knowers and that this world can be known by us as humans.

This kind of realist would deny that the world around us is somehow largely or entirely the ideas in our own minds (as opposed to physical objects external to our minds) and/or is the result of God’s imposing upon our minds the ideas out of which that world is constituted. These are variations upon the view called Idealism. Critical realism maintains that philosophy is obligated to “prove” or “justify” its claims that there is a world external to us as knowers. It insists that philosophical realists must somehow “prove” or “justify” philosophical realism; that is, that one must “prove” or “justify” the claim that one is not in the Matrix. Lisle’s challenge is quintessential critical realism.

Questions that have occupied philosophical realists through the millennia aim at exploring how it is that we know this external world.

Is it partly or entirely through the senses? Are there some aspects of the external world that can be accessed only through the mind with the faculty of intuition? Are there certain innate ideas that assist us in knowing some of the external world? Are there other options?

Notice what the philosophers are not asking or, at least, should not be asking if they are philosophical realists. They are not asking whether we know reality. Instead, they are asking how we know reality. My own view goes by different names, almost all of which employ the term ‘realism’.

It is a tradition arising from Aristotle (385-323 BC) and which finds its greatest expression in the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). One will find a number of students of Aquinas scattered throughout the philosophical world. The number is perhaps small relative to those philosophers who reject Aquinas’s thinking. This is not to say, however, that all of those philosophers who reject Aquinas’s thinking would necessarily reject philosophical realism. The number is even smaller within Protestant Christianity and is very close to non-existence with evangelical Christianity.

My seminary, Southern Evangelical Seminary, is the only evangelical seminary in the world of which I am aware that deliberately embraces Thomistic philosophy.

The version of philosophical realism in this Aristotelian/Thomistic tradition has been called Moderate Realism,[15] Classical Realism, Scholastic Realism,[16] and Thomistic (or Thomist) Realism. Sometimes it goes by the simpler moniker of Thomism.

My direct answer to Lisle is to deny the coherency of his question. The Thomist—indeed, I would insist every “normal” person—already knows he’s not in the Matrix. The only reason the movie plot works is because the movie viewer is in the theatre and not in the movie itself. The very fact that we are in a world not of our own making that exists external to us as knowers is undeniably self-evident. To try to “prove” that self-evident reality, is to set up a process that inevitably makes the proof impossible. Historian of philosophy Etienne Gilson puts it deftly.

After passing twenty centuries of the very model of those self‑evident facts that only a madman would ever dream of doubting, the existence of the external world finally received its metaphysical demonstration from Descartes. Yet no sooner had he demonstrated the existence of the external world than his disciples realized that, not only was his proof worthless, but the very principles which made such a demonstration necessary at the same time rendered the attempted proof impossible.[17]

Lisle’s challenge is actually begging the question in favor of Idealism against Realism. As humans, we encounter the existing things of the external world by means of the senses. That world is reality (though, as Christians, we know that’s not all there is in reality). It is incoherent to demand that the knower somehow get back behind the sensible reality we know, and from there put together some “proof” or “argument” which arrives at the conclusion that there’s an external world out there that he knows. To put it more facetiously, if the world of sensible objects right in front of me is not enough for me to know that it’s there, then how can any argument about the sensible world be more compelling? The argument is itself one step removed from the world. And, as I argued above, from what “reality” could that argument arise that already doesn’t employ the very faculties to know it, for whose reliability Lisle demands a proof? It should be clear why Lisle’s Presuppositionalism is completely inadequate. If it is not clear, I shall, God willing, expand on my response as I explore in Part Two some of the other philosophical assumptions that Presuppositionalists make in laying out and defending their Presuppositionalism.

To complete my thoughts about circularity, Van Til et al. are certainly wrong in their contention that all reasoning is circular.

The mistake they make is assuming that reasoning starts with presuppositions (or assumptions, to use Bahnsen’s term). But human reasoning does not start with assumptions or presuppositions. These are all cognitive terms having to do with the activity of the intellect. But the intellect has to have some object to know. We don’t merely begin reasoning with reasoning itself. Instead, we begin reasoning with our encounter with the objective, sensible world. The things we encounter in the objective, sensible world are not propositions or assumptions or presuppositions. Rather, we encounter things—people, dogs, trees, etc. But the conclusion of an argument is a proposition.

A proposition is about reality. It is not, as a proposition, itself external reality.

Thus, the starting point of reasoning is not the same as the conclusion of the reasoning. It is manifest that for philosophical realists like Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas there is no circularity in their overall epistemology.

Presuppositionalists think that reasoning is circular largely because, when they think of epistemology, they think of it in the same terms that many modern and contemporary philosophers define the task of knowing. Modern (and, more so, contemporary) philosophers often couch knowing questions fundamentally along the contours of cognitive elements (propositions; assumptions; beliefs; logic) or consciousness elements (properties; qualia; thoughts, etc.). In contrast, the classical philosophy of Aristotle will define knowledge as beginning with the formal identity of the knower (via the intellect) and the known (without leaving out, when necessary and where appropriate, the cognitive and consciousness elements listed). Here, ‘formally’ means “employing the metaphysical aspect of the Form of sensible objects.” The specter of circularity comes up precisely because the elements according to which some philosophers cash out knowledge are themselves elements of the knowing process, without regard to factoring in the metaphysics of what it is to be a knower and what it is to be a known. As long as epistemology tries to “justify” itself only in terms of itself, it can hardly avoid being circular in some way. This the Thomistic model does not do.

While Lisle does not raise the following objection, I think it is important to deal with it nonetheless. It will do no good for someone to insist that we need a “proof” of the reliability of our senses since there are particular examples where our senses fail to tell us accurately what’s going on in the world.[18] Optical illusions can be known to be illusions only because we know the truth about a matter to which the illusion stands in contrast. If I think I see a pool of water ahead in the desert only to discover that it was a mirage, what were the means by which I discovered that it wasn’t really a pool of water after all? If everything is an illusion (or, as some have put it, if everything is a dream (Lisle’s Matrix challenge)) then the word ‘illusion’ doesn’t mean anything.

If one claims that everything he experiences is a dream, he has just exchanged the term ‘real’ for the term ‘dream’.

His dream is just what the rest of us call real. A dream is a dream only because it is in contrast to the real.[19] Without that contrast, one is committing what is known as the fallacy of lost contrast. Neither challenge—(1) challenging the reliability of the senses by offering a particular instance where the senses fail to tell us the truth about a situation or (2) globally challenging the reliability of the senses—offers any solace for the anti-realist or the Presuppositionalist.

While some of these types of challenges from the Presuppositionalist might have some force against modern and contemporary versions of empiricism, they are completely irrelevant to the classical empiricism of Aristotle and Aquinas. All the less are they demonstrations of the viability of Presuppositionalism.

References

[1] Jason Lisle, “Young Earth Presuppositionalism,” Christian Apologetics Journal 11, no. 2 (Fall 2013): 110, available at http://richardghowe.com/index_htm_files/CAJPresuppositionalism.pdf, accessed 06/08/20.

[2] In fairness to me, one should note that my specific claim to which Lisle was responding was: “As a Classical (or Scholastic) Realist I would submit that our sensory experiences of reality also deliver to us metaphysical truths.” [Richard G. Howe, “Classical Apologetics and Creationism,” Christian Apologetics Journal 11, no. 2 (Fall 2013): 93] This should allow me to confine my thoughts here to the weaker of the two claims. It remains for another occasion to address my contention about that we can know metaphysical truths from sensory experiences.

[3] Jason Lisle, “Presuppositional Reply,” Christian Apologetics Journal 11, no. 2 (Fall 2013): 110.

[4] Jason Lisle, “Presuppositional Reply,” 110.

[5] Jason Lisle, “Young Earth Presuppositionalism,” 65.

[6] Lisle, “Young Earth Presuppositionalism,” 80.

[7] Another way to say this is an argument is valid when the truth of the premises necessitates the truth of the conclusion. For a valid argument, if the premises are true, the conclusion has to be true.

[8] “Any argument at least one of whose premises is a contradiction is necessarily valid.” Robert Baum, Logic (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1975), 191.

[9] Lisle, “Young Earth Presuppositionalism,” 81.

[10] Cornelius Van Til, Apologetics (unpublished syllabus), “IV – The Problem of Method,” p. 62, emphasis in original.

[11] Greg Bahnsen, Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended (Power Springs: American Vision Presuppositionalists; Nacogdoches: Covenant Media Press, 2008), 86.

[12] K. Scott Oliphint, Covenantal Apologetics: Principles and Practice in Defense of Our Faith (Wheaton: Crossway, 2013), 24.

[13] For a treatment critical realism, see Etienne Gilson, Thomist Realism and the Critique of Knowledge, trans. by Mark A. Wauck, (San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 1986).

[14] An example of a universal is vividly displayed in the Nuremburg Trials. The justices in the trials were from the Soviet Union, France, the UK, and the US. The Nazi defendants could not be tried on the basis of the laws of these nations since they were not citizens of these nations. Neither could the Nazi defendants be tried on the basis of German law since none of their atrocities of the holocaust were in violation of German law. Instead, the Nazi defendants were indicted as having committed “crimes against humanity.” One would need to ask exactly what is a “humanity.” Is it male or female? Is it white, black, or some other race? Is it young or old? Is it rich or poor? Is it sick or well? One can see that “humanity” is none of the particular things. Instead, “humanity” is what philosophers call a universal. The question then is this: is the universal “humanity” real or not real in any meaningful sense of the term ‘real’? If you say that it is not real in any meaningful sense of the term ‘real’ (perhaps because you say it is nothing more than a concept in the mind), then how can one possibly commit a crime against it? If you say that it is real in some meaningful sense of the term ‘real’, then I submit that your understanding of the nature of the reality of that universal is likely going to be somewhere along the lines of the thinking of Plato or somewhere along the lines of the thinking of Aristotle—two of the most significant philosophers whose philosophy has help forge the contours of Western civilization. I am indebted to philosopher Joseph Koterski for this illustration from his lecture “Natural Law and Human Nature” in The Great Courses audio series.

[15] The ‘moderate’ of moderate realism comes from the fact that Aristotle’s view of universals falls between the extreme realism of Plato and the anti-realism of later philosophy.

[16] I am indebted to philosopher Edward Feser for this expression. It seeks to distinguish Thomas Aquinas’s view of universals from that of Aristotle’s regarding how universals are understood vis-à-vis the God of Christianity and the Christian doctrine of creation.

[17] Etienne Gilson, Thomist Realism, p. 27. For a scaled-down version of Gilson’s point in this work, see his Methodical Realism, trans. Philip Trower (Front Royal: Christendom Press, 1990). Reprinted Methodical Realism: A Primer for Beginning Realists (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2011).

[18] For a treatment of how epistemologies throughout history have sought to account for error in light of their accounts of knowledge, see Leo W. Keeler, The Problem of Error from Plato to Kant: A Historical and Critical Study. (Rome: Apud Aedes Pontificiae Universitatis Gregorianae, 1934). For a treatment of the issue within the context of Thomistic Realism, see Francis H. Parker, “On the Being of Falsity,” in Philosophy of Knowledge: Selected Readings. (Chicago: J. B. Lippincott, 1960): 290-316.

[19] I don’t mean here that there no sense in which a dream, as a dream, is real. My dream is real in a way that the dream of a fictional character in a novel is not. Rather, I’m saying that a dream about, for example, sunning on the beach is not the same as actually sunning on the beach.

Does Archaeological Evidence Confirm Names, Dates, And Places In The Bible?

4. Is the NT True?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Wintery Knight

I spotted this post on Be Thinking by UK apologist Peter S. Williams. (H/T Eric Chabot at Think Apologetics)

So let me pick the ones I liked most for this post.

Here’s a good one:

Jerusalem and The Pool of Bethesda

John 5:1-15 describes a pool in Jerusalem, near the Sheep Gate, called Bethesda, surrounded by five covered colonnades. Until the 19th century, there was no evidence outside of John for the existence of this pool, and John’s unusual description “caused bible scholars to doubt the reliability of John’s account, but the pool was duly uncovered in the 1930s – with four colonnades around its edges and one across its middle.”[38] Ian Wilson reports: “Exhaustive excavations by Israeli archaeologist Professor Joachim Jeremias have brought to light precisely such a building, still including two huge, deep-cut cisterns, in the environs of Jerusalem’s Crusader Church of St Anne.”[39]

And this one:

Jerusalem and The Pool of Siloam

In the 400s AD, a church was built above a pool attached to Hezekiah’s water tunnel to commemorate the healing of a blind man reported in John 9:1-7. Until recently, this was considered to be the Pool of Siloam from the time of Christ. However, during sewerage works in June 2004 engineers stumbled upon a 1stcentury ritual pool when they uncovered some ancient steps during pipe maintenance near the mouth of Hezekiah’s tunnel. By the summer of 2005, archaeologists had revealed what was “without doubt the missing pool of Siloam.”[40] Mark D. Roberts reports that: “In the plaster of this pool were found coins that establish the date of the pool to the years before and after Jesus. There is little question that this is in fact the pool of Siloam, to which Jesus sent the blind man in John 9.”[41]

I just read this one because I am working my way through John. In case you haven’t read John, you really should it’s my favorite gospel.

Here’s another one:

Herod the Great

We have a bronze coin minted by Herod the Great. On the obverse side (i.e. the bottom) is a tripod and ceremonial bowl with the inscription ‘Herod king’ and the year the coin was struck, ‘year 3’ (of Herod’s reign), or 37 BC.

In 1996 Israeli Professor of Archaeology Ehud Netzer discovered in Masada a piece of broken pottery with an inscription, called an ostracon. This piece had Herod’s name on it and was part of an amphora used for transportation (probably wine), dated to c. 19 BC. The inscription is in Latin and reads, “Herod the Great King of the Jews (or Judea)”, the first such that mentions the full title of King Herod.

Herodium is a man-made mountain in the Judean wilderness rising over 2,475 feet above sea level. In 23 BC Herod the Great built a palace-fortress here on top of a natural hill. Seven stories of living rooms, storage areas, cisterns, a bathhouse, and a courtyard filled with bushes and flowering plants were constructed. The whole complex was surrounded and partly buried by a sloping fill of earth and gravel. Herod’s tomb and sarcophagus were discovered at the base of Herodium by archaeologist Ehud Netzer in 2007.

And one more:

The ‘James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus’ Ossuary

James, the brother of Jesus, was martyred in AD 62. A mid-1st century AD chalk ossuary discovered in 2002 bears the inscription “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus” ( ‘Ya’akov bar Yosef akhui di Yeshua’). Historian Paul L. Maier states that“there is strong (though not absolutely conclusive) evidence that, yes, the ossuary and its inscription are not only authentic but that the inscribed names are the New Testament personalities.“[68] New Testament scholar Ben Witherington states that: “If, as seems probable, the ossuary found in the vicinity of Jerusalem and dated to about AD 63 is indeed the burial box of James, the brother of Jesus, this inscription is the most important extra-biblical evidence of its kind.”[69] According to Hershel Shanks, editor in chief of the Biblical Archaeological Review: “This box is [more] likely the ossuary of James, the brother of Jesus of Nazareth, than not. In my opinion … it is likely that this inscription does mention James and Joseph and Jesus of the New Testament.”

And finally one short one:

Tiberius Caesar

The Denarius coin, 14-37 AD, is commonly referred to as the ‘Tribute Penny’ from the Bible. The coin shows a portrait of Tiberius Caesar. Craig L. Blomberg comments: “Jesus’ famous saying about giving to Caesar what was his and to God what his (Mark 12:17 and parallels) makes even more sense when one discovers that most of the Roman coins in use at the time had images of Caesar on them.”[48]

This is a good article to bookmark in case you are ever looking for a quick, searchable reference on archaeology and the Bible. There are many more examples in that post.

Now some people might be wondering why archaeology doesn’t confirm every detail in the New Testament. And here’s what J. Warner Wallace has to say about that:

But what are we to say to those who argue the Biblical archeological record is incomplete? The answer is best delivered by another expert witness in the field, Dr. Edwin Yamauchi, historian, and Professor Emeritus at Miami University. Yamauchi wrote a book entitled, The Stones and the Scripture, where he rightly noted that archaeological evidence is a matter of “fractions”:

Only a fraction of the world’s archaeological evidence still survives in the ground.

Only a fraction of the possible archaeological sites have been discovered.

Only a fraction have been excavated, and those only partially.

Only a fraction of those partial excavations have been thoroughly examined and published.

Only a fraction of what has been examined and published has anything to do with the claims of the Bible!

See the problem? In spite of these limits, we still have a robust collection of archaeological evidences confirming the narratives of the New Testament (both in the gospel accounts and in the Book of Acts). We shouldn’t hesitate to use what we do know archaeologically in combination with other lines of evidence. Archaeology may not be able to tell us everything, but it can help us fill in the circumstantial case as we corroborate the gospel record.

I think you can form an opinion about the whole New Testament based on the record of confirmations. The verdict is in: the New Testament should be presumed trustworthy.

Evidence in the Flesh for Apologetics

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Dawn Simon

I was raised in a family and a community where religious beliefs were considered personal and virtually never discussed. I attended a Catholic grade school and continued with religion classes through high school. I was a good student and knew what I was supposed to believe – but no matter how hard I tried, I just could not convince myself that any of it was true.

I had a long list of questions but mostly kept those to myself. I was pretty sure that these doubts made me a bad person and I was not eager to advertise this fact. The few times I did seek help left me feeling that there were no answers to my questions. I developed an idea that belief in God was some sort of magical thinking – and while I too desperately wanted this magic, it clearly was not meant for me. Another difficulty I faced was that believers always seemed so sure about their faith. I am not a person who is certain about anything – this too made me think that Christianity – or faith of any kind was not for me.

Moving ahead to my time now in Kearney, Nebraska – I moved here in 2009 and met Tim Stratton a few years later when he was in the early stages of developing his FreeThinking Argument for the existence of God. At this time, there was a fair bit of noise being made in the local newspaper about issues related to evolution and it was attracting attention at work. Because of this I started regularly reading the opinion pieces, as well as associated comments. The name Tim Stratton appeared frequently. To be clear, I did not agree with a single thing he wrote. However, he was unfailingly kind, whereas some people on “my side” were behaving atrociously. This was the first thing I noticed about Tim – and if not for that, I truly might still be an atheist today.

I was able to meet Tim in person at a local public outreach event about evolution. This was a brief meeting – but a short time later he added me as a Facebook friend. This is when the arguing started in earnest (and to be honest has not completely ceased to this day – we just argue about different things now). For a period of about two months, we exchanged messages almost daily that initially were centered on his FreeThinking Argument for the Existence of God. Those discussions could probably best be summarized as exchanges where I would tell him I was not convinced of some specific point (which is my default position) and then Tim would both encourage me and try to convince me. If you know either of us, you already know that these were not short discussions.

About a month into this I was forced to admit — contra many scientifically-minded atheists — that while I was not certain, I did think humans possessed libertarian free will. It is worth noting here that in my discussions with Tim, I had already been relieved of the notion that one needed to be absolutely certain to believe something was true. The natural extension of this was that if I believed I had free will, according to Tim’s argument (which despite my best efforts seemed strong) meant I also believed in God. This realization took my breath away (and the memory of it still does the same) – I know exactly where I was and what I was doing when for the first time in my life I felt like God was talking directly to me.

This was just the beginning though – it took at least 6 months more before I called myself a Christian (Mike Licona’s work on the historical Resurrection eventually sealed the deal). It was an incredibly tumultuous time in my life. I was starting to really believe that Christianity was probably true and while part of me found that exciting, a bigger part was truly terrified at the prospect. Tim helped me at every single step of the way – I have countless stories of doubts and fears that he helped me through with reason and kindness.

During this time, I could not help but compare my conversion story to that of others – and I will admit I found it frustrating. Tim would tell me about other people he had helped and how in a 24-hour period they accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. It was hard for me to understand how this was possible and to be honest, I didn’t think it was fair. Why was it so much work for me? What I came to realize – surely with God’s help – was that my conversion story had to be different because of how I am wired. If God had appeared to me in the flesh, I am certain I would be more convinced of a brain tumor than God’s existence. Reason and argument was the only way it could work for me. I am not proud of that, but it is the truth. I am profoundly grateful that God is able to reach people in a myriad of ways – and specifically that he used Tim and apologetics to reach me.

What Does Thermodynamics Have To Do With The Origin Of The Universe?

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Bob Perry

Big Bang cosmology isn’t the only scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning. There are parallel laws of nature that point us to the same conclusion. We get one of them from the study of thermodynamics. This is not something that is hard to comprehend. You already understand it because you have to charge your cell phone every night.

A battery contains a fixed amount of energy. You can use that energy but you won’t get any more. If you don’t plug it in to recharge it, the battery will eventually go dead. As far as we know, the universe is a “closed system” similar to a giant battery. But it’s not rechargeable.

Barring some outside influence, this kind of process can only go in one direction. We all recognize that this is how energy works. It’s not a mystery. It’s a simple concept that is based on a couple of natural laws:

The Law of Conservation of Energy — energy is neither created nor destroyed; it can only be transformed from one form to another.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics — in a closed system, the total entropy of the system will always increase and this process is irreversible.

So, let’s put these together.

Don’t be freaked out by the term, “entropy.” Think of it as “level of chaos.” Just like the battery, there is only a finite amount of energy in a closed system. The amount of energy cannot be increased; it can only be transformed to a higher level of chaos. An example might help.

To Understand The Second Law Of Thermodynamics, Burn A Match

You have a match in your hand. The head of the match is made of combustible material that has the potential to create a flame. The amount of potential energy concentrated in the head of the match and is fixed. It cannot increase. When you strike the match, the potential chemical energy in the head of the match converts to heat energy in a flame. Then, the heat energy from the flame disperses into the room. Our energy system has gone from a concentrated potential energy source to a flame, to a random dispersal of heat into the air. In other words, it has taken a more “chaotic” form. When we say that “entropy has increased,” that is all it means.

Here’s the key — the process will not go in the opposite direction. You won’t see the heat content in a room suddenly coagulate into a single flame, and then reorganize that flame into a concentrated ball of chemical energy in a single location (like the head of a match). The very idea of such a thing is ridiculous.

Thermodynamics tells us that energy only goes in one direction

The Universe – A Giant Battery

The universe works the same way. Like a giant battery, it contains a fixed amount of energy. As time marches on, the energy inside it becomes more and more useless as it disperses. The “chaos” level (entropy) of the entire system is always increasing. At some point, the usefulness of the energy will run out altogether. Scientists call this “heat death.” The universe is headed toward heat death.

This is a law of nature. It is the basis for the operation of everything from the engine that launches a rocket into orbit, to the biological machinery that runs every cell in your body. And what it means is that we know the whole system — the whole universe — must have started this energy transforming process when its “battery” was full.

The universe had to have a beginning. And, for the same reasons mentioned in our discussion of the cosmological argument, something outside the known universe must have flipped the switch to initiate the beginning of the process. Listen to Frank Turek’s short explanation for the Second Law…

https://youtu.be/Q6tv_L0Bn5w

… and how William Lane Craig connects it to a cosmic beginning:

https://youtu.be/atnk5VBVd-g

The Importance of Critical Thinking

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Kathryn, V.

As a Christian apologist, it is easy to take for granted the understanding that when we impart information to others, they clearly comprehend what we are talking about.

Now, that may be the case with well-studied and well-versed individuals who understand critical thinking, however, the average American has not been exposed to critical thinking unless they have attended university. It is an unfortunate fact that the art of critical thinking is not taught in the vast majority of either primary or secondary schools.

Critical thinking is a skill that is a threat to our culture’s view of political correctness because it encourages people to see things from a different perspective that thinks through an idea or thought and compares it with an opposing view.

Anyone who has studied our western culture for any length of time is well aware that our cultural ideologies have had more influence on the church than the church has had on the culture in the last fifty years.

The vast majority of professing Christians in America today cannot explain why they believe what they believe. This has not been ideal for the Church, as studies show that there has been a sharp decline in church attendance over the past thirty years.

The absence of critical thinking is at the center of this apathy toward the importance of validating one’s belief in absolute truth which is at the core of the Judeo-Christian faith.

Much of this lack of fervor for one’s faith is because many are not sure if the Bible is valid for today’s world. It is a fact that less than nine percent of those individuals who profess to be Christian, believe in biblical inerrancy. Why is this? Part of the answer to this question lies in the inability to think critically. To think critically requires that one ask questions, but to ask a question suggests that one may find an answer that goes against the grain and that would cause friction. It is easier to simply go along with what one is told and then formulate one’s own set of beliefs based on what one feels is right.

Human nature is consistent in that our feelings fluctuate with circumstance (John 2:25) and because of this fact it is imperative that we seek the reality that forms the foundation of our beliefs and not base our eternity on emotions and feelings. Without the knowledge of God, people perish (Hos 4:6), but we cannot truly know the Creator unless we seek him in his word.

It goes to follow, that if you do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture then you cannot truly come to know the character and nature of God.

The problem lies in the reality that all are called to know God and to live in obedience to his word and without a basic belief that the Bible is to be trusted, then there will be a disconnect. There are numerous books that spend at least a full chapter to show how scholars critically validate the Bible, and these include helpful tools that are used in this process. What I have discovered in my own interactions with the average believer, however, is that they do not have the confidence to break down the processes that scholars use to validate the Bible. Most of the reason for this lack of confidence stems from an unfamiliarity with the terminology and processes used in historical and literary research.

It is for this reason that I decided to devote an entire book to the process of how scholars use the tools of historical and literary criticism to validate the Bible, as well as other historically-based documents. The goal is to help the reader become intimately familiar with the terms and processes that scholars use to validate the word of God.

Hopefully, my readers will use the Under Investigation workbook as a tool to help them reach others for the kingdom of God by confidently explaining the scrutiny that the Judeo-Christian Bible has gone through and how other holy books have not been able to withstand the same type of analysis and critical investigation.

The Slaughter of the Bethlehem Boys

4. Is the NT True?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

Moral atrocities litter the historical landscape. And this ought to make us sad. People do bad things. And they’ve been doing bad things ever since Genesis 3. It doesn’t take long for the fall to rear its ugly head in the Bible for in the very next chapter — Genesis 4 — Cain violently kills his brother. Unfortunately, these kinds of events have been occurring ever since.

One thinks of the Holocaust, the genocides in Rwanda, or the untold millions dead from the Russian Gulag camps. Or if you’re a student of the Bible, you might think of the Bethlehem genocide orchestrated by King Herod the Great.

If you’re unfamiliar with this event, in Matthew 2, the Magi traveled to Jerusalem in search of this newborn king of the Jews. When Herod heard that these wise men were looking for a king other than himself, he became disturbed. Matthew tells us that Herod “was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him” (Mt 2:2).

Not one to share his throne, Herod eventually orders the execution of all the boys in Bethlehem who were two-years-old or under (Mt 2:16). Everyone would agree that Herod acted egregiously here. No morally sane person could justify Herod’s swift action. But did it actually happen?

No Historical Record of the Genocide

Skeptics are quick to point out that we don’t have any other ancient sources testifying to this awful event. Not even the other Gospels report it! But doesn’t this seem odd? If Herod really did order the execution of all those little boys, why didn’t Philo or Josephus report it? After all, Josephus wrote a great deal about first-century Palestine — more than anyone else. Yet, he is silent on the matter.

Does this give us reason to reject Matthew’s claim? Certainly, if the President of the United States ordered the execution of all the baby boys in Greenville, SC, we would expect at least two different news sources to cover the event. We can certainly sympathize with the skeptic’s concerns, but I still believe we still have good reason to believe that the genocide occurred.

Herod the Great

While Josephus doesn’t report on this specific event, he tells us a great deal about Herod the Great. Herod was born from noble stock, though he wasn’t technically Jewish. He was an Idumean — a descendent of Esau (something that the Jewish people always held against him). After Pompey conquered Judea, Julius Caesar appointed Herod’s father — Antipater II — as procurator of the region in 47 BC.[1] Antipater subsequently appointed Herod as governor of Galilee at the ripe young age of twenty-five. Less than ten years later, Herod was appointed king of Judea by Caesar Augustus after his dad died by poisoning.

After claiming his throne, Herod quickly married Mariamne I to solidify relations with his Jewish counterparts. But he couldn’t shake the suspicion that she sought to bring him down. This constant paranoia led him to order her execution. Mariamne’s death profoundly affected Herod. He became extremely ill. And though he didn’t die, he remained obsessively paranoid for the rest of his life that others were trying to sabotage his reign.[2]

Known for Two Things

King Herod is known for two things. First, he is known for his building projects. Most notably, Herod orchestrated the rebuilding of the Jewish temple. The building itself towered fifteen stories high, and the temple precincts covered the width of thirty-five football fields. Rabbinic tradition stated, “whoever has not beheld Herod’s building has not yet seen anything beautiful in his life.”[3] In addition to the temple, Herod constructed a number of palaces. He also built a number of theaters, arenas, and amphitheaters for the Greek Games. He established an entirely new city which he named Sebaste in honor of Augustus and even fashioned a temple for the sole purpose of emperor worship. Furthermore, he’s credited with creating the port city of Caesarea Maritima — a marvel of the ancient world.[4]

More relevant, though, Herod was known for his paranoia. Not known for chastity, Herod married ten women who gave him a number of sons.[5] As Herod aged, he became increasingly skeptical of his sons’ devotion. He was so utterly convinced that they meant to overthrow him that he executed three of them (Alexander, Aristobulus, and Antipater III).[6] After a series of executions and imprisonments of his close relatives, Caesar Augustus is reported to have remarked that he would rather be Herod’s pig (hus) than his son (huios).[7] Of course, Herod wasn’t allowed to touch pigs being a Jew. Upon his death bed, Herod ordered the execution of a number of high-ranking officials so that people would mourn at the time of his death rather than rejoice. Thankfully, that order was overturned by his sister after his death. To sum up Herod, Josephus notes, “He was a man who was cruel to all alike and one who easily gave in to anger and was contemptuous of justice.”[8]

Back to Bethlehem

Knowing what we know about Herod, doesn’t his execution order of the young boys in Bethlehem make sense? Knowing how paranoid he was about losing his kingship, it seems almost historically certain that he would have acted this way if he felt his throne was threatened. The Magi were, after all, looking for the one who was “king of the Jews.” If Herod was willing to execute his favorite sons because he thought they were plotting his demise, we can certainly see him ordering the death of his potential replacements.

But why doesn’t Josephus mention this event? I think we have two good explanations. First, Bethlehem was a small town consisting of roughly five hundred people. This means the population of young boys would have been anywhere from 10-20. A sad course of events, yes, but not something that might make it into Josephus’ history books like the execution of the king’s sons.

Second, Josephus’ history books, while extremely helpful for learning about first-century Palestine, are limited in what they report. Case in point, Josephus uses a total of 15,764 words in Antiquities book 18 which covers the span of thirty-two years (AD 6-38). That works out to less than five hundred words per year.[9] By comparison, Matthew uses 18,347 words in his Gospel which only spans three years (about six thousand words per year). This blog post alone is about twelve hundred words. I can’t imagine trying to squeeze the events of this year (especially the kind of year we’ve had) into 500 words. In sum, Josephus had to be selective in what he included in his works.

Conclusion

While we can appreciate the skeptic’s concerns, we don’t need to reject Matthew’s claim that Herod ordered the execution of the Bethlehem boys. Based on what we know of Herod, this execution is consistent with his constant paranoia and subpar character. Additionally, because the execution would have included at most 10-20 boys, Josephus didn’t feel it necessary to include this event in his works since he was limited in space.

Reference

[1] Josephus, Antiquities, 14.8.1-5.

[2] Michael J. Wilkins, “Matthew” in Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke, ed. by Clint E Arnold (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 18.

[3] Bava Basra, 4a.

[4] Wilkins, Matthew, 18.

[5] Josephus, Antiquities, 17.1.3.

[6] Josephus, Antiquities, 16.10.5-16.11.8, 17.10.1.

[7] Macrobius, Saturnalia, 2.f.11.

[8] Josephus, Antiquities, 17.8.1.

[9] Peter Williams, Twitter Post March 28, 2019.

Facing an Unknown Future with a Known God

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

This past Sunday, my family and I stopped by a local antique store after church. We were there for no reason but to check out their merchandise to see, as my wife says, “if there was anything that we couldn’t live without.” As we navigated our way through the aisles of the store, a sign appeared before me with a message that I needed to hear. The sign read, “Never be afraid to trust an unknown future to a known God.” I have heard people asking God for a sign. I have asked God for the same. Nevertheless, God gave me a literal sign for the moment.

As a bit of a backdrop, my family and I had just attended the last service where I served as pastor. I am about to embark on a new phase of ministry. As such, our lives are in a state of transition. Change is often difficult for us all. Yet this sign served as a reminder that God is not only over all places, God is over time itself which means that we can trust the knowable God with our unknown future. Here are a few reasons why we can believe the sign’s statement.

God is Transcendent. God’s transcendence indicates that God is not restricted by creation. This is something that truly baffles my mind. As a stargazer, I found myself lying on the ground last night looking up at the stars. I found myself lost in the beauty of the Large Magellanic Cloud band of the Milky Way galaxy. I was in awe of the intensity of the glow of Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars. And then it hit me. As immense as the universe is with its numerous stars, planets, and galaxies; the universe and all its parts still do not compare to the transcendent majesty of God. God is not restricted by creation, but rather creation is subdued under the transcendent Creator’s authority. With this in mind, believers can face an unknown future with the confidence that God is able to come through for them in ways that no other being has the capacity to do. God’s sphere of transcendence places him on a level that no other being could attain. God is the highest and greatest of all possible beings.

God is Omnipresent. Omnipresence is God’s attribute that describes God’s ability to be in all places at all times. God is not restricted by space. Therefore, God can always transcend locations enabling God to be near to all people. Paul had this idea in mind when he said to the Athenians that God is “not far from each one of us” (Acts 17:27). God reveals that he fills both heaven and earth through his prophet Jeremiah, saying, “Do I not fill the heavens and the earth” (Jer. 23:24)? While we may not know what tomorrow brings, we can face the future with confidence knowing that God’s presence is always with us.

God is Omnitemporal. God’s omnitemporality indicates that God is the Lord of time. Isaiah writes, “Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the whole earth. He never becomes faint or weary; there is no limit to his understanding” (Isa. 40:28). Alan Padgett contends that God is the Lord of time. Time flows from the being of God. Padgett writes,

“To say that God is the Lord of time would include the fact that he is not limited by any amount of time, either in the actions he can perform or the length of his life. While humans can fear the passage of time, because it brings them closer to the end of their life, God is everliving. He cannot die, and has nothing to fear from the future” (Padgett, GEATNOT, 123).

Since God is the everliving and everlasting God, then God’s children have nothing to fear from the unknown future because God is already in the future, as such. Even death cannot intimidate the believer as the everliving God has granted eternal life to those who trust in him.

God is Omnisapient. Finally, God is omnisapient. Omnisapience refers to the all-wise God. Omnisapience (all-wisdom) differs from omniscience (all-knowledge) in the sense that while knowledge understands certain data, wisdom knows how to make the best decisions with the data available. Wisdom references good decision making. God, being the all-wise God, makes the best decisions for our lives even when those decisions do not make sense to us. Since God is the only being who is self-existent, self-sustaining, omnipresent, and transcendent; God then has access to information that none of us could ever possess. God is love (1 John 4:8). As such, God desires the very best for us, especially God’s children. Therefore, people can trust their lives and their future to the all-wise God.

I am certain that I am not the only person who faces uncertainty in life. With society in turmoil and the world facing a pandemic, nearly everyone has been impacted by the tensions of uncertainty. Nevertheless, we do not need to fret if we trust God. Oswald Chambers rightly holds that our fears arise when we place our trust in humanity or in our own abilities. Chambers notes,

“Our Lord trusted no man; yet He was never suspicious, never bitter, never in despair about any man because He put God first in trust; He trusted absolutely in what God’s grace could do for any man. If I put my trust in human beings first, I will end in despairing everyone; I will become bitter, because I have insisted on man being what no man can ever be—absolutely right. Never trust anything but the grace of God in yourself or in anyone else” (Chambers, MUFHH, 152).

Rather than placing your trust in your abilities or the abilities of other people, trust God with your future. While our future may be unknown to us, the future is fully and completely known by the known God.

Sources

Chambers, Oswald. My Utmost for His Highest. The Classic Edition. Uhrichsville, OH: Barbour, 1935.

Padgett, Alan G. God, Eternity, and the Nature of Time. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1992.

Baby Elephant In China Cries For 5 Hours After Being Stomped By His Mom

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Wintery Knight

From the New York Daily News. (Printable version linked)

Excerpt:

Little Zhuangzhuang, a newborn elephant at a wildlife refuge in China, was inconsolable after his mother rejected him and then tried to stomp him to death.

Tears streamed down his gray trunk for five hours as zookeepers struggled to comfort the baby elephant.

They initially thought it was an accident when the mom stepped on him after giving birth, according to the Central European News agency.

Employees removed him, cleaned him up and treated his injuries, then reunited the baby with his momma.

But she was having none of it, and began stomping him again.

So the game keepers stepped in once more and permanently separated the two.

“We don’t know why the mother turned on her calf but we couldn’t take a chance,” an employee told CEN.

“The calf was very upset and he was crying for five hours before he could be consoled,” he said.

“He couldn’t bear to be parted from his mother and it was his mother who was trying to kill him.”

The petite pachyderm, born in August, is now doing well. The zookeeper who rescued him from his violent mother adopted him and helped him thrive at the Shendiaoshan wild animal reserve in Rong-cheng, China.

I found another photo of the baby elephant here:

A baby elephant’s birthday is supposed to be happy

So, in this post, I wanted to take about the duty that parents have to their children.

I guess a lot of my views on ethics are rooted in the obvious needs that children have. When I look at an unborn baby, I can tell what it needs. So, I am careful not to cause a pregnancy before I can supply its needs. The needs of the little unborn creature are driving these moral boundaries on me. And the same with born children. I oppose gay marriage because when I look at little children, I want them to have a stable environment to grow up in with a mother and father who are biologically related to them (in the best case). I permit lots of arrangements, but I promote one arrangement over the others because that’s what’s best for children. Anyone can look at unborn and born children and see that just like anyone can look at a crying baby elephant and understand – “I have to govern my behavior so that I don’t hurt you”. If that means cutting off the premarital sex and making decisions that are likely to produce a stable marriage, then that’s what we should do.

Children cry too, you know. They cry when we hurt them. They cry when we make bad decisions and when we don’t provide them with what they need. Children need mothers and fathers who care about them. Making a safe environment for a child isn’t an accident. It isn’t random and unpredictable. We have to control our desires before we have children so that we provide children with what they need. It would be nice if men and women were more thoughtful and unselfish about children and marriage before they started in with sex.

The arising of our Universe: Design or Chance?

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Julie Hannah

How likely is it that our universe is the result of random physical operations? Scientists point out that shaping the universe into its present form required a very precise balance of many finely-tuned physical constants such as these:

Gravitational attraction—This had to be in perfect balance with the rate of expansion to enable structures to form.
The ratio of gravitational force to electromagnetic force—A slightly different ratio would have created stars that were either white dwarfs or blue giants, neither of which can support complex life.
The electrical charge of electrons—If this were even slightly different, stars would not be able to burn hydrogen and helium, or would not explode to distribute heavy elements.
The strong nuclear force—A slightly weaker force would have prevented the formation of heavy elements, but a slightly stronger force would have converted all hydrogen into other elements, resulting in no water and no fuel for stars to burn.
Formation of carbon—Stars are only able to produce carbon from helium because the carbon nucleus has very specific values of spin and resonance energy.
Initial entropy (disorder)—The entropy of our universe continues to increase, but it is still not at its maximum. Its initial value must therefore have been exceptionally small, with an extremely low probability of 1 out of 10^(10^123 ). This ridiculously large number has more zeros than the total number of protons and neutrons in the entire universe!

For carbon-based life such as ours to be possible, approximately twenty-six such physical properties had to have extremely precise and statistically improbable values. In addition, pairs of matter-antimatter particles annihilate each other, and matter only exists because one extra matter particle somehow came to be formed for every billion pairs. Scientists still do not understand how this imbalance could have arisen.

What about the theory of an infinite number of universes?

To avoid the implication of design, some scientists propose that there is an infinite number of universes with different physical laws. In that case, it is to be expected that ours could arise by chance with the specific properties necessary for human life. But there are problems with this theory.

Paul Davies writes: “It flies in the face of Occam’s razor, by introducing vast (indeed infinite) complexity to explain the regularities of just one universe. I find this ‘blunderbuss’ approach to explain the specialness of our universe scientifically questionable” (Mind of God, 218–19). (According to the principle of Occam’s Razor, the most likely explanation should have the least number of assumptions and conditions.)
The multiverse theory cannot be scientifically proven because it does not provide testable predictions. In the opinion of physicist Peter Woit, the theory, therefore, does not lie within the domain of science: “Maybe we really live in a ‘multiverse’ of different possible universes . . . [But] this way of thinking about physics does not seem to lead to any falsifiable predictions, and so is one that physicists have traditionally considered to be unscientific” (Not Even Wrong, xi).
Cosmologist George Ellis, co-author with Stephen Hawking, is critical of the theory. He argues that universes which actually exist, rather than merely being theoretically possible, would still require specific laws and would probably share a common causal connection. (See “Multiverses and Physical Cosmology.”)
Any inflationary universe must have a beginning in time, which would still need an explanation. (See Borde and Vilenkin, “Eternal Inflation,” 1.)
There are serious difficulties with trying to apply the mathematical concept of infinity to a physical situation. As mathematician David Hilbert pointed out, “The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality” (“On the Infinite,” 151). George Ellis and others argue that an infinite collection of universes is highly problematic and does not solve the problem of origins. He and his co-researchers ask: “Can there really be an infinite set of really existing universes? We suggest that, on the basis of well-known philosophical arguments, the answer is no. The common perception that this is possible arises from not taking seriously enough the difficulties associated with this profoundly difficult concept. . . Many universes in the ensemble may themselves have infinite spatial extent and contain an infinite amount of matter, with the paradoxical conclusions that entails . . . The phrase ‘everything that can exist, exists’ implies such an infinitude, but glosses over all the profound difficulties implied.” As Ellis points out, “Existence of the hypothesized ensemble remains a matter of faith rather than proof. Furthermore, in the end, it simply represents a regress of causation. Ultimate questions remain” (“Multiverses and Physical Cosmology,” 921; 927–28; 935).

In general, there is a problem with the popular belief that infinity renders anything possible. For example, monkeys typing for an infinite length of time are supposed to eventually type out any given text, but if there are 50 keys, the probability of producing just one given five-letter word is

This is a tremendously low probability, and it decreases exponentially when letters are added. A computer program that simulated random typing once produced nineteen consecutive letters and characters that appear in a line of a Shakespearean play, but this result took 42,162,500,000 billion years to achieve! (See Wershler-Henry’s History of Typewriting.) According to scientists Kittel and Kroemer, the probability of randomly typing out Hamlet is, therefore, zero in any operational sense (Thermal Physics, 53).

Against this background, what is the probability that all the universe’s required physical constants arose by chance? The improbability of this fine-tuning has led some scientists to argue that random operations are not sufficient. Below are some examples.

Paul Davies: There is “powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all…It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe…The impression of design is overwhelming” (Cosmic Blueprint, 203). “I belong to the group of scientists who do not subscribe to a conventional religion but nevertheless deny that the universe is a purposeless accident” (Mind of God, 16).

Physicist Frank Wilczek: “It is logically possible that parameters determined uniquely by abstract theoretical principles just happen to exhibit all the apparent fine-tunings required to produce, by a lucky coincidence, a Universe containing complex condensed structures. But that, I think, really strains credulity” (“Absolute Units,” 10–11).

Fred Hoyle, atheist astrophysicist: “A common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature” (“The Universe,” 12).

Freeman Dyson, theoretical physicist: “The more I examine the Universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the Universe in some sense must have known we were coming” (Disturbing the Universe, 250).

Stephen Hawking (in his forties): “The initial state of the Universe must have been very carefully chosen indeed if the hot big bang model was correct right back to the beginning of time. It would be very difficult to explain why the Universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us” (Brief History of Time, 133–34).

Allan Sandage, a prominent cosmologist who converted to Christianity: “The world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone” (“A Scientist Reflects on Religious Belief,” 57).

Even an atheist professor of astronomy, George Greenstein, makes this admission about the fine-tuning of the universe: “The more I read the more I became convinced that such ‘coincidences’ could hardly have happened by chance”; “As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agency—must be involved.” However, he passionately rejects this implication: “As this conviction grew, something else grew as well . . . It was intense revulsion, and at times it was almost physical in nature”; “I will have nothing to do with it. My conviction is that the world obeys laws, the laws of nature and that nothing can ever occur that stands outside those laws” (Symbiotic Universe, 27, 24, 87). Greenstein speaks for many people who are offended by suggestions of any influence beyond blind physical laws, but evidence from cosmology and physics strongly suggests that the existence of our universe cannot be explained as the result of purely random events.

It is therefore not intellectually weak, scientifically ignorant, or logically unsound to consider the possibility of a directing Intelligence at work behind the physical laws of the universe.

References

Borde, Arvind, and Alexander Vilenkin. “Eternal inflation and the initial singularity.” Physics Review Letters 72 (1994) 3305–309. https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9312022.pdf

Davies, Paul. The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature’s Creative Ability To Order the Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1988.

———. The Mind of God: Science and the Search for Ultimate Meaning. London: Penguin, 1992.

Dyson, Freeman J. Disturbing the Universe. New York: Harper and Row, 1979.

Ellis, George F. R., U. Kirchner, W. R. Stoeger. “Multiverses and Physical Cosmology.” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 347 (2004) 921–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07261.x

Greenstein, George. The Symbiotic Universe: Life and Mind in the Cosmos. New York: William Morrow, 1988.

Hawking, Stephen W. A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes. New York: Bantam, 1989.

Hilbert, David. “On the Infinite.” Translated by Ema Putnam, and Gerald J. Massey. 1925. In Philosophy of Mathematics: Selected Readings, edited by Paul Benacerraf and Hilary Putnam, 134–51. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1964.

Hoyle, Fred. “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections.” Engineering and Science 45 (1981) 8–12.

Sandage, Allan. “A scientist reflects on religious belief.” Truth: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Christian Thought 1 (1985) 56–57. http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth15.html

Wilczek, Frank. “On Absolute Units, III: Absolutely Not?” Physics Today 59 (2006) 11. http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/Abs_limits400.pdf

Woit, Peter. Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law. New York: Basic, 2006.

Do the Genealogies of Jesus Contradict?

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ry Leasure

If you’ve read through the gospels, you’ve probably noticed that they share much in common. In some places, the wording is exactly the same. In other places, they’re so different it looks like they might contradict. These similarities and differences are often dubbed the synoptic problem. The word synoptic means “to see together.” The synoptic problem has led scholars to ask, why are there similarities in the gospels? And also, why are there differences?

The prevailing theory amongst scholars is that the similarities in the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) can be explained by the authors’ use of the same sources. Most believe Mark wrote his gospel first, and that both Matthew and Luke used Mark to compile their gospels. They’ve reached this conclusion because roughly 90% of Mark is found in Matthew, and about 60% is contained in Luke. Additionally, both Matthew and Luke shared another common source known as a “Q” – taken from the German word Quelle, meaning “source.” This sayings source explains Matthew and Luke’s common material not found in Mark. And then, both Matthew and Luke had their separate individual sources – sometimes referred to as M and L – which explains their own unique material. Luke’s prologue gives us a bit of a sneak peek into this process (Lk. 1:1-4).

In sum, these different sources explain both the similarities as well as the differences. Some, however, have tripped up over the differences. In fact, many go so far as to suggest that the gospels contradict one another. One such example is found in Jesus’ genealogies, to which we now turn our attention.

Jesus’ Genealogies

Only Matthew and Luke contain Jesus’ genealogy. And one side-by-side comparison reveals that the genealogies are radically different. So much so, that skeptics believe they’re irreconcilable. I’ve listed the genealogies from Matthew 1:1-18 and Luke 3:23-38 below for your convenience. Take a quick look at them so you can better understand the skeptic’s complaint:

At first glance, one glaring difference exists – Luke’s genealogy is much longer than Matthew’s. The reason? Luke traces Jesus’ genealogy all the way back to Adam while Matthew stops at Abraham. In both genealogies, the line from Abraham to David is roughly the same. But once we move past David, the genealogies diverge. Matthew traces Jesus’ genealogy through David’s son Solomon, while Luke traces the line through David’s son Nathan. Also, notice that Joseph has a different father in each account – Jacob in Matthew, Heli in Luke. How can we reconcile these differences? Lest we be tempted to think this is anything new, the church has dealt with this issue for almost two thousand years. And throughout that time, three different explanations have been given to explain the differences.

Option 1: Joseph vs. Mary’s Genealogy

One of the more popular explanations for the differences is to suggest that Matthew traces Joseph’s genealogy while Luke traces Mary’s. If this is true, the difference in genealogies makes sense. Think about your own genealogy for a moment. If you were to trace your father’s line and your mother’s line, you would get radically different family trees. Your father’s father and your mother’s father have different names. In Jesus’ case, his father’s father is Jacob while his mother’s father is Heli.

The reason some take this approach is because Matthew focuses his attention on Joseph in the birth narratives while Luke focuses more on Mary. In Luke, he describes Gabriel’s conversation with Mary, Mary’s Magnificat, and Mary’s visit to her cousin Elizabeth. Moreover, even though Luke doesn’t mention Mary in the genealogy, he couches Jesus’ sonship to Joseph by saying “as it was supposed” (Lk. 3:23). Each of these clues indicates that Luke didn’t intend to give us Joseph’s ancestry but Mary’s.

Option 2: Royal vs. Biological Genealogy

Another explanation for the differences is that Matthew traces Jesus’ royal line with an emphasis on his Messianic claim to the throne while Luke traces Jesus’ biological line. According to this view, Matthew gives us several clues to suggest that he’s giving us a theological genealogy with an emphasis on King David, not a strict biological line.

For starters, Matthew begins the genealogy by stating, “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Mt. 1:1). It’s well-known that Matthew writes to a primarily Jewish-Christian audience who would have understood the expectation that the Messiah would come through the line of David (2 Sam. 7:12-16; Isa. 9:6-7; 11:1-5; Jer. 23:5-6). Therefore, from the outset, he tips off his readers to where he’s going with this genealogy.

Second, the mention of “Christ” alongside the name of Jesus in verse 1 also indicates Matthew’s intentions. While many may think of “Christ” as Jesus’ last name, it’s actually a title. It’s the Greek title for the Messiah. So, when Matthew prefaces his genealogy by stating that it’s the genealogy of Jesus Christ, he’s giving further evidence to his readers that his intention is to demonstrate that Jesus comes in the kingly line of David.

A third indicator that Matthew isn’t giving us a biological line but a royal one is his breakdown of the genealogy into groups of fourteen. In verse 17 we read, “So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations.”

A couple of points are worth noting here. Biblical scholars agree that the refrain “father of” or “son of” in genealogies don’t necessarily mean one generation after the next. Often times, genealogies will skip several generations. The language simply means that one is the ancestor of the next person in the line. Another point worth noting is the significance of the number fourteen and the Hebrew concept of Gematria. Gematria was the practice of ascribing a numerical number to a Hebrew letter – the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet (Aleph) has the numeral value of one and so on. Interestingly, the numerical value of David is fourteen. D(4) V(6) D(4) – 4 + 6 + 4 = 14.

It’s as if Matthew has a giant neon sign flashing “Son of David!” Luke doesn’t use any of these literary devices. He simply records the biological line of Jesus. And while Americans may be unfamiliar with the concept of royal lines, our British friends know that the line doesn’t always pass down neatly from father to son. In fact, the current queen of England inherited the throne from her father who inherited it from his brother. And the next king will probably be the queen’s grandson. All that to say, the royal line often diverges from the biological line.

Option 3: Levirate Marriage

A third explanation for the differences is the use of Levirate marriage. Levirate marriage is detailed in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 and states that if a married man dies without a male heir, his brother or closest relative must marry and seek to propagate with the widow in order to carry on the name of his deceased brother. This practice explains the Sadducees’ question to Jesus about which man would be a woman’s husband in heaven after going through seven brothers who all died (Mt. 22:24-28).

On this theory, something like the following scenario plays out: Jacob (Joseph’s father in Matthew’s genealogy) died before producing a male heir with his wife. Then, in order to fulfill the Levirate laws, Heli (a close relative of Jacob’s), marries Jacob’s widow and then conceives with his new wife which brings about Joseph. If this type of scenario played out, Joseph would be the legal son of Jacob and the biological son of Heli. Then Matthew traces Jacob’s line backwards to Abraham while Luke traces Heli’s line back to Adam. Scholars have listed several of these scenarios where something like this happened.

What’s the Best Explanation?

As I consider the three options, one of the options seems the least tenable. And that is option 1. While many have employed this option to explain the differences, Luke specifically states Joseph as the next person in Jesus’ genealogy, not Mary. He couches this relationship by stating “as it was supposed” because of his knowledge of the virgin birth. More than that, ancient Jewish genealogies always passed through the male’s line, not the female’s. Luke would have understood Jesus as Joseph’s adopted son.

This leaves options 2 and 3 as viable explanations, and my personal opinion is that a combination of the two best explains the differences in genealogies. Matthew clearly isn’t trying to give us a strict chronology with how he groups the names into lists of fourteen. Moreover, by tracing the line through king Solomon instead of Nathan like Luke, Matthew seeks to emphasize the royal nature of Jesus’ line. The levirate marriages could also help explain why different names exist in the genealogy as well.

In the end, we can’t be entirely certain which option is right. But one thing is for certain: we have viable explanations for why the genealogies are different in Matthew and Luke.

I contend that all knowledge begins in the senses and is completed in the intellect.

The most common responses or challenges to my claim are this one that Lisle poses (how do you know your senses are reliable?) and questions to the effect of how can one acquire knowledge about non-physical truths like logic, morality, metaphysics, and God by means of the senses.

As it turns out, to point out that a circular argument is valid is to say nothing particularly significant about the argument.

The term “realism” and its cognates have several different usages.

Questions that have occupied philosophical realists through the millennia aim at exploring how it is that we know this external world.

My seminary, Southern Evangelical Seminary, is the only evangelical seminary in the world of which I am aware that deliberately embraces Thomistic philosophy.

To complete my thoughts about circularity, Van Til et al. are certainly wrong in their contention that all reasoning is circular.

A proposition is about reality. It is not, as a proposition, itself external reality.

If one claims that everything he experiences is a dream, he has just exchanged the term ‘real’ for the term ‘dream’.

References

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Jerusalem and The Pool of Bethesda

Jerusalem and The Pool of Siloam

Herod the Great

The ‘James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus’ Ossuary

Tiberius Caesar

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

To Understand The Second Law Of Thermodynamics, Burn A Match

The Universe – A Giant Battery

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

No Historical Record of the Genocide

Herod the Great

Known for Two Things

Back to Bethlehem

Conclusion

Reference

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Sources

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

What about the theory of an infinite number of universes?

References

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Jesus’ Genealogies

Option 1: Joseph vs. Mary’s Genealogy

Option 2: Royal vs. Biological Genealogy

Option 3: Levirate Marriage

What’s the Best Explanation?

Recommended resources related to the topic: