Theology and Christian Apologetics Archives - Page 35 of 96

In this post, we’re asking the question: What does Paul say about homosexuality? To find out, we need to investigate Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and 1 Timothy 1:9-10. Let’s consider each text in turn.

Romans 1:26-27

This passage is probably the most significant biblical text addressing homosexuality. In the broader context, we read that God reveals his wrath from heaven against all ungodliness. Even though people know God exists through natural revelation, they have suppressed the truth and worshipped idols instead. Therefore, God hands them over to their depraved minds. Verses 26-27 give us an example of this depravity:

For this reason, God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature (para physin); and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

So what exactly does Paul condemn here? Matthew Vines, author of God and the Gay Christian notes, “Paul wasn’t condemning the expression of same-sex orientation as opposed to the expression of an opposite-sex orientation. He was condemning excess as opposed to moderation.“¹ Elsewhere he states that Paul “explicitly described the behavior he condemned as lustful. He made no mention of love, fidelity, monogamy, or commitment.”²

That is to say, and Paul doesn’t condemn homosexuality in general. He merely condemns the excesses or abuses that were common in the ancient world. These excesses included pederasty, master/slave rape, or prostitution. If Paul, according to Vines, would have seen examples of committed, monogamous same-sex partners, he would have celebrated them.

In response to Vines, I simply note that nowhere does Paul limit his condemnation to specific types of homosexuality like master/slave relations, pederasty, or prostitution. Rather, he condemns homosexuality in general terms.

If he wanted to condemn pederasty, for example, he could have simply used the Greek word paiderastes. If he meant to condemn a master appeasing his sexual desire with his male slave, then why state that they were “consumed with passion for one another?” Doesn’t that sound like two consenting adults? Furthermore, why mention the women engaging with one another when we have no record of female master/slave or pedophilia relations from the ancient world?

Contrary to Vines, Paul condemns homosexuality in general (not limited to specific abuses) and roots his condemnation in creation itself. This explains why he writes that homosexual activity is an “exchange of natural relations that are “contrary to nature” (para physin in the Greek). Other revisionists (not Vines) take this to mean that some men’s sexual appetites were so insatiable, that they went against their heterosexual nature to have sexual relations with other men. In other words, “going against nature” simply means going against one’s heterosexual orientation. Thus, the text doesn’t condemn those with a homosexual orientation engaging in sexual activity.

But this explanation fails on multiple fronts. Not only do ancient authors repeatedly use the phrase “para physin” to refer to homosexual activity (not going against one’s orientation), Paul goes to great lengths to state that his position is rooted in the creation narrative of Genesis 1-3. In the surrounding context, he uses phrases such as “creation of the world” (1:20), “creator” (1:25), “birds and animals and creeping things” (1:23), “women” and “men” (1:26-27), “image” (1:23), “lie” (1:25), “shame” (1:27), and “death” (1:32). These allusions to the creation narrative indicate that Paul sees homosexuality as an affront to God’s design for marriage as outlined in Genesis 1-2.

Self-professed lesbian Bernadette Brooten writes in her scholarly book Love between Women:

I believe that Paul used the word “exchanged” to indicate that people knew the natural sexual order of the universe and left it behind. . . . I see Paul as condemning all forms of homoeroticism as the unnatural acts of people who had turned away from God.”³

Romans 1:26-27 doesn’t merely condemn excesses. It condemns homosexual activity in general as an affront to God’s design for sexuality.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 And 1 Timothy 1:9-10

I lump these two together because they are similar in nature.

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality (malakoi and arsenokoitai), nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. — 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality (arsenokoitai), enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine. — 1 Timothy 1:9-10

Paul’s use of arsenokoitai is the first known use of this word in the ancient world. It’s a compound word of man (arsen) and bed (koite). The word literally means “bedders of men.” It’s a term that conveys action, which is why the NIV translation of the word “men who have sex with men” is preferable to one like the NASB’s which simply reads “homosexuals.” Scholars are in agreement that Paul coined this term using the Septuagint translation of Leviticus 20:13:

If a man lies with a male (arsenos koiten) as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

This text clearly condemns both partners for participating in homosexual activity. It says that “both of them have committed an abomination.” In the same way, 1 Corinthians 1:9-10 appears to condemn both partners as well. Not only does Paul condemn arsenokoitai (bedders of men), right before that he condemns malakoi (soft ones).

The Greek word malakoi has a broad range of meaning. It can refer to men who have long hair, wear makeup, have a fondness for expensive clothing, gluttons, the lazy who avoid manual labor, or the acceptance of being penetrated by other men. So which of these does Paul condemn here?

It’s noteworthy that the Jewish philosopher Philo twice uses the word malakoi to refer to passive homosexual partners. It’s also noteworthy where Paul places this word in his list of vices. He places it right between moikoi (adulterers) and arsenokoitai. When a word has a broad range of definitions, context usually is the strongest determiner of the author’s meaning. Considering malakoi’s placement in the sentence, it’s likely that Paul’s referring to a passive male partner in homosexual sex. After all, it’s hard to imagine that Paul would say that men who like designer clothing or a good chick flick will not inherit the kingdom of God. He must be referring to something more blatant.

Was There Really No Concept Of Homosexual Orientation In The Ancient World?

As I’ve alluded to numerous times in this blog series, revisionists argue that when the Bible condemns homosexuality, it condemns abuses — not lifelong, monogamous relationships. Revisionists argue that homosexual orientation and committed homosexual relationships were completely foreign in the ancient world. Therefore, the biblical authors didn’t condemn them. But is this an accurate assessment?

Louis Crompton, a gay man and scholar of queer studies states in his book Homosexuality and Civilization:

Some interpreters, seeking to mitigate Paul’s harshness, have read the passage [in Romans 1] as condemning not homosexuals generally but only heterosexual men and women who experimented with homosexuality. According to this interpretation, Paul’s words were not directed at “bona fide” homosexuals in committed relationships. But such a reading, however well-intentioned, seems strained and unhistorical. Nowhere does Paul or any other Jewish writer of this period imply the least acceptance of same-sex relations under any circumstances. The idea that homosexuals might be redeemed by mutual devotion would have been wholly foreign to Paul or any Jew or early Christian.”⁴

In other words, while Crompton supports homosexuality, he says the revisionists’ arguments don’t work. It’s a massive leap in logic to think that Paul would have embraced homosexual relationships if he had only seen good examples of them.

Furthermore, the idea of homosexual orientation wasn’t completely foreign to the ancient world. Thomas K. Hubbard, a non-Christian classical scholar notes in Homosexuality in Greece and Rome:

“Homosexuality in this era may have ceased to be merely another practice of personal pleasure and began to be viewed as an essential and central category of personal identity, exclusive of an antithetical to heterosexual orientation.“⁵

Notice what Hubbard says here. He argues that people in the ancient world experienced homosexual orientation and self-identified as homosexuals.

In Plato’s Symposium, a philosophical text depicting a contest of extemporaneous speeches by notable men, speaks to the reality of homosexual orientation. Consider these excerpts from two of the speeches:⁶

“For they fall in love with boys only at the point when they begin to have in their possession a mind; and this moment approximates the time when they begin to get a beard. For, I think, those who begin from that moment to fall in love with them are prepared to love in the expectation that they will be with them all their life and will share their lives in common.” — Pausanias

In other words, he speaks of a loving, life-long commitment between homosexual partners. Or consider this other speech:

“So of course when he also happens upon that very person who is his half, whether the lover of boys or any other, then they are wonderfully struck with affectionate regard and a sense of kinship and love, almost not wanting to be divided even for a short time. And these are they who continue with one another throughout life. . . . Each desiring to join together and to be fused into a single entity with his beloved and to become one person from two.” — Aristophanes

Here, again, is another example of life-long homosexual commitments. Commenting further on this subject, N. T. Wright argues:⁷

“As a classicist, I have to say that when I read Plato’s Symposium, or when I read the accounts from the early Roman Empire of the practice of homosexuality, then it seems to me they knew just as much about it as we do. In particular, a point which is often missed, they knew a great deal about what people today would regard as longer-term, reasonably stable relations between two people of the same gender. This is not a modern invention; it’s already there in Plato. The idea that in Paul’s day it was always a matter of exploitation of younger men by older men or whatever . . . of course there was plenty of that then, as there is today, but it was by no means the only thing. They knew about the whole range of options there.”

In the end, the revisionist arguments fall short. Nowhere does Paul limit his condemnation to homosexual abuses. Furthermore, we have no reason to believe that Paul was ignorant of homosexual orientation.

Concluding Thoughts

Based on the above evidence, Paul condemns homosexual behavior in general — not just abuses. He condemns both men and women in Romans 1, and both the active and passive partners in 1 Corinthians 6. The revisionist arguments that Paul had no concept of homosexual orientation, and therefore, couldn’t have condemned it lacks historical backing.

Book Review: How Reason Can Lead To God by Joshua Rasmussen

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Stelman Smith Jr.

“I write for a specific sort of person. You value reason, science, and independent thinking. You question beliefs propped up by ‘faith’ without sufficient evidence. Maybe you would like your life to have a deeper purpose, but you cannot believe something based on a mere wish. Whether you are a student, an academic, or just a curious person, you want one thing: the truth. If you can relate, this book is for you” (Rasmussen).

In what promises to be one of the great Christian Apologetics books of all time, Dr. Josh Rasmussen leads us across a bridge of reason. A bridge that begins with his own doubts and questions as a teenager. A bridge built by the tools of reason, on which we can learn to think clearly, and discover the foundations of the world in which we find ourselves. A bridge that if followed honestly and openly, can lead to a real treasure on the other side.

But this is not an ideological bridge; one based on affirming prior conclusions and forcing the reader to think a certain way. This book is not even written primarily for those who are already believers. Rather, it is for the skeptic. As someone who is naturally skeptical himself, Josh does not compel anyone to step onto the bridge. But he extends his hand and invites one to use their own reason. Josh has no interest in leading anyone blindly according to his own reasons. He invites his readers to test his arguments and conclusions every step of the way – even teaching them how to use powers of reason they may not have even known they had to investigate the world for themselves.

Taking nothing for granted, Rasmussen looks at some of the most fundamental questions we can ask ourselves: What is reality? How do we know anything exists? How do we even know we exist? How do we know we are thinking? Using the light of reason and sophisticated philosophical thought, Rasmussen investigates competing theories about the foundation of all reality to explain how anything at all can exist. He explains that our theory about the foundation must consist of the materials capable of constructing all the aspects of the reality in which we exist.

He shows us how we can use logic to discover what the foundation of reality is like; that materialism and naturalism fail to account for all the aspects of reality around us – but that a Mental Foundation can serve as a robust theory that provides us with simplicity, uniformity, and the explanatory depth needed for all the aspects of reality, including Mind, Matter, Morals, and Reason. And this foundation also serves as the pillars for our bridge of reason; Independence, Necessity, Ultimacy, and Eternal Power.

Libertarian Freedom

In one of my favorite chapters, FOUNDATION OF MIND, Rasmussen helps us understand ourselves and our own minds better through self-reflection and reason. In his section on free will, he shows us that our sense of ourselves making free choices is a window into a world where we really do have libertarian free will:

“Stop reading this. Can you? Is it up to you whether you continue reading? If so, then you have some measure of ‘free will.’ In other words, you have the power to choose between options.

You might be unsure whether you actually have free will. It is understandable: the particles in your brain follow the laws of physics, and the laws of physics are not up to you. In other words, if particles pull all the strings, then you are a puppet of their powers.”

This section lends greatly to the defense of the FreeThinking Argument which deductively demonstrates that naturalism is incapable of providing the foundational materials needed for building minds that have the capacity to reason. But that Theism provides the best explanation for why

“… you have the power to choose whether to focus on these words or to release your focus. This power is within the options available to you, at least if it is within the options available to the particles. Choose your focus, and the particles in your brain will thereby take a path. (Recent science of the mind-brain connection supports this result).”

This chapter helped me personally see how it is possible for God to know my thoughts. God is the foundational mind of all other minds. Minds made in his image.

All along the way, Rasmussen does an excellent job of communicating deep ideas at a personable level that makes it easy for even the laymen to grasp tough thoughts.

The Bridge to Reason

Even the entire argument of the book boils down to a simple form:

Premise 1. Reality in total is self-sufficient (with no outside cause or explanation).

Premise 2. Nothing can be self-sufficient without a perfect foundation.

Conclusion. Therefore, reality has a perfect foundation.

I’ll leave it to Rasmussen to defend the premises in his book. He does so with stunning brilliance and clarity.

Now, construction of this bridge does not come without its obstacles. But Rasmussen helps to remove these barriers by answering some of the toughest objections to his worldview, including the logical problem of evil and some of its sub-categories, such as why God would condemn people for being born into the wrong religion, and why God would allow innocent children to suffer. And in what I think is one of the best answers to this problem, Rasmussen shows us how we can use reason to see that not only does naturalism fail to provide a satisfying explanation for why any moral creatures exist, but that on theism, we should expect the existence of certain mysterious evils. In doing so, he presents a meaningful view of a world in which God creates us to be coauthors in His grand story of reality.

And on the other side of the bridge, we get access to a secret argument that our journey has made for us. But more importantly, if we seek with an honest and open heart, we might find a treasure that’s value is immeasurable. There is a risk, but “… there is value in seeking treasures in the face of uncertainty.”

One risk is the collapse of one’s worldview. But Rasmussen identifies with this, and provides consolation in the discovery of truth:

“My original vision of the world was too limited. My research helped me see that the world is far greater and more complex than I had imagined. I began to feel thankful that my childhood vision of reality was shattered, for it was too simple.”

The other risk is disappointment. Rasmussen points out that “… it takes courage not only to face cold truth, but it also takes courage to look for a treasure before you know whether the treasure is real.”

“This book is about the search for a treasure. Many treasures are not obvious, but we can find them without leaping into the dark. In this book, I will attempt to construct a bridge of reason that can help truth-seekers explore a pathway to a valuable discovery.

You will be the judge. My goal is to bring you encouragement about the big picture of your life through the unalterable rules of reason. I invite you to put the bridge to the test. Without a rational basis for our steps, we walk blindly.

Reason will give us Light.”

Conclusion

When having the conversation about the greatest Christian Apologetics books of all time; books that every serious Christian and non-Christian alike ought to read: No doubt that in the years to come, among mentions such as Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, or Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig, How Reason Can Lead To God, by Joshua Rasmussen will find itself in that conversation.

God is the Good

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

At our church, we often say, “God is good all the time, and all the time God is good.” But do we really contemplate what that means? What is the good? What does it mean to say that God is good? Around 420 BC, the famed Greek philosopher Socrates conversed with a gentleman named Glaucon about the nature of goodness and justice. Socrates held that an objective standard of the Good existed which transcends personal opinion and belief. Plato, Socrates’s student, analyzed their conversation in his book The Republic. Plato likened the Good to the sun as both provided individuals clarity of sight. As the sun allows one to see in the visible realm, the Good allows one to see in the realm of rationality and metaphysical truths.

Like Socrates, the apostle John contended that “God is light, and there is absolutely no darkness in him. If we say, ‘We have fellowship with him,’ and yet we walk in darkness, we are lying and are not practicing the truth” (1 John 1:5, CSB). Is John contending that God is physical light, or does “light” in this case hold a metaphorical meaning? While the Bible indicates that God exudes light in God’s appearance (Ps. 104:1-3; Ezek. 1:26-27; Dan. 7:9-14; Rev. 1), John references the good nature of God by his usage of “light” in the passage. The apostle notes that God is the standard of the Good and clears one’s path to live in a state of holiness and righteousness. What does this mean?

God is absolutely good.

God’s nature is holy and pure. He is morally good and just in all that he does and says. God has no sin and is morally perfect.

God establishes the absolute good.

God is the moral basis for morality. Without God, it is impossible to know the Good. Even when espousing moral claims, a person appeals to the existence of God. While some have contended otherwise, it makes better sense of the evidence to hold that God is the basis for knowing objective morality.

God reveals the absolute good.

Seeing that God is the absolute Good, then it only follows that God is the revealer of good. Some will hold, “Well if God is the absolute good, then why does he permit bad things to happen?” God may permit bad things to occur to bring about a greater good in the end. We may not always know what the greater good might be, but God does. Thus, God reveals morality to humanity either by natural revelation or specific revelation.

In a world of information overload, one in which everything is deemed a conspiracy by conservative and liberal extremists alike, truth and goodness can seem quite murky and dim. However, when we realize that God is the source of goodness and truth, then we may be more inclined to spend less time on Fox News, CNN, and social media, and more time with God who is the standard of goodness. God is the absolute good. Even the bad he allows is meant for a greater good. Trust in God’s goodness and follow the light of his path.

An Accurate Picture Of The World

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Bob Perry

Jesus is the Logos. The Logos is a combination of truth, goodness, and beauty. Truth, goodness, and beauty are the references that give us a grounded Christian spirituality. That’s the True Horizon model — spirituality based on an accurate picture of the world. But what does a spirituality grounded in the real world look like?

More Than An Analogy

I have used an aviation analogy as a model for visualizing what it means to be spiritual. But an analogy is just a way to represent something real. And analogies can only go so far. Please don’t miss the purpose behind it. My point is simply that the culture has convinced too many of us that spirituality is disconnected from reality. That it is some free-floating source of emotional comfort. What I’m suggesting is that that is not what Christianity teaches. Christianity is grounded in the Logos. It produces a spiritual life that is attached to, and reflects, the real world.

Grounded In Truth

The dictionary definition of truth is “correspondence to reality.” In other words, if what you believe about something matches the way the world actually is, then what you believe is true. Again, truth doesn’t exist in our minds. To seek truth is to want to believe things about how the world is, not about how we would like it to be.

Christianity matches what we find in the world in several different ways.

Common Observations and Experiences

Here are a few things that every one of us can see when we look at the world around us:

Human life is inherently unique and valuable.

This matches our common experience of the human condition. We don’t need anyone to teach us to respect and value human life.

The universe we live in owes its existence to an external source.

The universe had a beginning that requires an explanation. This is a conclusion that both science and philosophy lead us to.

Lies and deception are destructive.

We see this all around us every day. No one wants to be lied to. Everyone recognizes the harm that lies can bring to us individually and as a society.

Evil repulses us. Goodness attracts us.

Remember, we are talking about a feature of reality here. This is not about how we know good and evil. It is about the fact that both exist.

There is an order, intelligence, and purpose to the universe.

There are laws of logic and mathematics that describe the universe. Our location in time and space is fine-tuned to an incomprehensibly unlikely level. There is a digital code more complex than any computer algorithm ever written that controls and sustains every form of life on the planet.

There are many more examples, but all of these are different forms of truth, goodness, and beauty. And here’s the point…

A Grounded Spirituality

Based on just these things, a grounded spirituality should:

Pursue a life that values other human life.
Recognize that we are created beings, not gods unto ourselves.
Make us truthseekers and truth-tellers.
Understand that goodness, and the morality it demands is not based on our feelings and experiences, but in the nature of the Creator who made us.
Stand in awe of the miraculous nature of our very existence.

And each of these holds three things in common:

We can learn them directly from our observations and experiences in the world.
We don’t need the Bible to know any of them.
They are perfectly consistent with Christianity.

This is what I mean by a “grounded spirituality.” It matches what the Bible says — and it is supported by reality itself.

Common Ground

Don’t misunderstand. When I say, “we don’t need the Bible to know any of them,” I am not diminishing the importance of the Bible in our spiritual life. I am simply pointing out that this gives us confidence that truth is grounded in the Bible — and that the Bible is grounded in the truth.

Both come from the same Source.

When we understand that, it gives us common ground for discussing spirituality with everyone. Whether they are a hardcore atheist or a spiritually disoriented Christian, they live in the same world as you and me. And we should love them enough to have the courage to confidently, but respectfully, help them re-orient their thinking.

We Know Moral Truths Better Than We Know Many Scientific Claims

Philosophy of Science, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

I recently came across this article “10 Things You Should Know About Scientism” by Christian philosopher JP Moreland, and he dropped a truth-bomb that is too good to not share. But let me give you a trigger-warning. This is sure to rankle a lot of atheists who seem to unquestionably accept the philosophy of scientism.

Contrary to scientism, there are things we know with greater certainty in theology or ethics than certain claims in science. Consider these two claims:

1. Electrons exist.

2. It is wrong to torture babies for the fun of it.

Which do we know with greater certainty? The second claim is the correct answer. Why? The history of the electron has gone through various changes in what an electron is supposed to be. No one today believes that Thompsonian electrons (J. J. Thompson was the discoverer of electrons) exist because our views have changed so much. It is not unreasonable to believe that in fifty to one hundred years, scientific depictions of the electron will change so much that scientists will no longer believe in electrons as we depict them today.

Regarding the second claim, someone may not know how they know it is true, but nevertheless, we all, in fact, know it is true. If someone denies that, he needs therapy, not an argument. Now it is not hard to believe that in fifty to one hundred years, most people will no longer believe the second claim. But it is hard to see what kind of rational considerations could be discovered that would render the second claim an irrational belief. Thus, we have more certainty in the second claim than in the first. And the same is true for certain theological assertions—like that God exists.

When I shared this quote on social media immediately, I was met with a lot of guffawing from certain atheists. I have to wonder if it’s’s because it strikes a nerve against one of their most dearly held doctrines — that science can answer everything.

The Virtues Of Science?

If you think about it for a minute, what Moreland is saying is hardly controversial. One of the things that skeptics will often say is that one of the differences between science and faith is that science is humble. This is because science is provisional – it’s constantly willing to be wrong and revise its theories in the face of new evidence. Popular astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson speaks of the virtues in the scientific method:

“This adventure is made possible by generations of searchers strictly adhering to a simple set of rules: Test ideas by experiment and observation, build on those ideas that pass the test, reject the ones that fail, follow the evidence wherever it leads, and question everything.”

Faith, or so the argument goes, is the opposite. It’s often dogmatic in its assertions and not willing to change its stance in the teeth of evidence. It’s more of a “because I said so” vs. a “let me show you” type of thing. All of its arguments are appeals to authority, according to some skeptics.

So it should not be arguable that science, with all of its promises to give us knowledge, is something that should be held with a certain degree of tentativeness and a willingness to change its mind. The existence of gravity or the truth of quantum mechanics are empirical facts, but our understanding of the theories behind them is subject to change.

Right now, science doesn’t have a strong and confident answer for why there is consciousness or how life originated. And the answers in science regarding how human beings and animals evolved is constantly being revised in light of new discoveries. There are things that are unknown or are held with a lesser degree of certainty.

Moral Values: Not Scientifically Discovered And Not Created By Man

The statement “there is a vast moral difference between protecting the lives of defenseless, orphans, and using them for target practice” is not something that is going to ever be subject to revision. And here’s the kicker — science can’t begin to tell us why we should value one over the other, at best it can tell us about the brain states of the tortured versus the nurtured. It can’t tell us why we ought to care for the orphan and why we ought not torture them.

Ironically, science also can’t tell us why the humility of the scientific method is more virtuous than the dogmatism and exclusivism of religion! These are moral conclusions, not conclusions of science.

“If It Can’t Be Verified By My Physical Senses, I Can’t Know It.”

Some might argue that science gives us empirical knowledge — that which we can actually verify with our five physical senses. For example, we can verify with our eyes that spiders start having eight legs unless they lose a leg. That’s a scientific fact. But moral statements can’t be verified that way, so they’re not actually factual. We need to keep our moral jelly away from their scientific peanut butter.

But this is just the old, debunked philosophy of verificationism rearing it’s ugly head again. Verificationism had it’s heyday nearly a hundred years ago in philosophy departments, but it died out shortly after critics pointed out a fatal flaw: We can’t actually verify verificationism with our five physical senses. There’s no scientific experiment that you can run that shows that factual statements can’t be moral. Therefore, verificationism is self-defeating. And to say that there’s a difference between empirical facts and moral opinions just begs the question for verificationism. Somehow this flawed epistemology lives on among many modern skeptics.

But What About Moral Diversity?

Some might argue that morality is different in other cultures, and so, therefore, it’s’s relative and makes no truth claims. Science can at least tell us the facts eventually, while morality is just emotive. So, for example, in India, cows roam free because they’re considered to be sacred. But here in America, there’s a hamburger spot within driving distance for almost everyone.

But both cultures agree that it is wrong to eat other human beings. In America, when Grandma dies, we don’t eat her; we bury her. Hindus don’t eat beef because they think the cow could be Grandma reincarnated! So the moral difference doesn’t arise because of conflicting values but facts related to common values.

Every culture that has devalued innocent, human life has done so by dehumanizing the other side. Just look at our modern abortion debate — one side stridently says that the unborn are not human, so it’s’s permissible to kill them. The other side holds that life begins at conception and will argue from science, theology, and philosophy for their position. But neither side will explicitly say it’s’s morally permissible to murder babies because they’re inconvenient to us, because both camps consider them to be human.

On the subject of moral disagreement, C.S. Lewis wrote: “Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to—whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.”

Just because some objects in the moral landscape are harder to see than others, it doesn’t mean that we don’t see many moral facts very clearly. We clearly see that justice is to be preferred to injustice, kindness is to be preferred to cruelty, courage is better than cowardice, and that intellectual dishonesty is never going to be a virtue.

Ethical Truths Are More Certain Than Many Scientific Claims

If morality is just a matter of preference or expressions of our emotions, it becomes unclear why we should work to solve any moral “problems.” We could simply say, “Hey, this sense of distaste you have for genocide, kidnapping, sexually abusing children, rape, murder is just that — distaste. Let’s just agree that no moral problems exist and move on!” Obviously, that’s crazy.

The point is that there are universal moral values; they’re often glaringly self-evident and need no argument to support them any more than we need to argue for the laws of mathematics or logic. And science will never be able to tell us what they are.

Peter Singer, an atheist philosopher, says, “No science is ever going to discover ethical premises inherent in our biological nature, because ethical premises are not the kind of thing discovered by human investigation. We do not find our ethical premises in our biological nature, or under cabbages either.”

We come to science with this background belief as a properly basic foundation. And importantly, science depends on people acting ethically – like conducting their investigations safely and honestly. We take this for granted, just as much as take for granted the existence of the external world that we study in science. And ethics and science often intersect, like in questions about gene editing, population control, animal rights, and so forth.

To doubt the existence of the moral world is no more justifiable than to doubt the existence of the physical world. Many atheist philosophers agree with this — for example, Michael Martin, Russ Schafer-Landau, Erik Weilenberg, Louise Antony, GE Moore, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, and many more, even if I and many philosophers think they run into a “grounding” problem. And because of that, Moreland is absolutely correct. The notion that the assertions of the hard sciences are greatly superior to claims outside science is false.

“A wise man scales the city of the mighty and brings down the stronghold in which they trust.” (Proverbs 21:22)

Why We Can’t Know If The Universe Created Itself

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

In the beginning, was… not the Word …. but the singularity event occurring in absolute nothingness and timelessness that spontaneously created all we see in the universe around us. So said physicist Stephen Hawking anyway, in his popular book The Grand Design, where he explained that spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something rather than nothing. It is not necessary to invoke God; he concluded, “to light the fuse to set the universe going.” “All it takes is gravity and the existence of, well, multiple other universes.”

Soundbites like these can be disturbing for people of faith. More to the point, they can provide false comfort to those who prefer to suppress their innate knowledge of God. In a recent conversation with a skeptic who had heard of but not read the book, I was quickly confronted with a typical line of argument – reliance on the expert. “Look,” my friend said, “neither one of us can hold a candle to someone with the accomplishments and intellect of Hawking, so if it’s good enough for him….” The smile on his face told me the conversation was over before it began. After all, a response like this leaves little room for further discussion and no room for debate.

So what is the believer to do? Does recognition of one’s limitations, and a proper sense of humility, make it a fool’s errand to pit oneself against a world-renowned physicist such as Dr. Hawking? Or is there a way to appropriately examine and perhaps even challenge the reasoning of such an expert?

There is indeed a way. Thousands of times a year in courtrooms across America, expert witnesses take the stand to provide opinions to jurors on topics that are beyond the knowledge of the average person. But these opinions and conclusions can be, and often times are, rejected. The first step is to carefully consider the assumptions underlying the opinion, which oftentimes are not well thought out or are perhaps just incorrect. For example, a psychiatrist may conclude that the defendant she examined is suffering from a particular mental illness, but that opinion may be based upon the untested assertions of the defendant which if false – if the defendant is malingering and trying to fool the examiner – could easily lead to a mistaken conclusion. An accident reconstruction expert can conclude that one party was the cause of an accident by making incorrect assumptions about conditions he did not observe leading up to the accident. In short, despite being “qualified” to offer an opinion, even the impressive credentials of a physicist like Hawking do not give the expert a free pass. The expert’s opinions, like all evidence presented in court, must be carefully examined.

What is the mistaken assumption underlying Hawking’s approach? Simply this: you cannot use science to prove what occurred prior to, and outside of, the universe. Though many invoke the term “science” as a club, using it to convey that their position is somehow unassailable, science is not a book of wisdom. It does not contain the answer to all of life’s questions as if it were an encyclopedia of all there is, or was, or ever will be. It is instead a method for using our senses, and reason, to learn how and why things occur or why they are the way they are. Implicit in science is testability. The scientist’s hypothesis must be subject to repetition and testing so that others can confirm that the methodology is sound and the conclusions logically justified.

When it comes to examining the origins of the universe, there is a starting point some 14.6 billion years ago before which there was neither time nor space. There was the complete absence of anything. Science cannot reach back beyond that point. If there are indeed a multitude of other pre-existing universes that in no way intersect with our own, which are therefore undetectable to us, how can a scientist simply assume they exist? If our universe needed a pre-existing “law” of gravity to light the fuse, how can one assume that such a law appeared without the need for a creator, for a “lawgiver?” For his conclusions to be testable, Hawking would have to first demonstrate what conditions existed “before” time and space came into existence. If we sprang from another universe, how can science prove that such a place, beyond the reach of any of our sensing equipment, exists? In short, if his conclusions are correct, there is no way for anyone to know. Hawking has moved from science to speculation at this point. He has moved from physics, wherein his expertise lies, to philosophy, where it does not.

Positing a multiverse or a pre-existing law of gravity may provide an alternative to God as the “uncaused cause,” but it also demonstrates that even skeptics share that powerful sense that most people have that you just can’t get something from nothing, that before a thing can exist there must exist before it an adequate source. Moreover, believing in a multiverse or law of gravity cannot explain the really interesting questions we also ponder, that have little to do with physical creation and impersonal laws: how did life emergence from nonlife? What is the source of the information coded into DNA that is capable of producing not just life but consciousness and intelligence? The physical world does not provide examples of intelligence and language, so what can explain the information-rich “blueprints” that we know of as DNA? Why are there “laws” of nature, and why are order and design built into things if there is no designer? Why do we all recognize concepts like beauty, truth, and morality?

There is a certain hubris in asserting that God is unnecessary. Consider an analogy: a programmer writes a computer simulation in which a virtual soldier is given artificial intelligence, and a set of missions to perform. If the soldier uses its intelligence to begin inquiring as to the nature of the computer in which he is housed, what information would that provide him about the programmer? Only such information as the programmer wanted his creation to know. Regardless of how clever this soldier became, he could never know what the programmer wished to accomplish with the program, or what motivated him to write it unless the programmer gave him that information. What stunning arrogance it would be for the soldier to nonetheless conclude from his inquiry that he self-assembled, that he knows the sum total of what occurred before he became conscious, and most strikingly that there was no programmer at all.

This, too, is Hawking’s problem. As a scientist, he no doubts understood that theories must be tested in some fashion to give them scientific weight. How can a theory about multiple universes which do not intersect in any fashion with our own ever be tested? How can he demonstrate that gravity was not first created by someone immensely powerful and completely outside of our physical reality?

Why then write a “science” book that is itself a foray outside of science, setting out to prove something that science cannot prove? The Bible warns that the wisdom of the world is folly to God. Perhaps this is what it means.

How Jesus “Emptied Himself”

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

Few biblical texts receive as much attention as Philippians 2:5-8. It reads:

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Theologians have spilt much ink over this text. After all, it’s a rich Christological text which proclaims significant truths about the nature of Christ. But far and away, the most controversial part is the phrase “but emptied himself.” What does this statement mean?

The Dilemma

Does this mean that Jesus emptied himself of his deity, thus ceasing to be God during his incarnation? After all, if he was fully God, how could he also be a human at the same time? This seems like a logical contradiction.

Or, perhaps the phrase means that he set aside certain divine attributes while maintaining others. In other words, he still kept some of his divine nature — holiness, love, wisdom — but willingly set aside other parts of his divinity — omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience — in order to be human. This view has attracted many supporters because it seeks to reconcile how an all-powerful, all-knowing, and present everywhere God could also possess qualities such as limited wisdom and limited spatial presence.

Or, does this phrase mean something else entirely? In fact, I do believe it means something else entirely, and I think I have good reasons for believing this. Allow me to explain.

The Deity Of Christ

There’s little doubt that this text proclaims Jesus as the pre-existent God of the universe. This text gives us two reasons for reaching this conclusion.

First, it states that Jesus was “in the form of God.” The word for “form” in the Greek is morphe, which denotes the exact substance or nature of something. Therefore, by declaring that Jesus was “in the form of God,” Paul emphatically states that Jesus shares the exact same nature as God. He is eternal, self-existent, all-powerful, all-knowing, holy, love, and so forth.

Second, Paul tells us that Jesus was equal with God when he wrote, “though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be grasped.” Nothing, however, is equal to God except God. God even declares in Isaiah 46:9, “I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me.” If what God says in Isaiah is true, how then could Paul make Jesus out to be God’s equal? It must be that Jesus himself is also God.

The Meaning Of “Emptied Himself”

We now come to the most controversial part of the text. What does Paul mean when he says Jesus emptied himself? I believe he tells us in the next part of the text when he asserts, “[Jesus] emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.” Here, Paul indicates that the emptying of Christ doesn’t include losing any of his deity. Rather, the emptying includes adding a human nature to himself. In other words, it’s the formula of subtraction by addition.¹

Notice the text doesn’t state that Jesus emptied “part of himself.” That would indicate that he set aside portions of his divine nature in order to become a human. No, it simply states that he “emptied himself” by taking on the nature of a human.

Paul expresses that, even though Jesus had a divine nature and an exulted status in glory, he willingly chose to “empty himself” by coming to earth to experience all the limitations and sufferings of a human, ultimately culminating in his death on the cross.

This view is consistent with the historic orthodox view of the nature of Christ. At the Council at Chalcedon (AD 451), the church declared that Jesus was one unique person who possessed both a human and divine nature. That is to say; he was fully God and fully human, not part God part man. And for clarification, he wasn’t two persons. Rather, he was one person who had an eternal divine nature and an added human nature in the incarnation. Again, subtraction by addition.

“Emptied Himself” Illustrated

Let me give you an illustration to explain how adding something could look like subtraction.² Imagine that one day you decided to go to a luxury car dealership to test drive the nicest car in the showroom. The salesman gave you permission, so you took the shiny car out for a spin.

As you were driving down the road on that rainy day, you noticed a field off to your right and decided to take the car off-roading to see how well it could do donuts. After about fifteen minutes of spinning around in the field, sufficiently caking the car in mud, you took the car back to the dealership, handed the keys to the salesman, and thanked him for allowing you to test drive the car.

As you can imagine, the salesman demanded an explanation for why you plastered his new shiny car with mud. To which you responded, “hey buddy, why are you so upset? Did I take anything away from the car? No, I only added to it. I added mud!”

You see, even after the fifteen-minute test drive, the new luxurious car was still a new luxurious car. The full coating of mud, however, disguised its glory, so it wasn’t as obvious as before. In the same way, as Jesus added a human nature — much like mud in our illustration — he didn’t cease being God. Instead, the human nature merely disguised his glory like the mud disguised the glory of the new luxurious car.

As you read through the Gospels, you will find that Jesus’ humanity made it difficult to see his divinity. We even read of times where Jesus became hungry or tired or didn’t know certain details about future events. In a sense, this is the mud disguising his glory. It doesn’t mean he ceased being glorious, it simply means his human nature veiled his divine nature during the incarnation.

Why It Matters

Jesus adding a human nature has massive implications. After all, Paul tells us that Jesus emptied himself to become “obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” If he only had a divine nature, he could not have died for our sins, because God cannot die. The reason Jesus could die was because he possessed a human nature.

Thus, without his added human nature, we would still be lost in our sins. Thank God Jesus emptied himself.

Were There No Camels During the Time of Biblical Patriarchs?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Mikel Del Rosario

Camels in the Bible?

Engaging skeptical challenges to the Old Testament and Camels in the Bible

Most people I knew growing up had no problem saying most Old Testament stories were based on some kind of real event. Even those who were skeptical about supernatural parts of the Scriptures didn’t question basic details of ordinary events like Abraham’s travels or even the presence of camels in the Bible.

Today, not so much. Many archaeologists and historians are challenging the reliability of biblical stories in the public square. From college classrooms to YouTube, many people get their views on the Bible from books, articles, and documentaries that try hard to undermine the truth of Scripture. This is probably why even the ordinary details of Old Testament narratives can raise questions in people’s minds. For example, could Abraham really have used camels?

Could Abraham really have used camels?

Skeptics say the camels in the Bible show up at the wrong time and in the wrong place. Many are quick to allege there’s no evidence of camels in the Middle East until about a thousand years after Abraham. In a 2014 New York Times article called “Camels Had No Business in Genesis,” John Noble Wilford wrote:

Camels probably had little or no role in the lives of such early Jewish patriarchs as Abraham, Jacob and Joseph, who lived in the first half of the second millennium B.C., and yet stories about them mention these domesticated pack animals more than 20 times… The archaeologists, Erez Ben-Yosef and Lidar Sapir-Hen, used radiocarbon dating to pinpoint the earliest known domesticated camels in Israel to the last third of the 10th century B.C. — centuries after the patriarchs lived.[1]

There are two kinds of camels

It’s true there are camels in the Bible. Genesis says Abraham brought camels back to Canaan from his time in Egypt (12:16) and his servant brought camels from Canaan to Aram (24:10-11). Did the Bible get this wrong? Gordon Johnson teaches in the Old Testament department at Dallas Theological Seminary. He talks about camels in the Bible and explains what the archaeologists really found and why counting the humps on camels can help us think through this issue:

When [Ben-Yosef and Sapir-Hen] were excavating, they found camel bones [belonging to a camel with one hump [2] But there are two types of camels: One-hump camels and two-hump camels. The first time one-hump camels appear in Israel is about 1,000 B.C. So the Internet blogs went crazy: “These Israeli archaeologists proved the Bible’s wrong—camels didn’t exist in Israel until about 1,000 B.C.” And that’s true for one-hump camels. but this is important: One-hump camels were late; two-hump camels were early.

Here’s what he means by “late” and “early”: There probably weren’t many camels with just one hump in Israel until a “late” date, after Abraham’s time. But the rest of the story is we know ancient drawings and texts show camels with two humps were already in Egypt at an “early” date, way before Abraham. Turns out, knowing the difference between one-hump camels and two-hump camels can help us respond to skeptics who insist the Bible got this all wrong.

Keep this in mind when you see camels in the Bible: The fact is two-hump camels were in Egypt about 12,000 B.C. and they were all over the Ancient Near East by 7,000 B.C. They were domesticated by about 3,000 B.C. That’s 1,000 years before Abraham.

Evidence for Camels in Ancient Egypt

When skeptics raise questions about camels in the Bible, they often miss the difference between camels with one hump those with two. One-hump camels were for trade. Two-hump camels were for travel and that’s exactly what Abraham was using his camels for. He got them in Egypt where they’d already been for thousands of years.

Ancient texts around that time from Nippur[3], Ugarit[4], and Alalakh [5], mention two-hump camels. There are even rock carvings and drawings of these kinds of camels 1,000 years before Abraham. For example, This cylinder seal from Abraham’s time shows a circle with two figures riding on each hump of a two-hump camel[6]. Archaeologists also discovered a rock drawing from Egypt from 200 years before Abraham showing a domesticated one-hump camel being led by an Egyptian[7].

Abraham Used Camels for Travel

Sometimes, archeological discoveries can raise questions about certain details of ancient stories, like the presence of camels in the Bible. But it’s important to get the whole story. Even if one-hump camels weren’t all over Israel during Abraham’s time, archaeology has shown us it’s not unlikely that Abraham got two-hump camels for his travels in Egypt, where they had already existed for thousands of years. Camels in the Bible are no problem at all.

Notes

[1] John Noble Wilford, “Camels Had No Business In Genesis,” The New York Times, February 10, 2014, Sec. Science, Https://Www.Nytimes.Com/2014/02/11/Science/Camels-Had-No-Business-In-Genesis.Html. This Idea Was Not New. Albright Asserted This Popular View Amongst Mainstream Scholars: “It Was Only In The 11th Century Bc That Camel-Riding Nomads First Appear In Our Documentary Sources … Any Mention Of Camels In The Period Of Abraham Is A Blatant Anachronism.” William F. Albright, Archaeology And The Religion Of Israel (Johns Hopkins, 1968), 96.

[2] Lidar Sapir-Hen And Erez Ben-Yosef, “The Introduction Of Domestic Camels To The Southern Levant: Evidence From The Aravah Valley,” Tel Aviv 40 (2013): 277–85.

[3] A Sumerian Text Alludes To The Milk Of Bactarian Camels, Implying Domestication. See Gleason Archer, “Old Testament History And Recent Archaeology From Abraham To Moses,” Bibliotheca Sacra 127, No. 505 (1970): 17.

[4] A Sumerian Text Mentions Bactarian Camels In A List Of Domesticated Animals. T.M. Kennedy, “The Date Of Camel Domestication In The Ancient Near East,” Http://Www.Biblearchaeology.Org/Post/2014/02/17/The-Date-Of-Camel-Domestication-In-The-Ancient-Near-East.Aspx.

[5] A Fodder List Mentions A Bactarian Camel. Archer, “Old Testament History And Recent Archaeology From Abraham To Moses,” 17.

[6] See The Artifact: “Cylinder Seal With A Two-Humped Camel Carrying A Divine Couple,” The Walters Art Museum · Works Of Art, Accessed September 7, 2017, Http://Art.Thewalters.Org/Detail/27381/Cylinder-Seal-With-A-Two-Humped-Camel-Carrying-A-Divine-Couple/.

[7] See The Artifact: Donald Redford And Susan Redford, “Graffiti And Petroglyphs Old And New From The Eastern Desert,” Journal Of The American Research Center In Egypt 26, No. 27 (1989) Figure 42: 3–49.

An Intro to Arguments for God’s Existence

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By J. Brian Huffling

Does God exist? This has been one of the most asked questions in history with the most profound implications. As Norman Geisler used to say, our view of God’s existence is most important since it determines what we think about everything else. There are many arguments for God’s existence. This article will examine the standard classical proofs with typical objections and evaluations.

The proofs for God are varied and different, but they can be classified as either a posteriori or a priori. The former means the proofs are based on (or after/post) experience, while the latter are allegedly not based on experience, but prior/apart from it. A posteriori proofs are empirical in nature and take it that we can trust our senses. A priori proofs start with the mind and are thus rationalistic. All but one of the following arguments are a posteriori.

The proofs we will look at are various forms of the cosmological argument, the teleological/intelligent design argument, the moral argument, and the ontological argument.

Cosmological Arguments

Cosmological arguments are arguments based on the cosmos (from the Greek kosmos). They are a posteriori in nature, or based on experience and are thus empirical. There are many types of cosmological arguments. For a good survey, see William Lane Craig’s The Cosmological Argument from Plato to Leibniz. Here we will examine a few such as the Kalam argument and two of the famous Five Ways of Thomas Aquinas.

The Kalam Argument

The Kalam argument, popularized by William Lane Craig, is an example of what has become known as a horizontal type of cosmological argument since it argues that there is a temporal beginning of the universe in the finite past (horizontally). Here is the argument:

Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
The universe had a beginning.
Therefore, the universe had a cause.

The first premise is very straightforward in saying that if something came to exist that did not exist, then it must have a reason (cause) for its existence. This is because a thing must be either (1) self-caused, (2) uncaused, or (3) caused by another. A thing that began to exist can’t be self-caused since it would have to exist prior to bringing itself into being, which is a contradiction. It can’t be uncaused since there would, by definition, be no reason for its existence, and something can’t come from nothing. It must then be caused by another. This premise has its challengers, though. Some will say that things like virtual particles come into being from nothing and for no reason. However, such is simply not the case. Virtual particles are particles that arise from unstable energy in a vacuum. Since unstable energy is clearly not nothing, this is not a counter-example.

The second premise is really the crucial premise. The Kalam was originally provided by Muslim philosophers in the Middle Ages who argued that an infinite series is impossible, and since an actual infinite amount of time in the temporal past would be an actual infinite, then the universe cannot be temporally infinite: it must have had a beginning. Nowadays it is more popular to use Big Bang cosmology to show the universe had a beginning, such as the second law of thermodynamics, the fact that the universe is expanding, and the radiation echo discovered in the 1960s that demonstrates there was a massive explosion that gave rise to the universe’s expansion.

The Big Bang model is the reigning model, and atheists do not like its implications for a cause of the universe. Good books on this type of argument include Robert Jastrow’s God and the Astronomers, Hugh Ross’ The Creator and the Cosmos, and Lee Strobel’s The Case for a Creator.

Aquinas’ 5 Ways

Thomas Aquinas’ famous 5 Ways (See Summa Theologiae Part I Q. 2. Art. 3) are other types of cosmological arguments. The first way is an argument from motion. The word ‘motion’ actually means ‘change.’ It is taken from Aristotle. Aquinas calls this “the more manifest way” since it is clear that change happens all around us. For Aristotle and Aquinas, change is when something goes from being potentially x to actually x. For example, a piece of wood can be hot, but until it is actually hot, it is only potentially hot. The actually hot fire actualizes the wood and makes it hot. Further, a thing can only be changed by something else; in other words, a thing can’t be in potency and act in the same way. So, change must be brought about by an actually existing thing. A thing cannot actualize its own potency as that would mean it would be actually and potentially x at the same time, which is a contradiction. The linchpin to this, and all of the 5 ways, is that there cannot be an actual infinite regression of causes like this. Since things are composed of act and potency, they must be put together of act and potency. But being put together like this requires a being that is either put together of these things or not, which cannot go on forever. So there must be a being that is not put together of act and potency, but a being of Pure Act (or pure existence). Such all men call God.

This is a complicated argument based on Aristotelian metaphysics. However, going through all of the metaphysical thought, in the end, pays great dividends. Much can be deduced from God being Pure Act, as Aquinas demonstrates in the subsequent questions. For example, if God is Pure Act, then he is simple, meaning he is not composed of anything. (See this article on divine simplicity.) Being composed, so the argument goes, requires a composer. So he has no potency. But potency is a requirement for change to take place. So if God does not have potency, then he cannot change. (See this article on divine impassibility which is related to this notion that God can’t change.) Further, if he cannot change, then he can’t be measured by time as time has classically been thought to be the measure meant of change. So he is eternal. (See this article on God being eternal.) In this sense, ‘eternal’ does not mean existing forever. Following Boethius, it means that God enjoys all of his being all at once. There is no succession. He is infinite and perfect (also following from Pure Act). Thus, while the argument is much more complicated than the Kalam, it tells us a lot more about God.

Objections to this argument include Newtonian laws of motion and the idea that a thing can change itself. It is argued, some say, that Newton disproved Aristotle’s point here since objects at rest or in motion stay in such a state unless impeded by something else. However, Aristotle’s point is metaphysical in nature, while Newtons’ is physical. Aristotle does not have in mind inertia, like Newton. While inertia (a thing moving in location) certainly is an example of change, it is only an example, and not change as such. Others maintain that a thing can move itself, such as one’s hand. However, the hand does not move the hand; the nervous system does, which is run by the brain, which the will moves. But such is not a counter example to the first way since the point stands that a thing in potency has to be moved by a thing in act.

Whew.

The second way is from efficient causality. It basically says that a thing cannot be the cause of itself since it would have to exist in order to bring itself into existence, which is a contradiction. There cannot be an infinite number of efficient causes since such causes are the causes of intermediary causes, and if there were an infinite number of efficient causes, then there would be no ultimate beginning to effects. An example of this, that I owe to Richard Howe, is a train. When asked what is making a particular boxcar move, one can reply the boxcar in front of it. But there cannot be an infinite number of boxcars since a boxcar cannot cause motion; an engine is required for that. This kind of causes cannot be infinite in number; thus, there must be an ultimate efficient cause that is known as God. This type of cosmological is referred to as a vertical argument since it is based on a hierarchy of causes rather than a temporal beginning in the (horizontal) past.

A typical objection to this argument is, “what created God?” While one can argue with the reasoning or soundness of the above arguments, this objection demonstrates that the objector does not understand the arguments. The first way concludes with a being of Pure Act that per the reasoning can’t have a cause. The second way is the same since there would then require a seeming infinite number of causes, which the argument denies. God as an uncaused cause cannot have a cause, or he wouldn’t be the uncaused cause. Such an objection does not apply to these arguments.

Good books on the above include Maurice Holloway’s An Introduction to Natural Theology, and Brian Davies’ An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, along with Philosophy of Religion by Norman Geisler and Winfried Corduan.

Teleological Arguments

While cosmological arguments argue from the existence of the cosmos, teleological arguments (also known as intelligent design arguments, or ID arguments) argue for God’s existence from the design of the cosmos and biological life. (The term ‘teleological’ comes from the Greek telos, meaning “end” or “goal.”) The argument tends to go like this:

Every design has a designer.
The universe and life exhibit design.
Therefore, the universe and life have a designer.

Regarding design in the universe, design can be seen that allows biological life to live on earth. For instance, the kind of galaxy we are in (spiral), where we are in the galaxy (outer arm), what kind of star we orbit, the size of our moon, the kind and make up of our atmosphere, etc., all go into making biological life possible. Biological life can also be seen to be designed given the amount of specified complexity in the human body. (“Specified complexity” refers to the notion that a given thing needs certain parts to work properly and to perform some function. A typical example is the mousetrap. It has few parts, but each part is necessary for the trap to function properly.) Parts in the human body exemplify specified complexity, such as the eye. Evolution does a poor job of explaining the eye since each part is needed in order to see. Given evolution, the person would not be able to see if the eye were developing slowly via random mutation (or even directed via God for that matter). DNA and the cell also exhibit amazing complexity and design. Since all designs need a designer, the universe and life require a designer.

What about evolution? As the above remarks indicate, evolution has a tough time dealing with specified complexity, as well as the origin of life (for which it has no answer), as well as many other problems. (See The Deniable Darwin and Darwin’s Doubt for a critique of Darwinian evolution. David Berlinski’s The Devil’s Delusion is also very good.) But as a strategic move, one can grant evolution is the case and still argue for God’s existence. This bypasses unnecessary arguments since even if evolution were true, there would still need to be a cause to the universe and biological life (things evolution can’t explain—especially the former). Thus, one doesn’t have to be well-versed in the evolution debate in order to argue for God’s existence.

The ID arguments are very powerful and convincing. However, they don’t provide as much as the cosmological arguments. For example, ID arguments cannot demonstrate creation ex nihilo (that the universe was created from nothing). They also can’t demonstrate monotheism (that only one God exists). What they demonstrate is that there is an intelligent designer (or designers). They also can’t demonstrate that the designer(s) are transcendent to the universe. Nothing in the ID arguments alone can demonstrate that the designer(s) is not part of the universe. Further, natural science on its own cannot demonstrate a transcendent being to the universe since natural science studies nature, and a transcendent being would be supernatural. Thus, natural science is, by definition, limited on the issue of God’s existence without the help of philosophy. (See my earlier blog for a more complete critique of ID arguments and why I think philosophical arguments are stronger.) However, the arguments are very good in showing at least one intelligent designer, and most people are probably convinced that such a being is God. In conjunction with the other arguments, the ID arguments are very powerful.

Typical objections include the need for the designer to have a designer/creator, dysteleology (arguments for a lack of design), the accusation of the god of the gaps fallacy, and evolution. Taking these objections in order, the argument says that designs need designers, not that designers need designers.

Dysteleology is the notion that things are not designed well or do not show signs of design. Many of the examples for this tend to be based on a lack of knowledge. For example, the number of vestigial organs (organs that we supposedly don’t need) have dramatically shrunk in number. Further, the fact that some things may not appear to be designed do not demonstrate the overwhelming design in things like DNA and the cell. Such is positive evidence that far outweighs so-called dysteleology.

Many atheists argue that theists are saying, “We don’t know how this happened, so God must have done it.” (Such is an objection to the cosmological arguments too.) However, the God of the gaps fallacy is when one doesn’t have enough evidence to account for something and then invokes God (fallaciously). However, this is not what theists are doing with the above arguments (teleological or cosmological). We are saying there is so much positive evidence for a designer that there must be one. The God of the gaps fallacy is not committed.

As already stated, evolution is not a reason to give up belief in theism since there must be a cause for the existence of the universe as well as biological life. This is to say nothing of the problems with evolution.

All in all, the ID arguments are strong and persuasive but are not as complete as the philosophical arguments.

Some good resources on the ID arguments are Creator and the Cosmos, The Case for a Creator, and Signature in the Cell.

The Moral Argument

The moral argument is a very popular one. There are at least two forms:

Every law has a lawgiver.
There is a moral law.
Therefore, there is a moral lawgiver.

I have not seen an objection to premise 1. Premise 2 is much more contentious. The reason for it is that one can look anywhere throughout human history and see a basic moral code. For example, moral precepts such as don’t murder, lie, steal, commit adultery are pretty ubiquitous. There are different ways these codes have been understood. For example, in some cultures it is permissible to have several wives while in others it is permissible to have only 1. But cultures will (historically anyway) say that one should not have sex with a woman who is not his wife.

Another form of the argument is:

If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.
Objective moral values do exist.
Therefore, God exists.

This has the same basic thrust as the first argument, it just takes a conditional form. But both arguments hinge on the objective nature of morality. While some people will argue there is no such thing as objective morality, such a view is hard to consistently maintain. For example, it is hard to maintain that the Nazis were not objectively wrong or that rape is not objectively wrong. The person who argues that the latter is not objectively wrong, for instance, probably would be highly upset if his daughter were raped. As Geisler used to say, we can tell more about a person’s beliefs by his reactions rather than his actions.

The moral argument says that there must be a transcendent cause to explain the objective nature of morality. If it is objective, it can’t be explained from within the human race. Evolution can’t explain the objective nature of morality either, even though atheists maintain that it can. If evolution is invoked to account for it, it should be pointed out that such “morality” could only be egoistic or utilitarian in nature. It could never be objective—only useful.

Such is a good argument. Sometimes it is argued that the moral standard that is invoked is God’s nature. Theists often claim that the Euthyphro Dilemma is solved this way while also providing an objective account of morality. (The Euthyphro Dilemma asks the question—put in modern vernacular—”Does God command what is good because it is good, or is it good because he commands it?” The first option is problematic since it would demonstrate that something is good apart from God, which would raise problems about how it is good without him. The latter option seems to make God arbitrary.) Many say, “The answer to the dilemma is to say God’s nature is the standard of goodness.” This is problematic for many reasons. I have written another article on this topic, so I won’t rewrite that here, but I will point out that it is not clear what it means to say that God is morally good. For humans to be morally good means that they measure up to some standard. Even if God could be said to be morally good, it’s not clear what it would mean for him to measure up to a standard since the standard would be his nature. But it seems incoherent to say a thing measures up to itself. It is also not obvious or clear why the standard for finite, temporal, changing, material beings is a being that is none of these things.

Rather than saying that God is the standard of morality, it seems to make more sense to say that God is the cause of the standard of morality. Instead of saying a non-human is the standard of human morality, it is more rational (and biblical) to maintain that human nature is the standard. But if there is an objective human nature (a highly debated topic in philosophy), there must be a cause to it. At this point, the argument becomes more of a cosmological argument for a cause to the objective human nature.

The Ontological Argument

The ontological argument is the only alleged a priori argument in this article since it purportedly doesn’t argue from the cosmos but from the notion of being. The word ontological comes from the Greek ontos, which means “being.” The argument is an argument from being. It was presented by Anselm, an eleventh-century monk who was asked by his brothers to provide an argument for God’s existence that didn’t rely on Scripture. It goes like this:

God is a being than which none greater can be conceived.
It is greater to exist in reality than just in the mind.
Thus, God must exist in reality.

It is a simple argument but very contentious. Atheists and theists have debated the merits of this argument more than any other (although there has been considerable interest in the cosmological argument as of late). The logic of the argument is based on a reductio ad absurdum. In other words, to deny God (or the conclusion of the argument) is to affirm a contradiction. If God is the greatest conceivable being and thus must actually exist extra-mentally, then a God that exists only in the mind would not be the greatest conceivable being. Thus, that God (in the mind only) would not be God. Given the nature of existence, God must logically exist extra-mentally.

Another monk named Gaunilo attempted to give a counterexample to Anselm by arguing that the most perfect island must exist extra-mentally rather in the mind only, given the same kind of argument that Anselm gave. Anselm pointed out that the difference was that God would have necessary existence, which makes his argument different than the island argument.

One’s philosophical commitments tend to determine if he thinks this argument is sound. As a moderate realist in the vein of Aristotle and Aquinas, I do not think the argument is sound as it makes a logical leap from the order of knowing to the order of being.

For resources on the moral and ontological arguments, see Brian Davies’ An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, along with Philosophy of Religion by Norman Geisler and Winfried Corduan. For all of the above arguments in their primary (original) text, see Brian Davies’ Philosophy of Religion: A Guide and Anthology and Christian Apologetics: An Anthology of Primary Resources.

Conclusion

The above are merely a sampling of theistic proofs from a bird’s eye view. The interested reader should consult the recommended readings for more information. It is my contention that the philosophical proofs, namely the cosmological arguments, are the strongest, especially the five ways and such arguments that are based on metaphysics (the nature of reality). However, such arguments are complicated and difficult to use with non-philosophers. In conclusion, there are persuasive arguments for God’s existence, arguments that some of us consider to be metaphysically necessary since a necessary being must exist to account for contingent being. Contrary to many atheists, belief in God is not merely the desire of wishful thinking by illogical religious folk. Some of the brightest minds in the history of ideas have believed in God for well thought out reasons, such as Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, et al.

The Best Kind of Love

Culture CrossExamined, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Tim Stratton

Question:

Dear Dr. Stratton,

In your interview with Jorge Gil on Cross Examined’s Hope One, you attempted to answer “all the problems of evil” by appealing to love. In fact, you said that “the best kind of love requires libertarian free will.” Surely this is false, for I can think of a counter-example that clearly shows this to be false.

After all, the members of the Trinity are the epitome of perfect love and they do not have libertarian free will. They cannot do otherwise. They must love by necessity. So how can “the best kind of love” require libertarian free will?

– Phillip

Tim’s Response

I am thankful for your question, Phillip! When I read it I could have kicked myself for not providing this vital clarification in my interview with Jorge Gil. Your question provides this opportunity.

Contrary to your assertion, the members of the Trinity (God) do possess libertarian freedom. This is easy to demonstrate when considering creation. The vast majority of theologians agree that God possessed the ability — the power — to create the universe or to refrain from creation. This is the epitome of libertarian freedom. Moreover, if nothing other than God causally determined Him to create the universe, then God possesses libertarian freedom. In fact, this conclusion can be reached by merely thinking about the rational implications of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The cause and creator of the universe must possess libertarian freedom.

If God possesses the libertarian freedom, for example, to create the universe or not to create the universe, then this is an “ability to do otherwise” kind of freedom. With that said, however, we are not discussing the creation of the universe, but something different. We are discussing the “best kind of love,” or the “kind of love worth wanting.” You aptly pointed out that God does not possess the “ability to do otherwise” when it comes to love — namely the love between the Trinity which you noted is the epitome of the “best kind of love.”

I agree that each member of the Trinity does not possess the ability to NOT love the other members. For example, it is impossible for the Holy Spirit not to love the Son, and it is impossible for the Son, not to love the Father. Does this not “destroy” my claim — that the best kind of love requires libertarian freedom?

Not at all!

Just because God might not have the ability to do otherwise when it comes to love, it does not follow that God does not possess the libertarian freedom to love. This is the case because NOTHING other than God causally determines God to love. Moreover, nothing other than the Father causally determines His love for the Son and the Spirit.

It is vital to remember that there are basically two definitions of libertarian freedom:
1- The PAP/”ability to do otherwise” version.

2- The source-hood version (which simply means that a person is not causally determined by something other than the person).

When it comes to love, God possesses the source-hood version of libertarian freedom. God is not causally determined by something other than Him to love. As 1 John 4:8 makes clear: “God IS love.”

So, with all the data in mind, the best kind of love still requires libertarian freedom to be possessed by each person in the relationship. The best kind of love is when persons are not causally determined to love the other. In fact, it is simply oxymoronic to refer to a relationship where at least one person in the union was causally determined to enter the relationship as a “love relationship.” It is not love at all, rather, it is simply an incoherent combination of words.

Since it would be impossible for God to create a contingent being whose nature is necessarily loving (like God is), without causally determining the nature of the creature, God creates humans with an “ability to do otherwise” kind of libertarian freedom so that a true love relationship with humanity can be attained. Humans, then, unlike God, possess both the source-hood version and the PAP version of the libertarian freedom to love. God only has the source-hood version.

Robots have neither!

Bottom line: The best kind of love, or the kind of love worth wanting, requires libertarian freedom.

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),

Tim Stratton

Romans 1:26-27

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 And 1 Timothy 1:9-10

Was There Really No Concept Of Homosexual Orientation In The Ancient World?

Concluding Thoughts

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Libertarian Freedom

The Bridge to Reason

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

More Than An Analogy

Grounded In Truth

Common Observations and Experiences

A Grounded Spirituality

Common Ground

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Virtues Of Science?

Moral Values: Not Scientifically Discovered And Not Created By Man

“If It Can’t Be Verified By My Physical Senses, I Can’t Know It.”

But What About Moral Diversity?

Ethical Truths Are More Certain Than Many Scientific Claims

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Dilemma

The Deity Of Christ

The Meaning Of “Emptied Himself”

“Emptied Himself” Illustrated

Why It Matters

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Camels in the Bible?

Could Abraham really have used camels?

There are two kinds of camels

Evidence for Camels in Ancient Egypt

Abraham Used Camels for Travel

Notes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Cosmological Arguments

The Kalam Argument

Aquinas’ 5 Ways

Teleological Arguments

The Moral Argument

The Ontological Argument

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Question:

Tim’s Response

Recommended resources related to the topic: