Why the Problem of Evil is a Problem

Why the Problem of Evil is a Problem

, ,

by Aaron  Brake

“If you hate evil, hate sin.”

—Clay Jones—

Introduction

The so-called problem of evil is one of the most common objections raised against the Christian faith. Perhaps no one has more succinctly stated the apparent contradiction between an all-loving, all-powerful God and the existence of evil as the eighteenth-century Scottish skeptic David Hume:

Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?[1]

More modern skeptics have posed the logical (or deductive) problem of evil this way:

  1. If God is all-good (omnibenevolent), He would prevent evil.
  2. If God is all-powerful (omnipotent), He could prevent evil.
  3. If God is all-knowing (omniscient), He knows how to prevent evil.
  4. But evil exists.
  5. Therefore, either God is not all-good, all-powerful, or all-knowing (or maybe He doesn’t exist!)

The existence of suffering and evil in the world has been an obstacle to faith for many, and for others, a source of constant doubt. When addressing the problem of evil from within the Christian worldview, I am convinced the following points must not only be taken into consideration but earnestly thought through and reflected upon until they become both intellectually and emotionally satisfying. When they are, I believe the problem of evil (POE) largely goes away.[2]

So why is the problem of evil a problem? Here are ten reasons:

#1 The POE is a problem because we fail to differentiate between the problems of evil and their respective solutions.

John Feinberg begins his book The Many Faces of Evil by laying out two very helpful and essential ground rules that must be understood by anyone attempting to discuss God and the problem of evil. These two ground rules are as follows: (1) there is no such thing as the problem of evil and (2) the problem of evil in its logical form is about the internal consistency of any given theological position.[3]

First, we need to realize that there are several problems of evil, not just one. The phrase “problem of evil” can be used to refer to a host of different dilemmas arising over the issue of God and evil. For example, someone who raises the problem of evil may be referring to the religious/emotional problem of evil, the logical problem of evil, the evidential problem of evil, moral evil, or natural evil, just to name a few. That there is not just one problem of evil necessitates that any discussion about God and evil must first begin by clarifying what problem is under discussion.[4] Each problem is separate and therefore may require its own solution. In addition, the skeptic cannot reject a defense for a particular problem of evil by arguing that it does not solve every problem of evil. No one defense addresses every problem of evil, nor was it intended to do so.

For example, an atheist may reject the free will defense because they don’t believe it adequately handles the problem of natural evil. But the free will defense is primarily used when addressing the problem of moral evil, not natural evil. Solving the problem of natural evil may require additional argumentation or an entirely different solution altogether. Either way, the atheist who reasons this way is simply mistaken. As Feinberg notes, “It is wrongheaded at a very fundamental level to think that because a given defense or theodicy doesn’t solve every problem of evil, it doesn’t solve any problem of evil.”[5]

Second, the problem of evil in its logical form is about the internal consistency of any given theological position. In other words, the critic is claiming there is a contradiction in the theist’s system and is therefore obligated to show a specific problem within the system they are attacking. Skeptics must be careful not to artificially generate an internal inconsistency within the theist’s system by attributing views of God, evil, freedom, love, omnipotence, justice, etc., to the theist which the theist himself doesn’t hold.

For example, an atheist cannot object to the free will defense on the grounds that God could create human beings with free will, and yet at the same time eliminate all moral evil, based on the atheist’s belief in view of free will known as compatibilism. If the theist incorporating the free will defense holds to libertarian free will, the atheist would be artificially (falsely) generating an internal inconsistency by importing his own definition of free will into the theist’s system. The atheist again is simply mistaken. If an internal inconsistency exists, it must be shown to exist within the theist’s system, not one imposed on him by the atheist. A critic may not like a particular defense or theodicy and may object to the system on external grounds, but this has nothing to do with whether the theist’s system suffers from an internal contradiction.

Finally, many of these supposed contradictions simply assume that God does not have a morally sufficient reason for allowing the evil He does. But this would be something the critic needs to justify. As long as the theist offers a possible explanation as to why God allows evil, the charge of contradiction becomes groundless. Of course, theists should certainly do their best to offer not just possible, but plausible solutions. In fact, there are already many theological systems that are able to solve their own logical problem of evil. These systems include theonomy, Leibnizian Rationalism, as well as those incorporating a free will defense.[6]

#2 The POE is a problem because we fail to examine it from a worldview perspective.

The problem of evil is not just a problem for Christians. It is a problem for everyone. I do not mean by this that every worldview needs to reconcile the existence of an all-loving, all-powerful God and evil. Rather, I mean that everyone, regardless of their worldview, must give an account for the existence of pain and suffering. This is not an attempt to dodge the objection. It is simply a point of the fact that each person should be able to give some explanation of pain and suffering from within their respective worldview.

Therefore, looking at the problem of evil from a worldview perspective we can frame the discussion by means of two questions:

  1. Which worldview best accounts for the origin and existence of evil?
  2. Which worldview offers the best solution to evil?

It is when we begin to compare and contrast Christianity with other belief systems in light of these questions that the superiority of the Christian worldview becomes evident.

For example, what can atheistic materialism say in response to the existence of pain and suffering? More specifically, can atheistic materialism offer a better account for the origin and existence of evil, as well as a solution, when compared with Christian theism? These questions seem to be relevant given that atheists and skeptics are those most often complaining about the POE.

Regarding the origin of evil, it seems all the atheist can say is “Evil just is.” Nature is red in tooth and claw. Evil is nothing but matter in motion, the same as goodness. Furthermore, how do objective moral values arise from matter, chance, and time? While Christians need to reconcile God and evil, the atheist must not only deal with their own problem of evil but also the problem of goodness, i.e., reconciling the existence of objective moral values with a materialistic universe. Richard Dawkins has stated,

In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.[7]

If atheistic materialism is true, it seems all the atheist can say is that life is filled with gratuitous and unredeemable suffering…and then you die. There is no ultimate justice, let alone ultimate meaning, purpose, or value in life. But this can hardly be considered a solution of any sort. In terms of worldview thinking it is difficult to see how atheistic materialism can offer any consolation in the face of pain and suffering.

As another example, how do Eastern religions deal with pain and suffering? For Hindus evil is Maya, an illusion. Evil is not real. People suffer because of injustices performed in past lives (karmic debt). Therefore, suffering should not be alleviated since this would interfere with the karmic cycle and bring bad karma on the one attempting to aid the sufferer. This position prevents compassion and morally obligatory action in the face of horrendous evil. Furthermore, Hinduism and Buddhism, both advocates of karma and reincarnation, cannot make sense of these two doctrines within their respective religions and end up with logically incoherent systems:

For there to be reincarnated subjects of karma, there must be individual, personal selves that endure and continue as themselves from lifetime to lifetime. But Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta Hinduism do not affirm the existence of individual, personal selves. Therefore, these religions cannot logically support the existence of selves that endure from lifetime to lifetime or which are subjects of karma. Therefore, these Eastern religions cannot logically support reincarnation. If this argument succeeds, it not only demonstrates that they cannot solve the problem of evil, it further shows that both religions propose essential truth claims that contradict each other: (1) there is no self, and (2) reincarnation and karma. Thus, both religions fail the test of internal logical consistency and are necessarily false.[8]

What about Christianity? Christianity does not conclude that “evil just is” nor that evil is an illusion. As Augustine argued, evil can be explained in part as the deprivation (or privation) of good.[9] Evil is what ought not to be. Christian theism can account for both the origin and existence of evil since it teaches there is a part of reality which is non-physical. Furthermore, since evil is not some “thing” but rather the privation of good, God is not the direct creator of evil. Rather, evil came as a result of free beings using their free will badly. Christian philosophers and theologians throughout the centuries have offered numerous defenses in light of the problem of evil, arguing that God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil. Some of these defenses include the free will defense and the soul-building theodicy.

In short, an all-loving, all-powerful God can allow evil so long as He has a morally sufficient reason for doing so. While Christians may not be able to answer why God allows each and every particular instance of pain and suffering, there is no logical contradiction between the existence of evil and an all-loving, all-powerful God. Furthermore, the Christian message of God incarnates entering His creation and suffering in our place so we may have the hope of eternity makes these slight and momentary afflictions of no comparison to the eternal weight of glory that awaits us (2 Cor. 4:17). Those who reject God because of evil are rejecting the only One who can redeem evil and suffering for good. Randy Alcorn summarizes the Christian position this way:

The Bible never sugarcoats evil…The Christian worldview concerning this central problem is utterly unique. When compared to other belief systems, it is singularly profound, satisfying, and comforting….I’m convinced that Christianity’s explanation of why evil and suffering exist beats that of any worldview. Its explanation of why we can expect God to forever deliver His redeemed people from evil and suffering is better still. The answers revealed in Scripture not only account for how the world is, they offer the greatest hope for where the world is headed.[10]

#3 The POE is a problem because we forget that evil is evidence for the existence of God.

When you admit the existence of evil, i.e., things that are really wrong, you are acknowledging the existence of objective moral values. This seems to be problematic for both the atheist and the relativist considering the atheist cannot adequately ground objective morality, and the relativist assumes morality is relative.

The atheist or relativist may call upon the theist to give an account for the internal consistency of the theist’s worldview given the existence of both God and evil, but as soon as the atheist or relativist acknowledges that evil is real they have subsequently surrendered their worldview since they are assuming an objective standard of moral goodness. By “objective” I mean independent of what people think or perceive.[11] Complaining about evil assumes that evil is a real thing that it is objectively wrong; otherwise, we could simply dismiss the atheist or relativist by saying “that’s just evil for you.”

So where does this objective standard of morality come from? The only suitable grounding for objective morality is an objective moral law-giver: God. Ironically then, the existence of evil can be turned into an argument for the existence of God:

  1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
  2. Evil exists.
  3. Therefore, objective moral values exist.
  4. Therefore, God exists.[12]

This argument is logically valid. The skeptic concedes premise two by raising the problem of evil in the first place, e.g., “Why does God let bad things happen?” Therefore, the argument hinges on premise one. However, in reflecting on premise one it seems clear that if there is no God, then there is no objective grounding for moral principles which apply to all people, in all places, at all times. Morality would be relegated to cultural conventions or individual ethical subjectivism. William Lane Craig sums it up this way:

Although at a superficial level suffering calls into question God’s existence, at a deeper level suffering actually proves God’s existence. For apart from God, suffering is not really bad. If the atheist believes that suffering is bad or ought not to be, then he’s making moral judgments that are possible only if God exists.[13]

In short, when the atheist or relativist raises qualms about God allowing evil he implicitly admits to an objective standard of morality which his own worldview cannot account for, but which the Christian worldview can. In other words, in order to complain about evil and raise the objection in the first place, atheists, skeptics, and relativists must borrow from Christian moral capital and the Christian worldview.

#4 The POE is a problem because we fail to take into account the full scope of evidence.

If evil, pain, and suffering were all there is, belief in the existence of an all-loving, all-powerful God might become rather absurd. Unfortunately, this is how the skeptic often paints the picture, emphasizing what seem to be gratuitous examples of suffering while at the same time either denying or ignoring the counterevidence against his position and in favor of God. Only examples of pain and suffering are offered as evidence against God, while any arguments or evidence for God are unfortunately left out.

Arguments which may be offered in favor of the existence of God include the cosmological, teleological, moral, transcendental, ontological, and, as mentioned above, even the argument from evil for the existence of God. Evidence which needs to be considered includes evidence for the beginning of the universe, the fine-tuning of the cosmos, the existence of objective moral values (again, including evil), the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the reliability of Scripture, so forth and so on. Regarding these considerations, William Lane Craig states,

The interesting question is whether God’s existence is probable relative to the full scope of evidence. I’m convinced that whatever improbability suffering may cast upon God’s existence, it’s outweighed by the arguments for the existence of God.[14]

In other words, if we have independent lines of evidence which point to the existence of an all-powerful, all-loving God, then we may be justified in believing in God even in the face of unexplained evil. We need to look at all the evidence, not evil in isolation. In his book Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith, Douglas Groothuis places his chapter on the problem of evil near the end of the book for this very reason:

This chapter is placed near the end of the book because we should not take up the problem in a philosophical vacuum. We have contended that the case for Christian faith is multifaceted and cumulative. Christianity is rationally supported by a number of arguments. If so, then the biblical worldview cannot prima facie be refuted by one particular problem…We should consider all the arguments given thus far for the Christian worldview and against its competitors when considering the problem of evil…Therefore, the God-denier cannot declare victory over theism by merely stating the problem of evil.[15]

#5 The POE is a problem because we fail to understand our relationship to Adam.

If we want to know why there is so much pain and suffering in the world, we need to go back to the beginning and look at the first choice.[16] Most of the pain and suffering in the world can be attributed to free agents using their free will badly. This is exactly what Adam and Eve did and what we as their offspring continue to do. In short, our first parents willingly rebelled against God bringing corruption into the world and plunging all of mankind into a lifelong education of the knowledge of good and evil.

But how is it that wholly good beings, placed in a wholly good environment, in perfect relationship with God and one another, possessing wills inclined toward God, could turn against God? William Dembski offers this as a possible solution:

Precisely because a created will belongs to a creature, that creature, if sufficiently reflective, can reflect on its creaturehood and realize that it is not God. Creaturehood implies constraints to which the Creator is not subject… The question then naturally arises, Has God the Creator denied to the creature some freedom that might benefit it? Adam and Eve thought the answer to this was yes…As soon as the creature answers yes to this question, its will turns against God. Once that happens, the will becomes evil. Whereas previously evil was merely a possibility, now it has become a reality. In short, the problem of evil starts when creatures think God is evil for “cramping their style.” The impulse of our modern secular culture to cast off restraint wherever possible finds its root here…No longer able to trust God, humanity turned inward and sought fulfillment in its creaturehood rather than in the source of its being, the Creator.[17]

What were the consequences of this first sin? Not only was the marriage relationship damaged but the ground was cursed.[18] This raises the issue of natural evil. Much of the evil we see in the world including cancer, disease, sickness, pestilence, and death are explained as the result of sin entering the world. Natural evil then is the result of Adam and Eve exercising their free choice badly. Furthermore, sin also affected every aspect of their persons (mind, will, emotion, body), a concept known as total depravity. Mankind is now in bondage to sin and without hope apart from the grace of God.

But why do we suffer for the sin of Adam and Eve committed so long ago? This question fails to take into account that Adam and Eve are not some disconnected couple who lived long ago and have nothing to do with us. They were our first parents, they sinned, and they reproduced! The apostle Paul says in Romans 5:12, “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.”

One of the reasons we struggle with the doctrine of original sin is due to our strong sense of Western individuality. In reality, we are less individual than we think. Millard Erickson states,

…the entirety of our human nature, both physical and spiritual, material and immaterial, has been received from our parents and more distant ancestors by way of descent from the first pair of humans. On that basis, we were actually present within Adam, so that we all sinned in his act. There is no injustice, then, to our condemnation and death as a result of original sin.[19]

If this is true, everything that we are we received from Adam and Eve, including our soul and consciousness.[20] Once Adam and Eve became corrupt, all they could produce was corruption, i.e., they could not produce anything better than themselves. To say it again, they were our first parents, they sinned, and they reproduced. Each one of us is a little Adam or Eve. When we understand our relationship to Adam we learn several lessons regarding the problem of evil:

First, evil is the result of free beings using their free will badly.

Second, Adam and Eve plunged all of mankind into a lifelong education of the knowledge of good and evil. God is using evil and suffering to teach free creatures the horror of sin and the horror of rebellion against God. The lesson is this: if you hate evil, hate sin! William Dembski states,

We are the arsonists. We started the fire. God wants to rescue us…But to be rescued from a life of arson requires that we know how destructive arson is… If God always instantly put out the fires we start, we would never appreciate the damage fires can do. We started a fire in consenting to evil. God permits this fire to rage… so that we can rightly understand the human condition and thus come to our senses.[21]

Third, Adam’s seed always deserves to die unless it repents (Rom. 6:23). Jesus Himself takes it for granted that the wages of sin is death and that it is only God’s mercy that keeps us alive. To help emphasize this third point, let’s take a moment to look at Jesus’ own comments regarding the problem of evil.

Excursus: Jesus on the Problem of Evil

In Luke 13:1-5 we have Jesus’ clearest teaching on the problem of evil:[22]

Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.

Not only is this Jesus’ clearest teaching on the problem of evil but we see Him addressing both moral and natural evil in His response. Notice that Jesus is first questioned regarding an example of what we would call moral evil: the murder of some Galileans by Pilate. In providing an answer, Jesus Himself introduces an example of natural evil: the falling of the tower of Siloam which killed eighteen.

How did Jesus answer the problem of evil presented to Him? Was Jesus taken back, struck by the profundity of such a pregnant question? His answer is short and to the point: “They weren’t worse sinners, they were just sinners. And unless you repent, you’ll die too.”

D.A. Carson in his book How Long, O Lord? Provides several important insights into this passage. It would behoove us as Christians to reflect deeply on these points.

First, Jesus takes it for granted that the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23):

Jesus does not assume that those who suffered under Pilate, or those who were killed in the collapse of the tower, did not deserve their fate. Indeed, the fact that he can tell those contemporaries that unless they repent, they too will perish shows that Jesus assumes that all death is in one way or another the result of sin, and therefore deserved.[23]

Second, because death is what we all deserve, it is only God’s mercy that keeps us alive:

Jesus does insist that death by such means is no evidence whatsoever that those who suffer in this way are any more wicked than those who escape such a fate. The assumption seems to be that all deserve to die. If some die under a barbarous governor, and others in a tragic accident, it is not more than they deserve. But that does not mean that others deserve any less. Rather, the implication is that it is only God’s mercy that has kept them alive. There is certainly no moral superiority on their part.[24]

Third, wars and natural disasters are always calls to repentance, and the fact that we question God’s goodness in times of calamity is a reflection of our own depravity and rebellion:

Jesus treats wars and natural disasters not as agenda items in a discussion of the mysterious ways of God, but as incentives to repentance. It is as if he is saying that God uses the disaster as a megaphone to call attention to our guilt and destination, to the imminence of his righteous judgment if he sees no repentance. This is an argument developed at great length in Amos 4. Disaster is a call to repentance. Jesus might have added (as he does elsewhere) that peace and tranquility, which we do not deserve, show us God’s goodness and forbearance.

It is a mark of our lostness that we invert these two. We think we deserve the times of blessing and prosperity, and that the times of war and disaster are not only unfair but come perilously close to calling into question God’s goodness or his power—even, perhaps, his very existence. Jesus simply did not see it that way.[25]

Dr. Clay Jones in his class on Why God Allows Evil entertainingly replays the dialogue from Luke 13 like this:[26]

Questioner: Jesus, we have the problem of evil here, the great problem of the ages. People are being killed Jesus. What have you got to say?

Jesus: They weren’t worse sinners, they were just sinners, and unless you repent you’ll die too. Next?

Questioner: Whoa! Jesus, hold on for a minute here! This is the PROBLEM OF EVIL! The question of the ages! Philosophers have debated this forever! People are dying here Jesus! What have you got to say???

Jesus: They weren’t worse sinners, they were just sinners, and unless you repent you’ll die too. Next?

Questioner: No, Jesus, don’t you get it?!? Let me put it to you this way. You see, if God were all-loving, He would want to prevent evil. If God were all-powerful, He could prevent evil…

Jesus: They weren’t worse sinners, they were just sinners, and unless you repent you’ll die too. Next?

That’s it ladies and gentleman, Jesus’ answer to the problem of evil. All fallen, unregenerate sinners born in Adam are corrupted to the core and deserve death. Whether we die by murder, accident, or disease isn’t anything more than we deserve. It is only by God’s grace that anyone is saved and it is only by God’s mercy that anyone is kept alive.

What implications does this have for Christian apologetics? At least three:

First, it means that Christian apologists need to take the consequences of sin and reality of human depravity seriously when addressing the problem of evil. Many Christians simply pay lip service to what the Bible has to say about these topics. It’s no wonder then we are often at a loss for words when someone asks, “Why do bad things happen to good people?” A completely biblical, though partial, rejoinder is this: no one is good but God alone! Bad things don’t happen to good people because no one is good. Jesus raised no qualms about our naturally born status as sinners before God, the universal corruption, and guilt of humankind, or our need for repentance. He introduced these very issues Himself in addressing the problem of evil. He took it for granted that the wages of sin is death. Christian apologists should do likewise.

Second, when addressing the problem of evil, Christian apologists need to present a theodicy which minimally includes the biblical teaching of original sin and human depravity. Why God allows evil won’t make sense unless we have the problem of sin clearly before us. J.I. Packer stated,

The subject of sin is vital knowledge… If you have not learned about sin, you cannot understand yourself, or your fellow-men, or the world you live in, or the Christian faith. And you will not be able to make head or tail of the Bible. For the Bible is an exposition of God’s answer to the problem of human sin and unless you have that problem clearly before you, you will keep missing the point of what it says.[27]

The same is true for the problem of evil. The subject of sin is essential because in raising the problem of evil, the skeptic must put forth an anthropodicy (justification of man) by arguing that man is “basically good” and God is unjust for allowing the suffering and evil He does. In response, the theist must show these assumptions to be false, and in their place put forth a theodicy (justification of God) which includes evidencing the depths of human depravity and arguing that God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil. Until we clearly articulate and defend the gravity of sin, as well as the universal corruption and guilt of humankind, many of our answers to the problem of evil will largely remain unpersuasive.[28]

Third, the present moral and natural evils we experience are appropriate segues into our need to practice and preach repentance in light of the final eschatological judgment. Those who experience such evils are not any more deserving. Rather, these disasters serve as warnings to all of us that final disaster awaits everyone who remains hardhearted and unrepentant:

So when disaster strikes, let us not wring our hands over the mysterious ways of God but encourage everyone to reflect on their sinful and doomed state in hopes that some will escape the Final Disaster that awaits the ultimately unrepentant.[29]

End of Excursus

Finally, no matter how many examples are presented to us of human suffering and evil, the major recourse is to point to human sinfulness:

Suffering and evil are the result of sin… To those who complain about evil and suffering, our reply should be: “Hate sin!” Our problem in understanding why humans suffer is that we diminish the significance and extent of human sinfulness.[30]

#6 The POE is a problem because we fail to grasp the depth of human depravity.

Human beings apart from the grace of God are capable of horrendous evils. A discussion of human depravity in relation to the problem of evil is absolutely necessary because the most frequently asked question concerning the POE is this: “Why do bad things happen to good people?” This is sometimes referred to as the emotional problem of evil.

A full treatment of human depravity simply isn’t possible here. Dr. Clay Jones of Biola University is well-read in this area and has done excellent work, especially relating human depravity to the problem of evil. His work is highly recommended and so I refer you to these articles and encourage you not to proceed on this topic without reading them first:

            Human Evil and Suffering

            We Don’t Hate Sin So We Don’t Understand What Happened to the Canaanites

To put it succinctly, the question “Why do bad things happen to good people?” is based on the false assumption that people are “good.” Given the reality of human depravity, the problem with this question should become immediately apparent. Man is not innately good:

The terrible human evils in the world are the testimony to man’s depravity in his state of spiritual alienation from God. The Christian isn’t surprised at the moral evil in the world; on the contrary, he expects it. The Scriptures indicate that God has given mankind up to the sin it has freely chosen; He doesn’t interfere to stop it but lets human depravity run its course (Rom. 1:24, 26, 28). This only serves to heighten mankind’s moral responsibility before God, as well as our wickedness and our need for forgiveness and moral cleansing.[31]

So the question is not “Why do bad things happen to good people?” but rather “Why do bad things happen to bad people?” But nobody ever asks that question. Perhaps the question we should be asking is this: “Why do good things happen to bad people?” Why has God out of His mercy chosen to dispense any goodness at all on rebellious sinners?

Skeptics, however, are often inconsistent when it comes to the nature of man and the problem of evil. They want to hold to the basic “goodness” of man and at the same time complain about the evil, pain, and suffering which man perpetuates, all the while blaming God for allowing it:

On the one hand, skeptics argue that bad things shouldn’t happen to good people and that the human race consists mainly of good people. On the other hand, their very objections concern the bad things people do to one another: murder, war, rape, child abuse, brutality, kidnapping, bullying, ridiculing, shaming, corporate greed, unwillingness to share wealth or to care for the environment…Since the same human race that commits these evils also suffers from them—since we are not only victims but perpetrators, of sin—what would God’s critics have Him do?[32]

How does a knowledge and understanding of the depths of human evil help us, especially in relation to the problem of evil? In addition to largely answering the emotional problem of evil as discussed above, the following points prove insightful:[33]

First, it demonstrates God’s patience and justifies God’s judgment. If you think that people are basically good, you will often be tempted to ask, “Why is God angry all the time?” when reading passages in Scripture concerning God’s judgment (e.g., the flood, destruction of the Canaanites, etc.). When you begin to fully grasp the depth of human depravity, sinfulness, and corruption, you instead will say, “Wow, God is really patient. Why isn’t He judging people sooner?” C.S. Lewis stated, “When we merely say that we are bad, the ‘wrath’ of God seems a barbarous doctrine; as soon as we perceive our badness, it appears inevitable, a mere corollary from God’s goodness.”[34]

Second, it magnifies the significance of Christ’s sacrifice. Jesus didn’t suffer a brutal, agonizing, torturous death on the cross because you’re basically a good person.

Third, it impassions are a witness. If you think that people are basically good, it will be hard for you to tell them they are corrupt sinners in need of salvation.

Fourth, it increases our desire for the Jesus’ return. When we watch television and see examples of some of the horrendous evil and suffering that takes place around the world, we often cry out, “Come quickly, Lord Jesus.”

Fifth, it reveals the greatness of our salvation. After all, if you think that you are basically a good person, your salvation doesn’t seem so grand:

We must contemplate men in sin, until we are horrified, until we alarmed, until we are desperate about them, until we pray for them, until having realized the marvel of our own deliverance from that terrible state, we are lost in a sense of wonder, love, and praise.[35] 

Finally, it reveals we have gotten the problem of evil exactly backward:

There is a problem of evil alright. But it isn’t God’s problem—He is only good and doesn’t do any evil. It’s humankind’s problem because we are the ones who do evil. As C. S. Lewis put it, “The Christian answer—that we have used our free will to become very bad—is so well known that it hardly needs to be stated. But to bring this doctrine into real life in the minds of modern men, and even modern Christians is very hard.” Indeed. And a Christian won’t understand why God allows evil unless he or she thinks these things through.[36]

#7 The POE is a problem because we assume God does not have morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil. 

As stated in the introduction, the problem of evil was been formulated this way:

  1. If God is all-good (omnibenevolent), He would prevent evil.
  2. If God is all-powerful (omnipotent), He could prevent evil.
  3. If God is all-knowing (omniscient), He knows how to prevent evil.
  4. But evil exists.
  5. Therefore, either God is not all-good, all-powerful, or all-knowing (or maybe He doesn’t exist!)

Though the argument is logically valid, two of the premises are highly debatable and should be challenged. Premise one is problematic because it assumes there is never a sufficient reason for God to allow evil. It simply does not follow that if God is all-good, He would necessarily prevent all evil, for God may have other goods, purposes, and goals in mind which He desires to actualize and accomplish, even though by doing so evil becomes a possibility, and eventual actuality. An all-good God can do this so long as He has morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil. Ronald Nash states,

There seem to be many evils in the world that can be eliminated only by producing situations containing more evil or costing us some greater good. Suppose that many evils result from the human free will or from the fact that our universe operates under natural laws or from the fact that humans exist in a setting that fosters soul-making. And suppose further that a world containing free will and natural law that fosters soul-making contains more good than a world that does not. If it makes no sense for God to eliminate an evil that would bring about a state of affairs in which there would be less good or more evil, our newest candidate for the missing proposition—that a good being always eliminates evil as far as it can—may safely be dismissed as neither true nor an essential Christian belief.[37]

This is true despite the fact that finite human beings may not know the specific reasons for specific instances of evil.

Premise two is likewise problematic, for it assumes that “all-powerful” means the ability to do anything, including actualizing logically contradictory states of affairs. But this commits a straw-man fallacy by misrepresenting how omnipotence is understood within Christian theism. Omnipotence, or “all-powerful,” does not mean God can do anything, but rather that God can do anything so long as it is logically possible and consistent with His nature, e.g., God cannot sin or make a squared circle. In answering the problem of evil, those Christian theists incorporating the free will defense have noted that God cannot give human beings libertarian free will and yet prevent them from doing evil. Those appealing to a soul-building theodicy argue that God cannot create a world in which individuals exercise certain virtues, develop significant character traits, and learn valuable moral lessons in the face of evil if the world which God creates contains no evil. Hence, premise two is false as well. 

As just mentioned, two traditional defenses offered by Christian theists in the face of the problem of evil have been the free will defense and the soul-making (or soul-building) defense. The free will defense trades on a libertarian view of freedom and therefore can only be used consistently by those holding to libertarian free will (typically Arminians or Molinists in theological circles). This strategy argues that free will is valuable, that God desired to create human beings with genuine free will (libertarian), and that it is better to create free creatures possessing the ability to love and enter into real relationship with God than to create “robots” or “puppets.” However, free will makes evil a possibility since human beings can freely choose to use their free will badly. Alvin Plantinga states,

A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal than a world containing no free creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures, but He can’t cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren’t significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil, and He can’t give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so. As it turned out, sadly enough, some of the free creatures God created went wrong in the exercise of their freedom; this is the source of moral evil. That fact that free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God’s omnipotence nor against His goodness; for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.[38]

Unlike the free will defense where evil becomes a possibility given the reality of free creatures, the soul-making defense argues that evil is logically necessary for some good to be accomplished, but that this good outweighs the evil:

…some moral goods are impossible apart from responding to particular evils. Therefore, the Fall (while based on human rebellion against a holy God) opens up possibilities for virtue not possible otherwise. That is, evil serves an instrumental, good purpose in the providence of God… All evils serve some justifiable purpose in God’s economy…God uses certain evils to actualize a good greater than would be possible otherwise… Evils should provide possibilities for virtuous responses to vicious behavior.[39] 

Both the free will and soul-making defense argue that God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil. They both appeal to the existence of a “greater good.” As long as these scenarios are at least possible, the logical (or deductive) problem of evil is defeated. An argument showing the consistency of God and evil can be formed this way:

  1. An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God created the world.
  2. God creates a world containing evil and has a good reason for doing so.
  3. Therefore, the world contains evil.[40]

While Christians may not be able to answer why God allows each and every particular instance of evil, it does not follow from this that God does not have morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil or that specific instances of evil, as well as evil in general, serve no greater good. In other words, “the morally sufficient reasons for these evils may be inscrutable, but they are not gratuitous.”[41] An appearance of gratuitousness may simply be due to our own ignorance:

…given the limitations of human knowledge, it is hard to see how any human being could actually know that a specific instance of evil really is gratuitous. In fact, it looks as though a person would have to be omniscient before he would be warranted in claiming that he knows that some particular evil is totally senseless and purposeless.

It seems, then, that the most any human can claim to know is that the world contains evil that appears gratuitous.[42]

Knowing the reason God allows a particular evil is a question of epistemology, while the nature of that particular evil (whether or not it is actually gratuitous) is a matter of ontology. From the fact that we don’t know (epistemology) the reason for that evil, we cannot justifiably conclude regarding what is (ontology) the true nature of that evil. This applies to the theist and atheist alike. We may greatly desire to know God’s reasons, and the fact that we don’t know may bother us, but what of significance follows from this? According to Plantinga,

Very little of interest. Why suppose that if God does have a good reason for permitting evil, the theist would be the first to know? Perhaps God has a good reason, but that reason is too complicated for us to understand. Or perhaps He has not revealed it for some other reason. The fact that the theist doesn’t know why God permits evil is, perhaps, an interesting fact about the theist, but by itself, it shows little or nothing relevant to the rationality of belief in God. Much more is needed for the atheological argument even to get off the ground… the theist’s not knowing why God permits evil does not by itself show that he is irrational in thinking that God does indeed have a reason. To make out his case, therefore, the atheologian cannot rest content with asking embarrassing questions to which the theist does not know the answer.[43]

When it comes to apparently gratuitous evil then, are the theist and atheist at a stalemate? Not necessarily. Perhaps the issue can and should be resolved on other grounds:

…the most reasonable position to hold appears to be this: we cannot explain cases of apparently gratuitous suffering until we know whether or not they are indeed gratuitous. And this we can never claim unless we are sure as to the ontological status of God. Since we cannot prove or disprove His non-existence [via the argument from gratuitous evil], we must first prove or disprove His existence. Until that is accomplished, we cannot know whether there are such cases.[44]

In light of this, Ronald Nash goes on to state,

…the one sure way of showing that the world does contain gratuitous evils is to prove that God does not exist. But it would then seem to follow that one cannot appeal to gratuitous evils while arguing against the existence of God—unless, that is, one is unconcerned about begging the question.[45]

In other words, if we have good reasons, arguments, and justification to believe that God exists (see reason #4 above), we can rationally conclude there are no gratuitous evils:

  1. If God exists, there are no gratuitous evils.
  2. God exists.
  3. Therefore, there are no gratuitous evils.[46]

But suppose there are gratuitous evils. Does this count against Christian theism? Again, not necessarily. Some Christian theists have argued that life here on earth may indeed contain gratuitous evil, that is, evil which serves no earthly good from a human perspective, but which is overcome by the glory that awaits believers in heaven, the overwhelming joy they will experience, and the eternal rewards God will lavish on them (more on this below under #10). In light of eternity, i.e., once we adopt an eternal point of view, the problem of gratuitous evil should no longer be a problem:

 In this life, senseless and irrational evils may occur. But when redeemed believers are able to look back upon those evils from their glorified standing in heaven, they will know what the apostle Paul meant when he wrote: “I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed us in heaven” (Rom. 8:18).[47]

William Lane Craig writes,

It may well be that there is suffering in the world that serves no earthly good at all, that is entirely pointless from a human point of view, but which God permits simply that He might overwhelmingly reward in the afterlife those who undergo such suffering in faith and confidence in God.[48] 

#8 The POE is a problem because we forget our God is a God of redemption who willingly suffers with us.

Biblical examples of God redeeming evil and suffering for good can be seen in both the Old and New Testaments. The most obvious and well-known example in the Old Testament is the story of Joseph. Although Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers, transported against his will to Egypt, falsely accused of sexual misconduct with Potiphar’s wife, and sent to jail, God was working behind the scenes to ultimately bring about a greater good: the earthly salvation and preservation of many people. After everything Joseph went through, his merciful attitude toward his brothers reflected a divine perspective:

As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive (Gen. 50:20). 

In the New Testament, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is the chief example of God not only redeeming evil and suffering for good but also of His willingness to share in our suffering.

Regarding redemption, if Jesus Christ was the Son of God, then His crucifixion has to be the most heinous evil ever perpetuated by man. From a mere human, finite perspective this single act would appear completely gratuitous, without any justifying reason whatsoever. And yet we know that God is redeeming this great evil for good through the salvation of all those who place their trust in Christ. If God, therefore, is able to redeem for good the most evil act ever undertaken by man, how much more is He able to redeem our own light, momentary afflictions? (2 Cor. 4:17)

Regarding His willingness to suffer with us, William Lane Craig states,

God is not a distant Creator or impersonal ground of being, but a loving Father who shares our sufferings and hurts with us. On the cross, Christ endured a suffering beyond all understanding…because He loves us so much. How can we reject Him who gave up everything for us? When God asks us to undergo suffering that seems unmerited, pointless, and unnecessary, meditation upon the cross of Christ can help to give us the strength and courage needed to bear the cross that we are asked to carry.[49]

Douglas Groothuis comments,

No other worldview teaches that God Almighty humbled himself in order to redeem his sinful creatures through his own suffering and death. No other worldview endorses the idea that the supreme reality was impaled by human hands for the sake of lost souls… God in Christ was no stranger to agony and death. Many impugn God’s allowance of evil by claiming that God is far removed from our earthly distress. But he is not. No other God bears the scars of rejection, betrayal, humiliation, and crucifixion. Jesus Christ knows our pain from the inside out because he has suffered more intensely than anyone.[50] 

#9 The POE is a problem because we forget that a life of suffering, persecution, hardship, and self-denial is what Jesus offers us.

Sometimes the “gospel” is presented this way: “Try Jesus, He’ll make your life better!” But reality and life experience tell us this isn’t necessarily the case. In countries around the world, Christians may be raped, tortured, and put to death if their faith in Jesus is discovered. Nowhere in Scripture does Jesus promise His followers a field of flowers to frolic through or a life of health, wealth, and prosperity. Rather, Jesus said,

Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves. But beware of men, for they will hand you over to the courts and scourge you in their synagogues (Matt. 10:16-18).

Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death. You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved (Matt. 10: 21-22).

Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW; AND A MAN’S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD” (Matt. 10:34-36).

If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it (Matt. 16:24-25).

If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you (John 15:18-19).

These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world (John 16:33).

The Apostle Paul experienced this first hand and taught the same thing:

Through many tribulations, we must enter the kingdom of God (Acts 14:22).

And not only this, but we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope (Rom. 5:3).

For to you, it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake, experiencing the same conflict which you saw in me, and now hear to be in me (Phil. 1:29-30).

Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted (2 Tim. 3:12).

Jesus will always make your life better in the ultimate sense. However, it may well be the case that your life here on earth as a Christian is nasty, brutish, and short. But because knowledge of God is an incommensurable good this problem of evil should not be a problem at all:

One reason that the problem of suffering seems so puzzling is that people naturally tend to assume that if God exists, then His purpose for human life is happiness in this life. God’s role is to provide a comfortable environment for His human pets. But on the Christian view, this is false. We are not God’s pets, and the goal of human life is not happiness per se, but the knowledge of God—which in the end will bring true and everlasting human fulfillment. Much of the suffering in life may be utterly pointless with respect to the goal of producing human happiness, but it may not be pointless with respect to producing a deeper knowledge of God.[51]

#10 The POE is a problem because we fail to have an eternal perspective and appreciate the glory that awaits us in heaven.

The doctrine of heaven is probably one of the most underemphasized and underappreciated doctrines of the Christian faith.[52] For many believers, heaven is simply the “P.S.” to the Christian life. But we ignore the topic of heaven at our own peril. Like the topic of human depravity, a full treatment of heaven is not possible here. I again point you toward an article by Clay Jones as well as his forthcoming book Why God Allows Evil:

 Reigning with Christ

In short, our failure to understand the problem of evil is due in large part to our failure to adopt an eternal perspective and to fully appreciate the glory that awaits us. Heaven is the ultimate solution to the problem of evil, both intellectually and emotionally. C.S. Lewis was right when he said that a successful answer to the problem of evil cannot exclude the reality of heaven:

Scripture and tradition habitually put the joys of heaven into the scale against the sufferings of earth, and no solution of the problem of pain that does not do so can be called a Christian one.[53]

This means that not only is heaven a completely relevant answer to the problem of evil but it is also a necessary one. The knowledge and promise of heaven allows Christians to endure suffering and hardship the same way a child might endure an unpleasant dinner for the promise of dessert. In fact, Scripture commands this should be our focus:

Set your minds on the things above, not on earthly things. For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory (Col. 3:1-4).

Therefore, prepare your minds for action; be self-controlled; set your hope fully on the grace to be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed (1 Pet. 1:13).

In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade—kept in heaven for you, who through faith are shielded by God’s power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time. In this, you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials. These have come so that your faith—of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire—may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory, and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed (1 Peter 1:3-7).

Furthermore, the so-called problem of evil will one day be resolved because God intends to destroy all evil once and for all. The argument could be stated as follows:

  1. If God is all-good, He wants to defeat evil.
  2. If God is all-powerful God, He can defeat evil.
  3. But evil is not yet defeated.
  4. Therefore, evil will one day be defeated.[54]

In other words, the existence of an all-good, all-powerful God and the existence of evil, rather than being an argument against God or His character, can just as easily be used as an argument which demonstrates that God will one day put an end to evil, as He Himself promises:

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth…and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer by any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away (Rev. 21:1, 4).

The problem then with the skeptic’s argument regarding the problem of evil is two-fold: (1) It assumes God does not have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil and (2) It fails to take into account the Christian doctrine of heaven and the final eschatological consummation of all things, including the end of all evil, pain, and suffering.

An illustration may help us grasp how heaven will make our pain and affliction experienced here on earth completely trivial and insignificant.[55] Often a complaint is raised regarding the quantity and intensity of evil a person may experience in this world. But given the reality of heaven, this doesn’t seem to be a problem. For example, suppose you live a very painful existence in which you suffer immensely for most of your life, yet despite this, you come to know Christ. Given this scenario, we may ask the question, “What is a finite lifetime of suffering compared to an eternity of glory, joy, and reward in heaven?” There is simply no comparison. If we were to draw an eternal timeline and mark your life of suffering on it, it would be infinitesimal. In fact, a parent who gives their child a measles shot causing her to cry for ten minutes of her life is causing more suffering by comparison than God allows you to experience in an entire lifetime in light of eternity in heaven. I don’t think this point can be overemphasized. Heaven dwarfs evil into insignificance.

This is something the Apostle Paul understood very well. William Lane Craig does an excellent job addressing this point so I quote him here at length:

When God asks His children to bear horrible suffering in this life, it is only with the prospect of a heavenly joy and recompense that is beyond all comprehension. The apostle Paul underwent a life of incredible suffering. His life as an apostle was punctuated by “afflictions, hardships, calamities, beatings, imprisonments, tumults, labors, watching, hunger” (2 Cor. 6:4-5). Yet he wrote,

“We do not lose heart…For this slight momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, because we look not to the things that are seen, but to the things that are unseen; for the things that are seen are temporal, but the things that are not seen are eternal.” (2 Cor. 4:16-18)

Paul lived this life in the perspective of eternity. He understood that the length of this life, being finite, is literally infinitesimal in comparison with the eternal life we’ll spend with God. The longer we spend in eternity, the more the sufferings of this life will shrink by comparison toward an infinitesimal moment. That’s why Paul called the sufferings of this life a “slight momentary affliction”: He wasn’t being insensitive to the plight of those who suffer horribly in this life—on the contrary, he was one of those people—but he saw that those sufferings were simply overwhelmed by the ocean of everlasting joy and glory that God will give to those who trust Him.[56]

To summarize, heaven will be eternal and full of pleasure while our suffering on earth is not. Therefore, heaven solves the problem of evil with regard to the quantity and intensity of suffering experienced here in this life. The reason we fail to understand this problem of evil is because we fail to have an eternal perspective. Paul sums up this point best:

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us (Rom. 8:18).

Ironically, those who reject God because of evil are rejecting the only One who can redeem evil and suffering for good:

Paradoxically, then, even though the problem of suffering is the greatest objection to the existence of God, at the end of the day God is the only solution to the problem of suffering. If God does not exist, then we are locked without hope in a world filled with pointless and unredeemed suffering. God is the final answer to the problem of suffering, for He redeems us from evil and takes us into the everlasting joy of an incommensurable good: fellowship with Himself.[57]

Conclusion

If we want to understand the problem of evil we need to take seriously the first three chapters of the book of Genesis and the last three chapters of the book of Revelation. Everything in between is about good and evil, ruling and reigning. Adam has plunged all of mankind into a lifelong education of the knowledge of good and evil. As his descendants, we are born corrupt and deserving of death. God is using the evil and suffering of this world to teach free beings the horror of sin, persuading them that He is right, and drawing them into a relationship with Himself. Those who endure and choose to honor God in spite of sorrow and affliction will be glorified in heaven where they will rule and reign forever. The ultimate lesson to be learned from all of this is that if you hate evil, hate sin. At last, God will make all things right and put an end to all heartache, anguish, and suffering for those who love Him and are called according to His purpose (Rom. 8:28-39; Rev. 21:1, 4).

Amen.

Notes

1] David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, part X, in The Empiricists (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1974), 490, as quoted in John S. Feinberg, Many Faces of Evil: Theological Systems and the Problems of Evil, 3rd ed. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2004), 18.

[2] I am indebted to Dr. Clay Jones and his instruction which has deeply influenced my thinking regarding the problem of evil, much of which is reflected in this article. See his website at www.clayjones.net.

[3] Feinberg, Many Faces of Evil, 21-29.

[4] I often use “problem of evil” rather generally to mean “why God allows evil, pain, and suffering.” When a specific problem or different definition is under discussion, it will either be mentioned explicitly or hopefully will be obvious to the reader.

[5] Feinberg, Many Faces of Evil, 27. “A theodicy purports to offer the actual reason God has for allowing evil in our world. A defense…claims to offer only a possible reason God might have for not removing evil.” (29)

[6] See ibid., 33-122.

[7] Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden (New York: HarperCollins, 1996), 133 (my italics).

[8] Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2011), 622-623.

[9] Kenneth Richard Samples, Without a Doubt: Answering the 20 Toughest Faith Questions (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2004), 246.

[10] Randy Alcorn, If God is Good: Faith in the Midst of Suffering and Evil (Colorado Springs: Multnomah, 2009), 21, 35.

[11] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd ed. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), 173.

[12] William Lane Craig, Hard Questions, Real Answers (Wheaton: Crossway, 2003), 107.

[13] William Lane Craig, On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Persuasion (Colorado Springs: David Cook, 2010), 162.

[14] Ibid., 161.

[15] Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 617, 619.

[16] I am indebted to Clay Jones for most of the material in this section.

[17] William Dembski, The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World (Nashville: B&H, 2009), 27-28.

[18] Gen. 3:16-17.

[19] Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1988), 654.

[20] This view of the origin of the soul is known as traducianism, contra special creation.

[21] Dembski, The End of Christianity, 25-26.

[22] I am indebted to Dr. Clay Jones for most of the material and insight presented here, as well as pointing me to the following passage by D.A. Carson.

[23] D.A. Carson, How Long, O Lord?: Reflections on Suffering and Evil (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2006), 61.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Ibid.

[26] This is a loose reconstruction with some additions of my own.

[27] J.I. Packer, God’s Words, 71.

[28] For more on these first two points, I highly recommend reading Clay Jones, “We Don’t Take Human Evil Seriously so We Don’t Understand Why We Suffer” found at http://www.clayjones.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Human-Evil-and-Suffering.pdf.

[29] Clay Jones, “Disaster Is Always a Call to Repentance!” found at http://www.clayjones.net/2011/11/disaster-is-always-a-call-to-repentance.

[30] Clay Jones, Prepared Defense 2.0, “Free Will and Heaven”, 2011.

[31] Craig, On Guard, 166.

[32] Alcorn, If God is Good, 72-73.

[33] Thanks to Dr. Clay Jones for these points and commentary.

[34] C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (New York: HarperCollins, 1996), 48.

[35] D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Studies in Ephesians Chapter 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1972), 12.

[36] Clay Jones, Human Evil and Suffering, 14, available at http://www.clayjones.net.

[37] Ronald Nash, Faith, and Reason: Searching for a Rational Faith (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 186.

[38] Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 30.

[39] Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 637-639.

[40] See Nash, Faith and Reason, 189, as well as Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, 26.

[41] Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 643.

[42] Nash, Faith and Reason, 211.

[43] Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, 10-11.

[44] Jane Mary Trau, “Fallacies in the Argument from Gratuitous Suffering,” The New Scholasticism60 (1986): pp. 485-486, as quoted in Nash, Faith, and Reason, 212.

[45] Nash, Faith and Reason, 212.

[46] See Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 641, as well as Nash, Faith and Reason, 211-212.

[47] Nash, Faith and Reason, 215.

[48] Craig, On Guard, 167.

[49] Ibid., 170.

[50] Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 644.

[51] Craig, On Guard, 163-164.

[52] I am indebted to Clay Jones for most of the material in this section.

[53] Lewis, The Problem of Pain, 148.

[54] Argument adapted from Norman Geisler, If God, Why Evil? (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2011), 42.

[55] I am indebted to Dr. Clay Jones for this illustration.

[56] Craig, On Guard, 166-167.

[57] Ibid., 173.

/by
Apathy, Atheism, and the Absurdity of Life Without God

Apathy, Atheism, and the Absurdity of Life Without God

, ,

by Aaron Brake

Here is a statement that may seem controversial at first but upon reflection the truth of which becomes more apparent:

If God does not exist and there is no life after death, then there is no ultimate meaning, value, or purpose in life.

The question of God’s existence is the most central and important question we can seek to answer. If God does not exist and we do not survive the death of our bodies, life is ultimately absurd. J.P. Moreland provides an illustration which helps bring this truth home:

Suppose I invited you over to my house to play a game of Monopoly. When you arrive I announce that the game is going to be a bit different. Before us is the Monopoly board, a set of jacks, a coin, the television remote, and a refrigerator in the corner of the room. I grant you the first turn, and puzzlingly, inform you that you may do anything you want: fill the board with hotels, throw the coin in the air, toss a few jacks, fix a sandwich, or turn on the television. You respond by putting hotels all over the board and smugly sit back as I take my turn. I respond by dumping the board upside down and tossing the coin in the air. Somewhat annoyed, you right the board and replenish it with hotels. I turn on the television and dump the board over again.

Now it wouldn’t take too many cycles of this nonsense to recognize that it didn’t really matter what you did with your turn, and here’s why. There is no goal, no purpose to the game we are playing. Our successive turns form a series of one meaningless event after another. Why? Because if the game as a whole has no purpose, the individual moves within the game are pointless. Conversely, only a game’s actual purpose according to its inventor can give the individual move’s significance.[1]

As Moreland articulates, if the game of Monopoly as a whole has no purpose, the individual moves within the game have no meaning or value. The only way your moves within the game of Monopoly have significance is if you discover the purpose of the game and you align yourself with that purpose.

As it is with Monopoly, so it is with life. Like the game of Monopoly, the only way our individual lives have any ultimate meaning or value is if life has a purpose behind it, and real purpose requires both God and life after death.

To help think about this, let us suppose that God does not exist. In an atheistic scenario, we as human beings are simply Johnny-come-lately biological accidents on an insignificant speck of dust we call Earth which is hurtling through empty space in a meaningless and random universe that will eventually die a cold heat death. In the big scheme of things, we are no more significant than a swarm of mosquitoes. In a universe where there is no God and no afterlife, our actions are meaningless and serve no final end because ultimately each one of us, along with everyone we know and influence, will die and enter oblivion. There is no difference between living the life of a saint or a sociopath, no difference between a Mother Theresa and an Adolf Hitler. Mention of objective, morality, meaning, purpose, or value is simply incoherent babbling. William Lane Craig frequently refers to this as “the absurdity of life without God.”[2] He states,

Without God, the universe is the result of a cosmic accident, a chance explosion. There is no reason for which it exists. As for man, he’s a freak of nature—a blind product of matter plus time plus chance. If God does not exist, then you are just a miscarriage of nature, thrust into a purposeless universe to live a purposeless life…the end of everything is death… In short, life is utterly without reason… Unfortunately, most people don’t realize this fact. They continue on as though nothing has changed.[3]

The Cure for Apathy?

It seems to me that when we honestly reflect on the absurdity of life without God we cannot at the same time remain apathetic toward the question of God’s existence. God’s existence matters and has tremendous implications for our own existence. Life’s absurdity without God should bother us. It should keep us awake at night. It should jar us out of our apathetic attitude and challenge us to seek answers to life’s ultimate issues. Unfortunately, this is often not the case, especially in our information age where it is far too easy to remain distracted and caught up in the daily busyness of life. Regrettably, many people can simply go on day to day without ever giving a second thought to the most important questions in life.

But if we want to be intellectually honest, and if we are at all concerned with real meaning, value, and purpose, the question of God’s existence demands our attention. We ignore this topic and remain apathetic to it only to our own peril. As Brian Auten has stated, “the wise man seeks God.”[4] For the reasonable person, reflection on the absurdity of life without God should be enough to extinguish any remaining apathy regarding the question of God’s existence.

Perhaps then, apathy (or apatheism) is not something that can be changed directly, i.e., it is not something that can simply be willed away through direct effort. Rather, like our other beliefs, apathy must be changed indirectly. If apatheism is the belief that “the existence of God is not meaningful or relevant to my life,” perhaps reflecting on the absurdity of life without God will be powerful enough to indirectly change apathetic beliefs and help communicate the importance of taking God and other ultimate issues seriously.

The Inconsistent Atheist

I have never met an atheist who lives consistently with the implications of his naturalistic worldview. Though he rejects both God and life after death, he continues to live his life as if his actions have real ultimate meaning, value, and purpose. As Craig stated above, “they continue on as though nothing has changed.” Atheists reject God but still desire meaning, value, and purpose in life, so they indubitably find something to give their devotion to, be it themselves, family, money, pleasure, education, work, social causes, or politics. But neither do any of these subjective pursuits have ultimate significance or objective value in a world without God. In the end, the atheist must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to infuse their own life and actions with real meaning and purpose. This is because atheism and the naturalistic worldview offers no hope and provides no grounding for significance and value. Ken Samples states,

Naturalism as a worldview seems unable to offer the kind of meaning, purpose, and hope that humans require and yearn to experience. Instead, the ultimate fate of the individual, humanity, and even the universe will inevitably be the same regardless of what any person may do. Nothing that anyone thinks, says, or does will change the fact that each individual person, all of humankind collectively, and the universe itself (due to entropy) will someday be utterly extinct, lifeless, and cold. The outcome of naturalism is an inevitable hopelessness.[5]

In other words, naturalism fails the existential test. Honest atheists cannot live happily and consistently with their worldview. If atheism is true, and if atheists honestly reflect on their own eventual non-existence as well as the fact that their actions in this life have no ultimate meaning, value, or purpose, it seems hard to avoid the overwhelming feelings of depression, despair, and dejection. It is no wonder then that some atheists have resorted to nihilism. Christianity, on the other hand, succeeds exactly where atheism fails:

Biblical Christianity, therefore, provides the two conditions necessary for a meaningful, valuable, and purposeful life: God and immortality. Because of this, we can live consistently and happily within the framework of our worldview. Thus, biblical Christianity succeeds precisely where atheism breaks down… Therefore, it makes a huge difference whether God exists.[6]

An Atheist Rejoinder?

Some atheists object at this point: “But I do have a purpose in life. I do have meaning.” In a 2010 debate entitled “Does the Universe Have a Purpose?” skeptic Michael Shermer offers four things that allow people to feel more happy, fulfilled, and purposeful in life, regardless of whether or not God exists:[7]

  1. Deep love and family commitment
  2. Meaningful work and career
  3. Social and political involvement
  4. A sense of transcendency

Later in the debate, Shermer goes on to say,

Don’t you think even if there isn’t a God that you should find some purpose?…Maybe there’s a God, maybe there’s not. Either way, don’t you think you ought to roll up your sleeves and see if you can figure out some useful things to do to give yourself purpose outside of God? Don’t you think that’s worthwhile?…Shouldn’t I be doing these nice things for other people? Shouldn’t I be finding love and commitment to somebody, a meaningful career, helping my social community and being involved in politics, trying to transcend myself and do something outside of myself? Shouldn’t I be doing those things anyway?

But notice that Shermer here completely misses the point, which is this: if there is no God, then there is no ultimate, objective meaning, value, and purpose in life. Sure, you can create subjective meaning and purpose if you so desire. You can live for any personal, subjective cause or reason that makes you happy. You can even do nice things regardless of whether or not God exists. But Shermer offers no account or explanation as to why if there is no God any of these things are objectively good, or why any of these things are objectively meaningful, valuable or purposeful, or why we should pursue these ends as opposed to others that may make us more fulfilled and happy. In the end, it makes no difference, objectively speaking, whether or not you pursue these goals or not because in the end, everything winds up the same anyway: you die, I die, the universe dies, and that’s just all there is to it. Christian theist William Lane Craig offered this rejoinder both to Shermer and Richard Dawkins in the debate:

There has been a major shift in the last two speeches in this debate. Did you see what it was? We’ve argued tonight first of all that if God does not exist, then the universe has no purpose. Our atheist colleagues admit that. But now what they’ve been claiming is, “But look, we can construct a purpose for our lives,” in Richard Dawkins’ words, or in Michael Shermer’s words, “We can develop ways to make us feel better, feeling like we have a purpose.” Now you see this just is to say that we can pretend that the universe exists for some purpose, and this is just make-believe. This is the subjective illusion of purpose, but there is on this view no objective purpose for the universe. And we, of course, would never deny that you can’t develop subjective purposes for your life. The point is on atheism they’re all illusory…But you cannot live as though your life were purposeless and meaninglessness and therefore you adopt subjective illusions of purpose to make your life livable. And that’s why I think atheism is not only irrational; it is profoundly unlivable. You cannot live consistently and purposefully within the context of an atheistic worldview.

Ironically, this debate was entitled “Does the Universe Have a Purpose?” Of course, if atheism is true, there was no ultimate meaning, value, or purpose in the debate. In the ultimate scheme of things it makes no difference whether the debate occurred or not (nor does it matter whether or not you listen to it). By showing up to defend the atheistic perspective, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins, and Matt Ridley implicitly acknowledge at least some subjective meaning, value, and purpose in the debate. And if atheism is true, subjective meaning is all it could have. Any ultimate significance is illusory.

Conclusion

Jesus said, “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent…and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice” (John 17:3, 18:37).

Real meaning, value, and purpose comes from knowing God and making God known. In response to the question, “What is the chief end of man?” the Westminster Confession answers, “To glorify God, and to enjoy Him forever.” But it isn’t enough to simply understand this purpose and assent to its truth. In order for our individual lives to have real significance, we need to willfully align ourselves with this truth, and that means aligning ourselves with Jesus Christ, the author, and perfecter of our faith (Heb. 12:2).

Notes

[1] J.P. Moreland, The God Question: An Invitation to a Life of Meaning (Eugene: Harvest House, 2009), 34-35.

[2] See William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd ed. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), chapter 2, and On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision(Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2010), chapter 2.

[3] Craig, On Guard, 37.

[4] See his essay “The Wise Man Seeks God” available at http://www.apologetics315.com/2010/05/essay-wise-man-seeks-god-by-brian-auten.html.

[5] Kenneth Richard Samples, A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007), 217.

[6] Craig, On Guard, 49-50 (his italics).

[7] This debate is available in its entirety here: http://www.apologetics315.com/2010/11/does-universe-have-purpose-audio-debate.html

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2H9itoi

/by
Why Yahweh Why Not Zeus Why Not Thor Why Not Zoidberg

Why Yahweh? Why Not Zeus? Why Not Thor? Why Not Zoidberg?

, , ,

By Evan Minton

One common question atheists often ask Christians like me is why we believe in the God of The Bible as opposed to all of these other gods in all of these made up religions. They will ask “You believe in only one God? Why don’t you believe in Thor, or Zeus, or Athena? You claim all these gods don’t exist? Yet you say your god does? How do you tell the difference?”

Actually, this question is one of the first things that made me doubt my own Christian faith. Years ago, I pretty much had no way to tell between Christianity and other religions? How do I know Yahweh is the one true God? If these others are made up, how do I know my God isn’t? Fortunately, The Lord showed me Christian Apologetics and gave me a good way to discern between them. Now, I’m not going to go into all of the evidence for The God Of The Bible right now. If I did, this blog post would be extremely long, just incredibly wordy. Rather, I’m going to link to these arguments and evidence which demonstrate the truth of Christianity, and when you’re done reading this blog post you can click on those links and study the arguments individually if you’d like. The links will be highlighted in blue.

One way to know is The Big Bang itself. According to The Big Bang, the entire universe popped into being out of nothing! And according to people who have done exhaustive studies of the world’s religions (e.g Hugh Ross), the only beliefs that have God creating out of nothing are Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Deism. All other religions have God or gods creating within space and time that have existed from eternity past. So, the very origin of the universe itself narrows it down to 4 possibilities. Moreover, the origin of the universe demonstrates that the existence of the universe must have been brought into being by a causal agent. A causal agent whose existence is spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful, uncaused, supernatural and personal (See The Kalam Cosmological Argument).

If the scientific evidence for Intelligent Design goes through (e.g The Fine Tuning Of The Universe, The Local Fine Tuning, The DNA Evidence, Irreducible Complexity), you can rule out Deism. Because what arguments like the teleological arguments show is that this God is actively shaping the universe and life to make it’s inhabited by creatures. That rules out Deism and fits better with theism.

Moreover, I might add that the Ontological Argument demonstrates that there exists a being much like the God of The Bible. The Ontological Argument, if it goes through, would demonstrate that there exists a being who is Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent and Omnibenevolent. This contradicts many gods like Thor and Zeus. The only religions consistent with a being like this are the 3 monotheistic religions. Polytheistic gods like Thor are merely superhumans (Stan Lee took advantage of this fact). But they’re not omnipotent or omnipresent or anything like that. The beauty about the Ontological Argument is that it not only demonstrates that God exists but it puts forth all of his superlative qualities which you can’t derive from other arguments from natural theology.

In fact, arguments from natural theology can tell us not just that God exists, but it can demonstrate a lot of attributes about God. Attributes that The Bible describes Him as having. The Kalam Cosmological Argument shows that God is a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful, supernatural and personal agent. The Fine Tuning Arguments (universal and local) demonstrate that God is incredibly intelligent, at least intelligent enough to know how to fabricate a universe suitable for creatures to inhabit. The other teleological arguments (DNA and Irreducible Complexity) do the same thing. The Moral Argument demonstrates that God is morally perfect since it demonstrates that God is the standard by which we measure people to determine just how good or just how evil they really are. It demonstrates that in the absence of God’s existence, there would be nothing we could objectively call good and evil because there would be nothing to compare it with. Who or what exactly are we comparing Hitler or Bin Ladin to when we call them evil?

The Ontological Argument demonstrates God’s superlative qualities (as I’ve already noted above). If it pulls through (that is, if it meets the 3 requirements for being a good argument, which are: The conclusion must follow from the premises by the laws of logic, all of the premises must be true, and we must have good reasons to think that they’re true), if this argument meets those 3 requirements, it demonstrates that there exists a being that is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and necessary in its existence (aseity).

These arguments from natural theology/general revelation, when put together, give us powerful reasons to believe in the existence of a Being that very, very closely resembles the being that The Bible describes as God. Moreover, the beautiful thing about natural theology is that you derive this Being’s existence without appealing to any scripture whatsoever. So the atheist can’t accuse you of circular reasoning (appealing to The Bible to prove The Bible). We can conclude that this being exists just from science, and logic alone.

But if you want to get to Christianity and eliminate the other 2 options, one may want to look at the evidence for Christ’s resurrection. For me, Christ’s resurrection settles everything,. If it can be historically established that Jesus made claims to be God, and then rose from the dead, then that is pretty good evidence that He was telling the truth. The resurrection means that God put His stamp of approval on everything Jesus said and did. It means that He is both Messiah and Lord. Therefore, anything contradictory to Christ’s teachings must be false. I happen to think that the historical evidence for Jesus Christ’s resurrection is very powerful. I admonish you to look at the Cerebral Faith blog posts I wrote on this topic. In PART 1, I give the evidence for the 5 minimal facts; (1) that Jesus died by crucifixion, (2), that Jesus’ tomb was found empty, (4) that the disciples believed they saw Jesus alive after his death, (4), that a persecutor named Paul converted on the basis of what he believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus, and (5) that a skeptic named James converted based on what he believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus. In PART 2, I examine which of the explanations best explains those hypotheses and show that only the hypothesis “God raised Jesus from the dead” best explains the 5 facts while naturalistic explanations fail.

But if you want to dive into studying this topic even deeper, I suggest the books “The Case For Christ” by Lee Strobel, “The Case For The Resurrection Of Jesus” by Gary Habermas and Mike Licona, and also “On Guard” by William Lane Craig (Craig’s book also delves into 4 of the natural theology arguments I’ve listed above, but it also has a chapter on Jesus’ claims to deity and a chapter on the evidence for his resurrection).

So there you have. Reasons why I believe in The Biblical God instead of any polytheistic or pantheistic gods. I hope that whether you’re a Christian like me or an atheist, that you will click on the links above and take the time to read those linked articles. If you’re an atheist, it might make a believer out of you. If you’re a Christian, it will likely strengthen your faith. God bless you.

 

For a fuller treatment on this, check out Evan’s book ‘Inference To The One True God: Why I Believe In Jesus Instead Of Other Gods’.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2qBOgI7

/by
Scientists Like Stephen Hawking Believe in God?

Why Don’t Brilliant Scientists Like Stephen Hawking Believe in God?

,

by Natasha Crain

The famous physicist, cosmologist, and author Stephen Hawking died this week. He was widely known as one of the most brilliant scientists of our time.

He was also widely known as an atheist.

In fact, many of the most famous scientists today are atheists.

This point has not escaped the attention of skeptics who often promote the idea that science and God are in conflict. As supporting evidence of that supposed conflict, skeptics often claim that virtually no scientists believe in God. More specifically, they back up their claim by citing a 1998 research study that showed 93 percent of the members of the National Academy of Sciences (an elite scientific organization in the United States) don’t believe in God. That finding caught the media’s attention, and it’s been continually quoted ever since as a known fact about the relationship of religious belief and scientific professions.

For example, atheist neuroscientist and popular author Sam Harris has written:

Although it is possible to be a scientist and still believe in God — as some scientists seem to manage it — there is no question that an engagement with scientific thinking tends to erode, rather than support, religious faith. Taking the U.S. population as an example: Most polls show that about 90% of the general public believes in a personal God, yet 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not. This suggests that there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than science is.

My purpose in this post isn’t to dissect Stephen Hawking’s personal religious beliefs. I only refer to him here because his death has once again raised this subject in popular discussion. My purpose is also not to dissect whether God and science conflict (I address this in multiple chapters of Talking with Your Kids about God). My purpose instead is to look at the question of whether it’s true that scientists don’t believe in God and the implications of the answer.

While we know that truth isn’t determined by vote, statistics get people’s attention—and young people especially trust “expert opinion”—so it’s well worth our time as parents to explore this question. When your kids ask why scientists don’t believe in God (because they’ve heard that’s a foregone conclusion), this is the discussion you need to have.

What Do Scientists Believe about God?

This is the subject of Chapter 12 in Talking with Your Kids about God. In that chapter, I explain in detail the five major research studies that have been conducted on this question (with all corresponding references). I’ll briefly summarize the findings here:

  • James Leuba Study (1914) with Edward Larson and Larry Whitham Follow-Up (1996-98): In 1914, it was found that 42 percent of scientists believed in a personal God. Among the scientists Leuba identified as “greater” (leading scientists), the number dropped to 28 percent. In 1996, Larson and Whitham attempted to replicate the study to see how the scientific developments of the twentieth century may have changed religious views amongst scientists. Their results were almost identical: 40 percent said they believed in a personal God. To replicate Leuba’s attempt to survey a subset of elite scientists, Larson and Whitham surveyed the National Academy of Sciences. In that group, belief in a personal God dropped to 7 percent. This is the specific study so often referenced to demonstrate that scientists don’t believe in God.
  • Religion among Academic Scientists Study (2005-8): Sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund surveyed nearly 1700 scientists at 21 elite universities on their views of religion and science. She found that nearly 50 percent identified with a religious label. Importantly, Ecklund conducted statistical analyses to identify which factors were the most significant predictors of religious beliefs and behaviors. She found the strongest predictor of religious adherence to be childhood religiosity.In other words, those scientists raised with a religious affiliation were more likely to be religious as adults, and those raised without religious affiliation were more likely to be irreligious as adults. Ecklund concludes:

It is an assumption of much scholarly work that the religious beliefs of scientists are a function of their commitment to science. The findings presented here show that indeed academics in the natural and social sciences at elite research universities are less religious than many of those in the general public, at least according to traditional indicators of religiosity. Assuming, however, that becoming a scientist necessarily leads to loss of religious commitments is untenable when we take into account the differential selection of scientists from certain religious backgrounds. Our results indicate that people from certain backgrounds (the non-religious, for example) disproportionately self-select into scientific professions.

  • Pew Research Center Study (2009): Findings suggest that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power.
  • Religious Understandings of Science Study (2012-15): Ecklund conducted another study which included 574 scientists. In this survey, 36 percent of scientists said, “I know God really exists and I have no doubts about it,” versus 56 percent of the overall sample.

Let’s now consider the implications of these studies.

  1. It’s not true that 93 percent of scientists don’t believe in God.

This frequently quoted statistic refers to just one of several available studies, and there are two good reasons we shouldn’t consider it to be the representative statistic. First, it’s clear from the other research that this finding was an outlier—the other major studies on this subject suggest that 33 to 50 percent of scientists believe in a personal God, with the numbers even greater if we include those who believe more broadly in a higher power. Second, this study was conducted with a unique group—members of the National Academy of Sciences, an organization of about twenty-three hundred scientists who were elected to membership by other members. We could speculate all day about why these particular scientists are less likely to believe in a personal God, but the bottom line is that this organization is not representative of the broader scientific community. The most that can be said from this study is that 93 percent of scientists who are members of the National Academy of Sciences and responded to the survey don’t believe in a personal God. It’s highly inaccurate to suggest that 93 percent of all scientists are atheists because this is not a representative sample.

  1. Correlation does not equal causation.

In statistics, correlation simply means that two variables tend to move in the same direction—in this case, those who are scientists do tend to be less likely to believe in God. This doesn’t mean, however, that being a scientist necessarily causes someone not to believe in God. (Think of it this way: in some parts of the world, it rains almost every Easter, but that doesn’t mean Easter causes it to rain.) If we determined that becoming a scientist did cause people to drop their belief in God, we might have reason to think there is some inherent conflict between the practice of science and theism. But to the contrary, Ecklund’s Religion among Academic Scientists study showed that the irreligious are simply more likely to become scientists in the first place. The available research does not suggest that scientists become irreligious as a consequence of their occupation, though this is what skeptics typically assume. And if becoming irreligious is not a consequence of their occupation, then the whole topic of what scientists believe about God quickly becomes less relevant.

  1. What scientists believe about God ultimately has no bearing on whether God exists.

While we should explore this subject because it’s often raised as a challenge to the truth of Christianity, we must remember that, ultimately, beliefs aren’t true depending on who holds them. They are true because they correspond to reality. Scientists don’t have any more expertise on the reality of God’s existence than anyone else. 

For more background on these studies and a full conversation guide to use with your kids in discussing this subject, see Talking with Your Kids about God pages 125-132.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2DQI3M6

/by
The Creator and the Cosmos

Book Review: The Creator and the Cosmos

,

by Luke Nix

Introduction

Several years ago, when I was struggling with science/faith issues, I stumbled upon astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross’ book “The Creator and the Cosmos.” He had released the third edition of the book, and many people were recommending it for those with science/faith concerns. I was already somewhat familiar with Dr. Ross’ name since I had read “The Fingerprint of God” in the mid-90s but had not pursued much more investigation (most of the content was way over my head at the time). I decided to pick up a copy of that new book in the mid-2000s and took the time to read through it carefully. I was astounded at the strength of the scientific case Dr. Ross presented for the existence of the God of the Bible.

The book helped me overcome my struggle with science and paved the way for a deeper and more reasonable faith that I still continue to investigate and communicate to others to help them through their intellectual struggles. Not only can I know emotionally and spiritually that Christianity is true, but I can know it intellectually and reasonably. Of course, I have been blogging for quite a few years regarding how to demonstrate the reasonableness and truth of the Christian worldview, and in doing so, I have been providing my readers with chapter-by-chapter summary-style reviews of many of the books that I read.

A couple years ago I decided to begin going back through some of the apologetics books that I read early on, and “The Creator and the Cosmos” was in my stack. Not too long after I made that decision, though, I found out that Dr. Ross was working on a new edition that would add the most current discoveries to his original case (making it even stronger) and address even more challenges to his case that various scientists have proposed since the book’s third edition was published. I decided to hold off on my review until that new edition had been released. Well, IT IS HERE!!!!! And I cannot be more excited for it! In keeping with my usual book reviews, I will provide a chapter-by-chapter summary then provide my recommendations. If you are reading this review on the Faithful Thinkers blog, I have embedded quotes and videos to enhance the review and better communicate the content of the book. Before I get to the summary, let’s start with this short video from Dr. Ross about how his investigation of the cosmos led him to the conclusion that the personal God of the Bible exists and led him to dedicate his life to Jesus Christ.

                                             
Are you ready to see how astronomers and astrophysicists are discovering every day that “the heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19:1)? 

Let’s begin!

Chapter 1: The Awe-Inspiring Night Sky

Dr. Ross begins by describing how, as a young boy who was fascinated with astronomy, he discovered that people, in general, are intrigued with the study of the cosmos. He explains that this is not an empty curiosity but rather a profound one. If the universe had a beginning, then something must have existed to cause it to begin, and if the universe exhibits great detail in its creation, then the life that ultimately resulted must have a purpose in the mind of its Creator. He notes that the study of the cosmos is not merely a scientific pursuit of knowledge of the physical world, but it is fundamentally a philosophical and theological inquiry. Historically different groups of scholars have claimed superior knowledge of the cosmos. Scientists, theologians, and philosophers have seen their own disciplines as superseding any discoveries or claims from the other two. This has caused a lot of conflict in the academy and has placed unnecessary limits on the fruits of studying the cosmos. Dr. Ross encourages, not a separated study of the cosmos by those in these disciplines but, an integrative approach: one that takes the knowledge of all three and aims to combine their knowledge to discover a more complete and precise picture of the whole. By taking this approach, the study of the cosmos ultimately becomes tied to two of the deepest questions of life: what is the meaning of life and what is my purpose in life.

1 image cosmos

Chapter 2: My Skeptical Inquiry

Dr. Ross takes a chapter to recount his own journey. From the age of seven, he had a fascination with astronomy, and his investigation of the cosmos began. By the age of fifteen, he was convinced that the universe had a beginning, and thus a Beginner. For a short time, he believed that the beginner was unconcerned with His creation (a deistic approach), but his studies of world religions in high school informed him that people all over the world tend to believe that their holy books accurately describe reality, including the origins of the universe. Even though he fully expected that all the world’s religions would get the science wrong, he resolved to objectively investigate the claims of the world’s religions regarding the universe’s origins to test if they even had the possibility of being truly authored by the Creator/God of the universe. One-by-one Ross found errors in the various holy books about the universe, eliminating them from the realm of truth; that is until he started investigating the Bible. It took him eighteen months of nightly study to come to the conclusion that it not only contained no errors regarding the universe, but the Bible accurately described features of the universe that no person of the time of authorship (even the latest possible dates) could have possibly known. In fact, he calculated that the Bible is roughly 10^58 times more reliable than the laws of physics. At that point, he was convinced that the Bible was supernaturally inspired by the same Beginner of the universe, and he surrendered his life to Jesus Christ and spreading the Gospel using the evidence provided by the Creator’s creation.

                                               

Chapter 3: Big Bang–The Bible Taught It First

Roughly twenty-five hundred years before big bang cosmology was proposed through theoretical physics or was evidenced by observing the cosmos, the Bible, against all other cosmologies of the contemporary cultures, claimed that the universe had a beginning and was expanding: the two most fundamental features of big bang cosmology. Dr. Ross cites seven passages in the Old Testament and three in the New Testament that state that the universe had a beginning, and seven passages across both Testaments that unequivocally identify God as the cause of the universe. Eleven different passages claimed that the universe was not static but was expanding, and three of them state explicitly that the expansion was taking place by God’s intervention. What makes these passages truly interesting is that some indicate that the expansion is ongoing by God’s sovereign, providential command, while others indicate that God has completed the expansion. According to big bang cosmology, the laws of physics were set (completed), at the creation of the universe, in such a way to ensure the continual expansion of the universe at the proper rates at the proper times to ultimately prepare a home for humans (see Dr. Ross’ book “Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity’s Home” for the details on this painstakingly engineered and beautifully orchestrated process).

                                                 
And taking the cosmological claims even further, the biblical authors add (several times) that the universe is governed by constant laws of physics since the creation event that included the law of decay (second law of thermodynamics- transfer of energy from hot to cold matter). Dr. Ross uses the passages to argue that the Bible also identifies a third fundamental feature of all big bang cosmological models: a constantly cooling universe. None of these concepts were known or even knowable to the ancients except for through divine inspiration by the Creator of the universe, Himself. The fact that scientists are discovering features of the universe recorded only by the writers of the Bible argues powerfully not only for God’s existence, but that He inerrantly inspired the words of Scripture.
Implications of the big bang family of models are generally misunderstood by many theists who stand against the theory. Dr. Ross concludes the chapter by clearing up a couple understandings of big bang cosmology in an effort to alleviate some of the emotional concern about the theory being in conflict with the Bible or the God of the Bible as the Beginner. For more on resolving a literal and historical reading of Genesis with the scientific discoveries, see Dr. Ross’ books “A Matter of Days” and “Navigating Genesis.”

2 image cosmos

Chapter 4: Discovery of the Twentieth Century

All hot big bang models predicted that scientists would discover that the universe and all it contains rapidly expanded from a nearly infinitely small volume with a nearly infinitely high temperature. While theoretical physics predicted that some form of big bang cosmology was correct and other indirect evidences existed pointing to the same conclusion, no signature (evidence of this nearly infinitely hot initial volume) had been discovered, until the early 90s. In 1992 the announcement of the big bang theory’s fingerprint was made: the COBE satellite had discovered direct evidence of the cooling of the universe from its initially hot state. Not only did this discovery establish that the universe began from a near-infinitely hot volume, but it also established that the expansion of the universe was incredibly finely tuned.

Dr. Ross uses the analogy of an oven to illustrate both implications of the COBE observation. When an oven is heated, the space closer to it will be hotter while space further from it will be cooler, and when the oven is turned off for an extended period of time, the temperature throughout the room will normalize. COBE measured outer space to be the same temperature in all directions at the same distances, indicating that a source of heat had existed at some point in time. COBE also measured hotter temperatures at further locations, indicating that the source of heat had been “turned off.” This not only confirmed the universe’s beginning as predicted by big bang cosmology (and the Bible before it), but it also falsified several competing beginningless models. Placing the big bang on even firmer evidential ground was the fact that the measured temperature and temperature differences matched a 1940s prediction of the theory.

On the first impression, it may appear that the uniformity of the temperatures raises a problem: how can stars form if the temperature is perfectly uniform throughout the history of the universe? Interestingly enough, though, the temperatures measured by COBE were not perfectly smooth across directions and distances. The variations were small enough that the implications of a beginning stood firmly yet large enough that stars, galaxies, and galaxy clusters could form, and form at a finely-tuned rate necessary for life. As time went on from the initial COBE discovery announcement, more instruments were used to independently confirm the discovery, and more precise measurements were taken that led to the refining (fine-tuning) of the big bang models and galaxy formation models. Since then, numerous observations continue to confirm COBE’s discovery of these predictions of big bang cosmology. As more and more discoveries are made, science continues to confirm the biblical claim that the universe had a beginning caused by a Beginner outside of time and space. The evidence for God as the Creator is getting stronger every day. Dr. Ross continues the chapter going into detail on numerous discoveries that establish the beginning and fine-tuning of the universe.

                                                    

Chapter 5: Twenty-First Century Discoveries- Part I

The previous chapter only covered the discoveries from the 20th century that establishes the beginning and fine-tuning of the universe, which was enough to place them on powerful evidential grounds. As technological breakthroughs continue, the mound of evidence grows. In the next two chapters, Dr. Ross details discoveries of the 21st century that continue to establish the biblical truth of God as Creator and Designer.

While discoveries of the 20th century established that the universe was expanding, discoveries of the 21st century have revealed the rate of expansion. Using type 1a supernovae discovered in the last 20 years, scientists have been able to establish the expansion rate of the universe during the different epochs of the history of the universe. As technology has advanced, these measurements have revealed an extremely finely tuned expansion, and newer technology is expected to reveal more precision in the coming years. When Albert Einstein originally formulated his theory of relativity, it predicted that the universe had a beginning, but that was in direct contradiction to the popular cosmological models of the time. Einstein did attempt to make his theory compatible with beginningless models by adding a “cosmological constant;” however, the discoveries (discussed in the previous chapters) demonstrated that Einstein’s original theory was correct. However, scientists have placed the “cosmological constant” back into the equations, but using different values than Einstein, not in an attempt to avoid a beginning but, to explain the expansion of the universe and maintain the universe’s beginning. This “cosmological constant” is commonly known as dark energy.

Not only is dark energy a problem for naturalism because it necessarily implies that the universe had a beginning, but it necessarily implies that that beginning was too recent in the past for naturalism to explain the origin of life (see Dr. Ross’ book “Origins of Life” for an in-depth study of this challenge) or the diversity of life we see today. As independent discoveries continue to establish that the denial of dark energy’s existence is irrational, dark energy is providing some of the most powerful evidence, not just for the beginning of the universe but, that the universe’s expansion was finely tuned for life. The same evidence that leads to the conclusion that the universe has a beginning, when studied in more depth also reveals fine-tuning to a level of 1 part in 10^122 (that is 10 with 122 zeros after it). To say that scientists have discovered that the universe is “exquisitely designed” is a most spectacular understatement.

Chapter 6: Twenty-First Century Discoveries- Part II

While a cosmic beginning and the cosmic expansion have been overwhelmingly confirmed in these beginning years of the 21st century, several other predictions of big bang cosmology have been put to the test. Big bang cosmology can be tested by making measurements of the amounts of different elements at different epochs of the universe. Dr. Ross explains several independent studies that have yielded confirmed predictions regarding the abundances of helium and deuterium; however, measurements of lithium abundance have missed the mark, indicating incomplete detailing of the current suite of models. Several possible solutions have been proposed, resulting in more detailed big bang models to be tested as technology advances.

Other ways to test big bang models have also only become available in the 21st century. The spatial separation of galaxies over time has provided another test for big bang cosmology. Over time, the general model predicts that galaxies will be further and further apart from one another. As cosmologists observe galaxies further and further away from earth (further back in time, since it takes time for light to reach the telescopes), the galaxies appear closer and closer together gradually as distance increases. Another test would be the predicted rate of expansion over time. Building upon the discussion in the previous chapter, using the fine-tuning of dark energy, big bang models predict the amount that has elapsed since the creation event itself. The time calculated is roughly 13.78 billion years. To test this age, several other independent methods have been used to determine the age as well, and all are consistent within the error bars (±0.26 billion years). If big bang cosmology were incorrect, the ages discovered using independent methods would differ radically not within the error bars of the initial prediction.

Building further upon those confirmed predictions, more predictions are made and can be tested. Specifically, if we know the rate of expansion and the amount of time of the expansion, then a cooling curve can be derived. Using the latest information and technology, the predicted cooling curve has been tested and confirmed by using two independent methods of observing the variation in temperature of the cosmos at different distances (epochs). This next generation of confirmed predictions (predictions arising from previously confirmed predictions) demonstrates the continued confirmation and shear explanatory power of big bang cosmology and, thus, the existence of a Creator and Designer of the universe, just as the Bible claims.

                                                  

Chapter 7: Einstein’s Challenge

This chapter is a short one, almost an “intermission.” Dr. Ross dedicates some space to discussing Albert Einstein’s equations of relativity and how they implied a beginning. He explained that the cosmology of an eternal universe, which he attributes to Immanuel Kant, was accepted by Einstein; thus Einstein believed that his equations were missing a term that would perfectly counter-act all expansion. After Edwin Hubble observed the galaxies moving away, Einstein conceded and removed his additional term. This, however, did not convert Einstein to a theist; he rather accepted that God was the creator but was impersonal and unconcerned with the affairs of His creatures. His primary objection to a personal God is related to God’s sovereignty and man’s moral responsibility. Dr. Ross laments the fact that Einstein did not get to see his “cosmological constant” reinserted (though, at a different value) or all the fine-tuning evidence that his theories had paved the way for scientists to discover, for these may have intrigued Einstein enough to reconsider Christian theism and seek resolution to his theological concerns that stood as a stumbling block between him and Jesus Christ.

Chapter 8: Closing Loopholes: Round One

Of course, Einstein was not the only scientist to resist a finite universe. Many scientific theories, that depended upon the availability of an infinite amount of time, had already been developed and became part of scientific orthodoxy before big bang cosmology was confirmed. The confirmation of big bang cosmology has turned many of these theories on their heads, and in some cases completely falsified them (13.7 billion years renders naturalistic theories of the origin of life impossible- see Dr. Ross’ book “Origins of Life” for an in-depth study of this challenge). Several different naturalistic models have been proposed in an effort to avoid a singular cosmic beginning. The first competing model is the steady-state model.

Simply put, this model holds that the universe has existed into the infinite past. It attempts to counteract the expansion of the universe by positing that matter is constantly being created. Several tests have been conducted to confirm that this simply is not happening, thus falsifying the steady-state model. Another version of the steady state has been proposed, though. This one holds to the universe existing the infinite past but posits that matter is only created in bursts at specific locations within the universe (quasars). Unfortunately for this quasi-steady-state model, the test that is proposed is fully consistent with big bang predictions as well. In fact, the observed densities of quasars at different distances not only shows the quasi-steady-state model incorrect, they match the specific predictions of big bang cosmology. The same observations serve to falsify one model (quasi-steady-state) and confirm its competitor (big bang); thus observations again confirm that the universe had a beginning, just as the ancient biblical authors recorded thousands of years ago.

Chapter 9: Closing Loopholes: Round Two

Even though observations relegated steady-state models to the abyss, many non-theists still wished to avoid a singular, absolute beginning. They hypothesized that perhaps the big bang was just one of many in an infinite series of expansions and contractions of the universe into the infinite past. This new theory would be able to account for all the same evidence that supports the beginning without there being a single beginning. This model, though, required mechanisms to shrink the universe and cause it to bounce back from the compressed volume (not infinitesimally small, as proposed by big bang cosmology, though). Both theoretical and observational evidence demonstrates that neither mechanism exists. In order for the universe to recompress, it would require a considerable amount of matter more than what exists in the universe (even after accounting for exotic matter).
If no mechanism exists to compress, then no mechanism can exist to reexpand the compressed mass. Compounding the problem is the existence of entropy. Entropy would require that each successive “bounce” would produce a universe smaller and smaller. If the universe had been getting smaller from the infinite past, the size of the universe today would be no different from the fully compressed volume. Thus this “oscillating” universe model, as it is commonly called, fails observationally and theoretically not just on these counts but on others that Dr. Ross details.

There does exist a short period of time after the big bang that no technology can observe (from the beginning to when the universe was 10^-43 seconds old). Theoretical physicists use this period of time in the universe’s history to speculate about exotic physics that may ultimately remove the need for a singular beginning or a beginning at all. However, even though they cannot be directly tested, these theories can be indirectly tested. All theories must result in a universe that exhibits the features that scientists observe today, so these speculations can be tested (negatively tested only; they can only be falsified but never confirmed) by comparing their implications to what exists today. Dr. Ross gives several examples of how these speculative theories have been falsified through indirect testing.

Chapter 10: Science Discovers the Creation of Time

If established, the beginning of time would have one of the most significant theological implications. It would require that time had a creator; something that only the Bible, among the world’s “holy” books, unambiguously claims about our world. In the late 1960s, the space-time theorems of general relativity were proposed by a team including none other than Stephen Hawking. Based upon the extensive testing of general relativity (which Dr. Ross spends the majority of the chapter explaining in detail), these theorems have been well established and indicate the big bang was the beginning of not only space but time, as well.
As mentioned above, many attempts have been trying to avoid the beginning by appealing to unknowns within the first moments of the universe’s existence. The hope, by those who oppose a Creator, is that this period of time would allow for the universe, somehow, to be past infinite in age. However, the space-time theorems of general relativity were extended even further back and being based upon already well-established observational evidence, do prove correct, The implications of this extension is that an absolute beginning is required even beyond the initial moments of the universe’s existence. This means that all models, including oscillating models and multiverse models, eventually would require an absolute beginning at some point in time and that the cause of the universe exists beyond the space-time dimensions (transcendent existence). These are discoveries that no “holy book” saw coming (predicted), except for the Bible.

3 image cosmos

Chapter 11: A God Outside of Time, But Knowable

Even though the extended space-time theorems established that the universe had a beginning, that means that whatever (or Whoever) caused the universe also created time. In order for cause and effect relationships to exist, time must also exist. The Bible stands alone claiming that while there is a portion of reality in which our time did not exist (e.g., 2 Tim 1:9; Titus 1:2), the Creator was still operating in cause-and-effect relationships (e.g. John 17:24; Ephesians 1:4; 1 Peter 1:20). Dr. Ross explains that to create God exists in, at least, one more dimension of time (to create the dimension of time that our universe operates within) and possibly in more physical dimensions as well. (Dr. Ross refers the reader to his book “Beyond the Cosmos” for a deeper discussion of this possibility and some of the theological questions it may help to answer.) Big bang cosmology establishes that the Creator is transcendent, which Christianity affirms yet other worldviews deny.

One of the requirements of the time-space theorems is that time always moves forward; Dr. Ross states that this really makes time only half a dimension, which requires that anything that is confirmed to it must have a beginning. Many skeptics often challenge God’s existence by asking if everything was created, then who or what created God. This is answered by recognizing that the Creator is not confined to the time half-dimension, which would require a beginning, but since God is not confined to this half-dimension, He does not require a beginning. Skeptics have proposed other possibilities to avoid time’s beginning (to avoid the universe’s needing a cause), and Dr. Ross concludes the chapter by quickly addressing these alternative hypotheses.

4 image cosmos

Chapter 12: A Brief Look At A Brief History of Time

In this chapter, Dr. Ross interacts with the conclusions Stephen Hawking offered in his books “A Brief History of Time” and “The Grand Design.” In the first book, Hawking proposes his and James Hartle’s model that appeals to imaginary time to avoid a cosmic beginning and thus the necessity of a Beginner. Beyond the evidentially unwarranted appeal to imaginary time, the model necessarily requires that sometime in the future, the universe will eventually stop expanding and compress back on itself. However, this model cannot be true because the universe does not possess enough matter to allow such a collapse to take place no matter how distant in the future. There have been several attempts to reformulate the model to accommodate the latest evidence, but all appeals have since fallen short of the evidence.

In “The Grand Design,” Stephen Hawking and co-author Leonard Mlodinow appeal to discoveries of extra-solar planets to demonstrate that the earth is not unique but quite common, and they appeal to the multiverse to avoid an absolute beginning to the universe. The claims, if correct, seem to remove the need for a Beginner or a Designer to explain the current state of our universe. Dr. Ross will reserve an entire chapter on the discussion of the multiverse, but he addresses exoplanets here. He explains that of the 3600+ exoplanets that have been discovered so far, none of them are sufficiently like earth (it must exist in all nine habitable zones- discussed in greater detail his book “Improbable Planet“) to support life more advanced than the hardiest of microbes. Dr. Ross explains that for those expecting to discover extra-terrestrial life, the latest discoveries great disappoint. In order for life to exist on another planet, not only must an exact twin of our planet exist, it must exist in the context of an exact solar twin and an exact solar system twin (that would mean that our neighboring planets’ compositions and locations would have to match, as well).

Not only is there the planetary issue for an environment suitable for the origin of life, but there is also the biochemical challenges. Dr. Ross explains that prebiotic chemistry shuts down in the presence of oxygen yet fatal ultraviolet radiation can only be filtered out by oxygen. This presents a problem for the origin of life on earth because studies into the history of our planet demonstrate that the level of oxygen was more than sufficient to prevent prebiotic chemistry at the time in history that the first evidence of life appears. Dr. Ross spends the remainder of the chapter demonstrating how science has provided problems for Hawking’s views not only in observation of the universe but also regarding ideas of knowledge (epistemology).

Chapter 13: A Modern-Day Goliath

Of course, Hawking’s model is not the only challenge to a beginning and design that exist to this day. As the evidence of a Creator has been mounting over the decades, skeptics have been busy looking in all directions for some possible escape from the biblical claim of a Creator and Designer. Quantum mechanics has seemed to provide some promise to this end in four ways. Various appeals to quantum tunneling, a universe from “nothing,” an infinite multiverse, and observer-created reality have all been attempted.

In the first of these options (quantum tunneling, offered by Paul Davies), the proposed mechanism would have to take place in the physical dimension of time before the dimension of time even existed. This proposal also requires that things popping into existence uncaused is a common feature of reality, yet observations of reality demonstrate the very opposite. The second attempt addressed is the model of Lawrence Krauss. This proposal is dependent upon a “hyper” quantum mechanics that is not constrained by the universe yet requires higher dimensions to operate. Among other issues, the big problem with Krauss’ model is that it requires a second hyper-inflationary event that, when combined with the current inflationary event already required by big bang cosmology, does not produce any universe where life is possible. This failure, though, has caused Krauss to resort to the third option: an infinite multiverse.

Some skeptics believe they can escape an absolute beginning and fine-tuning by appealing to an infinite multiverse. The idea of the infinite multiverse is that if an infinite number of universes exist that exhibit an infinite number of different values for the physical constants, then at least one of them will produce life. Unfortunately, this still does not eliminate the need for God for at least five reasons that Dr. Ross describes in detail. The fourth and final option appeals to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Dr. Ross explains eight ways in which this interpretation violates logic and reality; thus an alternative is necessary. Quantum mechanics currently has ten interpretations that have been seriously proposed, some of which are perfectly compatible with God as both Creator and Designer. Ultimately, quantum mechanics poses no threat to big bang cosmology or to the biblically predicted discovery of the universe’s absolute beginning caused by a Beginner beyond space and time.

5 image cosmos

Chapter 14: The Divine Watch-Maker

The design argument offered by William Paley is one of the most popular. He offers that just as no one would posit that a watch was the product of natural processes because it is unreasonable, so too no one should posit that creatures with similar or greater complexity and specificity are the product of natural processes. This argument has been attacked on several different fronts that Dr. Ross addresses in this chapter. The first is that of David Hume. Hume’s issue with the argument is that organisms are not close enough to a watch in function or configuration for the analogy to be a good one. Dr. Ross responds simply by pointing out that Hume was speaking in a period of time when knowledge of organisms’ functions and configurations was extremely limited. Since then, the discoveries have taken knowledge of the function and configurations of organisms (and their individual cells and molecules) well beyond that of watches; thus Paley’s analogy stands firmly.

Darwin offers that his observation of gradual change between generations of the same species of animals, where bad changes are weeded out by the reduced or inability of organisms to reproduce, explains how such complex organisms could arise from simpler organisms. The admission by Darwinists that their mechanisms cannot come into play until the origin of life takes place means that before evolution can be explanatory of complexity and diversity (from a naturalistic perspective), all origin-of-life issues and challenges must be resolved. The just-right requirements of the origin of life keep pushing the origin of life closer to the current day in cosmic history, yet evidence of complex life keeps pushing the appearance of complexity further back. These two are getting so close to each other as to suffocate any undirected hypothesis for the design found in organisms. Dr. Ross also points out that the Bible alone makes sense of the sudden disappearance of new species from the fossil record shortly before the first appearance of humans. God’s final creation was humans, according to Genesis. Thus the Bible predicts this sudden halt in diversification, yet the evolutionary paradigm predicts the exact opposite.

                                              

Gould believes that the evidence of “bad designs” in nature demonstrated that organisms exhibiting such poor features could not have been designed by an intelligent designer. But this argument fails on two accounts. First, as research has continued into the “bad designs,” scientists have discovered that they are actually good designs by themselves or within the context of the overall system they are part of. Second, the divine design does not preclude natural processes, which may allow for some diversification within the observed limits. Thus challenges to William Paley’s argument do not stand, and, again, the biblical view that a Designer created the universe and all within it stands unfalsified and evidentially and logically sound.

Chapter 15: A “Just-Right” Universe

Illuded to in the discussion on the multiverse is the need for an infinite number of universes of an infinite number of values for the constants of physics to allow for just one of them to produce life. In this chapter, Dr. Ross goes into more detail about the fine-tuning of the laws, components, and processes of this universe necessary for advanced life that warrant the necessity of an infinite multiverse for the naturalist. From the subatomic scale to the molecular scale, the types, varieties, and ratios of the various building blocks of our universe have precise values required for not just for life, but for stars, galaxies, and planets to form. The laws of physics that govern the behavior of these components also must be precisely finely tuned within a large range of possibilities, again, just for stars, galaxies, and planets to form. Dr. Ross describes only a few of these different values in this chapter. The ones that he chose, though, establish firmly why naturalists are compelled to agree with, at least, the appearance of fine-tuning of this universe for life. He mentions that 140 different values have been discovered to be required and precisely finely-tuned; otherwise life would be impossible, over the decades, and the trend continues.

Different skeptics have responded in different ways to the compelling evidence of the fine-tuning. Dr. Ross includes several pages loaded with quotes from various astrophysicists, who have studied the values, who recognize the appeal to intelligent agency (indirectly and directly) to explain the presence of so many features and the precision of the fine-tuning. Of course, not all astrophysicists grant a Designer (of some sort). Some insist on naturalistic explanations. All the arguments for these alternatives to God fall under one (or more) of five different arguments. Dr. Ross takes each one and addresses the essential features that render them untenable as challenges to fine-tuning. The last of the five challenges that Dr. Ross addresses focus on the model presented by Frank Tipler. After demonstrating the various ways that the model fails, Dr. Ross concludes the discussion and the chapter by rejoicing that Tipler eventually accepted the theological implications of big bang cosmology and accepted Christ as a result of the evidence that God put forth in His creation.

                                                 

Chapter 16: Responding to Nonempirical, Nontheistic Models

Given all the physical and empirical evidence of the God of the Bible presented in the pages of this book, many skeptics have resorted to using nonempirical reasons to justify their skepticism. It is common (as discussed above) for the skeptic to appeal to either what is not currently known (other physics) or what is unknowable (complete speculation) to rescue their denial of God from being totally illogical. Some skeptics use circular reasoning in their models to attempt to escape a cosmic beginning (they begin with a cosmological model that precludes a beginning then uses it as evidence of a lack of a beginning). Another tactic is the requirement of 100% certainty or absolute proof (the requirement that all conceivable questions and challenges must be answered) before acceptance of the conclusion of God’s existence is accepted. If this kind of proof were required before we were willing to believe things in everyday life, living and even relationships would be impossible.

A common skeptical challenge to God’s existence is that theists are simply inserting “God” where there is a lack of knowledge- “God” is merely a mechanistic gap-filler to explain how something happened when the “real” mechanism has not yet been discovered. Interestingly enough, naturalists do the same; they insert “nature” where mechanisms have not yet been discovered (examples are given above). Dr. Ross explains that, for both sides, there is no guarantee that the gap in knowledge will be filled or not filled. Ongoing research has revealed natural mechanisms, and ongoing research has revealed the impossibility of natural mechanisms (as described thoroughly above regarding attempts to erase the cosmic beginning). Dr. Ross explains that even if gaps seem to be filled, they are never completely filled, so gaps in our knowledge will always exist.

Even though Dr. Ross has shown throughout this book, when it comes to cosmology the trend of shrinking gaps is on the side of the biblical God while the trend of enlarging gaps is on the side of naturalism, there exists other areas where these trends continue: the origin of life and creating life in the lab. Dr. Ross summarizes some of the latest information in these fields to make his case (more detail can be found in the books “Origins of Life” and “Creating Life In The Lab,” respectively). Dr. Ross encourages the skeptic to recognize and follow where the trend of the evidence is leading: to the biblical God.

6 image cosmos

Chapter 17: Earth: The Place for Life

Dr. Ross explains that the universe, as a whole, is not the only scale at which fine-tuning is detectable. Fine-tuning has been discovered at the scales of the galaxy-cluster, galaxy, star, solar system, and planet. The right type and size of a galaxy are necessary. It must be a spiral galaxy (which removes most galaxies in the cosmos from consideration), and it cannot be too big or too small. The galaxy cluster must also not be too densely populated with other galaxies, which would gravitational destruction of the life site, or too sparsely populated, which would prevent the spiral structure of the host galaxy from being maintained for the proper amount of time for life to originate and continue. The host star must also be located at the right spot between the spiral arms of the galaxy and maintain this location as the galaxy rotates, to avoid gravitational disturbances from other stars in the galaxy. This means that two+ star systems are ruled out as well. The mass of the star must be just right, for if it is too massive it would burn too quickly and if it is not massive enough it would flare too much. The mass also affects the zone around the star that the host planet may reside, which if too close or too far has its own set of pitfalls for life.

Because of these constraining requirements for carbon-based life, some scientists have speculated that perhaps carbon-based life is not the only possible type of life. However, the only other elements that have the possibility of being a basis for life are either too rare, too poisonous, or are unstable with a large number of chemical bonds. This means that the life-site must be able to support the origin and maintenance of carbon-based life. Scientists have discovered nine different “habitable zones” (physical locations) that the host site must reside in simultaneously. The only place where life can originate and be maintained is the locations where all nine zones overlap. Dr. Ross lists out each of these zones and refers the reader to his book “Improbable Planet” for a detailed discussion of them.

                                       

Improbable Planet from RTB: MEDIA on Vimeo.

To add to the fine-tuning of the site for life, the planetary neighbors and the moon must also be finely-tuned. The neighboring planets must be the right size and distance to be able to shield the life site from most life-exterminating collisions but not massive enough and/or close enough to interfere with the gravitational orbit of the site around its host star. Yet, they do need to allow one exterminating collider (what created our moon) before life originates in order to set up the site for maintaining life (plate tectonics, delivery of vital poisons, and recycling nutrients). The list of features that must be finely-tuned just goes on and on in this chapter. Outside the work of a purposeful Mind behind this finely-tuned project (that is, life), believing that we are here by natural processes alone scientifically and philosophically defy credulity. It is only the work of a purposeful Creator and Designer, who desires to be known that scientists even exist to discover the power, beauty, and majesty in our cosmos that reflects its Creator. This chapter certainly stands on its own to establish fine-tuning, but for those who wish to go even deeper to discover levels of fine-tuning  beyond the scope of this chapter, check out Dr. Ross’ book-length treatments, “Why The Universe Is The Way It Is” and “Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity’s Home.”

7 image cosmos

Chapter 18: Extradimensional and Transdimensional Powers

Throughout this book, Dr. Ross has shown how scientific evidence leads to the conclusion that the Cause of the universe is transcendent and exists and operates outside of time and our familiar dimensions of length, width, and height. The Bible, as explained in the first chapters, identifies God as the Cause of the universe. But the Bible doesn’t stop at describing God simply as the Creator; it reveals much more about God’s character, including some attributes that are difficult to understand. Some of these include His triune nature and His simultaneous distance from and nearness to humanity. Dr. Ross explains that while these concepts may seem impossible to comprehend and thus causes us to doubt His existence, these attributes can make sense within the expanded existence of additional spatial dimensions and at least one more time dimension. Dr. Ross uses these two examples to demonstrate that the apparent difficulties in God’s character or interaction with the universe are not valid reasons to doubt His existence, and our understanding of the Creator’s ability to act within extra dimensions provide a possible way to resolve the apparent difficulties.

Chapter 19: The Point

Dr. Ross concludes by answering the question of why God has chosen this generation to be the beneficiary of all the evidence presented here and not previous generations. He explains that it appears that God gives more evidence-based upon the level of resistance to Him in culture. He explains that with all the extra time and comfort of this generation compared to previous generations, this generation tends to credit themselves with these great accomplishments and ignore the Creator and Sustainer of the universe. This revelation of stronger and stronger evidence of the Creator is presented to counteract the prideful attitude of today’s culture. But not every member of our generation thinks this way. Many are willing to look at the evidence presented and follow it to where it leads with an attitude of humility. Dr. Ross reminds the reader that the Creator will draw near to and reward those who earnestly seek Him (Hebrews 11:6). Christians can use the evidence that God has revealed through the study of the heavens to strengthen their own faith and to show the honest seeker the love and forgiveness of Jesus Christ.

8 image cosmos

Reviewer’s Thoughts

As I alluded to in the introduction, this “The Creator and the Cosmos” was an indispensable tool that Christ used to help me resolve struggles that I had between what I heard scientists were discovering about our universe (the big bang) and my Christian faith. Not only has God turn naturalistic and atheistic arguments on their heads, He has demonstrated through His creation that His Word is true, inerrant, and authoritative. I love how Dr. Ross presented the evidence for each one of these. His approach of providing evidence upon evidence upon evidence upon evidence for both the beginning of the universe (what begins to exist must have a beginner) and the design of the universe (what is designed must have a designer) is compelling, to say the least, and his tone with which he presents his case is confident yet humble.

As he concludes his discussion in each chapter, Dr. Ross always brings the reader back to the God of the Bible. He presents the latest discoveries of scientists and shows how they demonstrate God as the Creator. He does not shy away from seemingly powerful challenges and shows how those challenges, when investigated more deeply, either come apart or actually make a case for God even stronger. I love how he concludes the book with a call to both the believer and the unbeliever. To the believer, Dr. Ross encourages them to use the evidence from God’s creation to provide to the unbeliever “a reason for the hope that they have…with gentleness and respect.” He invites the unbeliever to follow that evidence where it leads and surrender their life to their Creator and Savior.

I have always loved watching scientific documentaries that describe how the cosmos works, but I always felt uncomfortable when origins began to be discussed. Since reading “The Creator and the Cosmos” for the first time, I have not watched those documentaries the same. Every time a feature of the universe is described, I now see multiplied evidence of the universe’s beginning, of its intricate fine-tuning for humanity, and of its awesome beauty: all God’s handiwork. This book has turned nearly every scientific documentary into a tool to strengthen my faith and demonstrate to the scientifically minded skeptic the evidence for God as our Creator. This book had a tremendous impact on my faith, my life, and my witness for Christ. Any Christian bookshelf is incomplete without a copy of “The Creator and the Cosmos.”

I want to leave you with one more video. This video traces a prediction of big bang cosmology that Dr. Ross pointed out that would confirm the universe had a beginning (and a Beginner). This prediction was recently confirmed by observational evidence. When pressed by his fellow physicists, listen carefully to anti-theist Dr. Lawrence Krauss’ final response:

                                         
For those who want to continue to mass the evidence for God’s existence from the cosmos, follow up “Creator and the Cosmos” with these books:

For those specifically concerned about big bang cosmology (not evolution) and a literal, historical interpretation of Genesis 1-3, check out these books:

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2pBGg8C

/by
5 Reasons Why I Believe in God

5 Reasons Why I Believe in God

, ,

By Brian G. Chilton

Last week, notable physicist Stephen Hawking died. Hawking was known for his brilliant work as a physicist, especially working with black holes, the big bang, and for his exploration of the so-called Theory of Everything (a theory that is purported to hold the glue to the four major laws of the universe). In addition, Hawking was known for one additional thing: his atheism. This has led many people to inquire, “Why does it seem that so many notable scientists are atheists?” While I do not believe that all notable scientists are atheistic in their worldview, this does lead one to ask if there are any good reasons for believing in God’s existence.

While I do not claim to hold the brilliance of Hawking, I was one who was led into the mire of agnosticism earlier in life. Tampering with a theistic-leaning-agnosticism, I was open to the idea that God could exist, I only didn’t know if there were good reasons for accepting God’s existence. Furthermore, if God existed, I wasn’t sure that one could know that God was personable and that he could be known in any certain religion. While the latter questions are things I will cover in later articles, suffice it for now, one needs to ask, “Are there good reasons for believing in God?” Among other issues, five major arguments or evidence, if you will, led me to a strong belief in God’s existence. Counting down from the fifth to the first, the following are the issues that led me to become a strong theist.

#5: Moral Argument

If you really think deeply about it, isn’t is strange that the strongest proponents of social change and ethical behavior are those who do not hold to God’s existence? I am certainly not saying that Christians have not led to social change. Charles Spurgeon and John Wesley both vocally opposed slavery. Nevertheless, it is strange that atheists fight for social change because their worldview does not support objective morality. I am not saying that atheists cannot be good people. I have known many fantastic people who adhere to atheism. I am saying that atheism cannot sustain objective morality because if God does not exist, then all of humanity is nothing but random molecules in motion.

If morality is objective—that is, there are things that can be considered right and wrong, then there must be an objective lawgiver. In essence, I have described the moral argument. Think about a speed limit sign. You are driving down the road, and you see a sign with the big numbers 35 on the white rectangular sign. You may not agree that the speed limit should be 35 miles-per-hour. Nevertheless, some lawgiver did. The sign did not magically appear. Rather, someone decided that the particular stretch of the road upon which you are traveling should only maintain that speed. If there are morals, then someone must have set them in place. In addition, morality points to the importance of life. All of this is only true if God exists.

#4: Consciousness Argument (NDEs).

Consciousness argues for God’s existence, especially if the mind is shown to be separate from the body. That is, if there is an immaterial self (otherwise known as the soul), then spiritual entities exist. The mounting evidence in favor of near-death experiences (i.e., NDEs) demonstrates the reality of the spiritual self. While space does not allow for me to fully engage with this issue here, plenty of material is available which describes the reality of these experiences and how it demolishes the concept of materialism (i.e., the idea that only the physical world exists and nothing else). While NDEs do not necessarily prove the existence of God, it does show that the idea of the Holy Spirit, angels, demons, and the like are not as far-fetched as the skeptic might think.

#3: Design (or Teleological) Argument.

My dad used to have a saying that went, “If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, and flies like a duck; then chances are likely that you are looking at a duck.” The more I learn about the universe, the more I understand how much intricate design the universe possesses. The universe is full of design. Everything from the way gravity and the universal forces operate[1] to the vastness of the universe itself[2] illustrates not only the design found in the universe but that the universe was designed to support sentient beings like us. If something appears to be designed, then it is logical to infer that its design and structure came from a designer.

#2: Cosmological Argument.

The idea of a causal relationship is at the center of science. That is, every effect must have an underlying cause. This is the heartbeat of science. Yet, this heartbeat seemingly flatlines with the atheist notion that the universe somehow spontaneously created itself. Cosmological arguments for God indicate that if the universe had a beginning, then it is rational to imply that a Creator brought forth creation into existence. For creation to bring itself into existence, creation must be considered to be a conscious self-existent thing. How so? Any time a process of decisional action is placed upon a certain thing, that thing is anthropomorphized. That is to say; we make that thing alive. Evolutionists often do this with the process of evolution itself with claims like “Evolution decided this or that.” But, how can a mindless process decide anything?

William Lane Craig has popularized a brilliant argument called the kalam cosmological argument which goes as follows:

“1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2) The universe began to exist.

3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.”[3]

“But, wait,” one may infer, “if there is a multiverse, doesn’t this get around the problem?” Unfortunately, for the materialist, the Borg-Vilenkin-Guth theorem “closed the door on that possibility.”[4] All physical universes, including a multiverse, must have a finite past, meaning that even a multiverse must have a beginning. Thus, one is left with one of two possibilities: either eternal non-existent nothingness (which means the absence of anything including vacuums) brought about something from nothing, or an eternal Someone brought something from nothing. For me, the latter is MUCH more intellectually satisfying.

#1: Information Argument

The last argument is not an official argument. Rather, it is something I call the information argument. It came to me that any process or program must contain information. Information requires a programmer. The universe contains programs and processes that require information. Therefore, the universe must have a Programmer—that is, God. I am not an evolutionist. Nevertheless, even if evolution were true, it seems to me that this process could not have created itself. How does mindless nothingness come up with anything anyhow? It is nothing, and it is impersonal. So, how does mindless nothingness do anything? It can’t. Consider the information found in DNA and the information found in the processes and programs of the universe. To claim that it came from nothing and no one and simply arranged itself would be like Luigi telling Mario that their virtual world needed no programmers. It is utterly absurd!

A cumulative case considering these five pieces of information and much more show—at least to my mind—the absolute necessity of God. I have to agree with Anselm of Canterbury in his 1078 work Proslogion that God is that which nothing greater can be conceived. How true!

Notes

[1] Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Wheaton: Crossway, 2004), 98-110.

[2] Hugh Ross argues that even the vastness of the universe is important for two reasons: the production of life-essential elements and the rate of expansion. See Hugh Ross, Why the Universe is the Way It Is (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 33-34.

[3] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd ed (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), 111.

[4] Ibid., 150.

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian is a full member of the International Society of Christian Apologetics and the Christian Apologetics Alliance. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as the pastor of Huntsville Baptist Church in Yadkinville, North Carolina.

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

/by
Science, Stephen Hawking, And Free Minds

Science, Stephen Hawking, And Free Minds

,

By Terrell Clemmons

Last night my 11-year old daughter Sally asked me if I’d like to watch “Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking” with her. How could a mom refuse that invitation? So we cozied up in our jammies and tuned in. It was a great show, and highly educational. But not in the way you might think.

The subject of this, the first installment of a series on the Discovery Channel hosted by Hawking, was Aliens. The show opens with Hawking alone in an empty room in his wheelchair. We hear his computerized voice say,

Hello. My name is Stephen Hawking, physicist, cosmologist, and something of a dreamer. Although I cannot move, and I have to speak through a computer, in my mind, I am free.

Another narrator picks up from there,

Free to explore the universe and ask the big questions. Such as, Do aliens exist?

The question, Hawking says, cuts to the heart of how we see our place in the universe. “Are we alone?” He thinks probably not, even though scientists have been looking and listening out for about forty years to no avail. The narrator continues, speaking for Hawking,

The possibilities are infinite. How do we know where to look?

The answer brings us back home to Earth, where the only known examples of life exist. From there, Hawking explains what is currently known about the origin of life on Earth:

Exactly what triggered life here is still a mystery, but there are several theories.

He presents two. The most common theory is that life began purely by accident in pools of primordial soup. Images on the screen evoke Darwin’s “warm little pond,” teeming with amino acids randomly bumping into one another for eons and eons until just the right combination of circumstances caused just the right bump:

It somehow just happened … the ultimate lucky break that started the chain of life.

That’s the first theory. The other one is an

intriguing idea, called Panspermia, which says that life could have originated somewhere else and have been spread from planet to planet by asteroids.

Let’s pause there. Panspermia, as I pointed out in this article from Salvo 11, falls within the boundaries of Intelligent Design theory (ID), with which regular Salvo readers are familiar.

I explained Panspermia and ID to Sally. It took about one minute, and she grasped it well enough. Then we re-wound the recording to listen again to Hawking’s musings about the first, and “most common,” theory. He admits the improbability of it,

It is extremely unlikely that life could spontaneously create itself, but I don’t think that’s a problem with this theory. It’s like winning a lottery. The odds are astronomical, but … someone hits the jackpot.

“Yes, Sally,” I said, “but that’s because someone outside the system created the lottery, and funded it so that it could be there in the first place.”

Light bulbs went off immediately. “Ah-HAH,” she laughed out loud. “I didn’t think of that, but that makes sense!” We laughed together for a moment then watched the rest of the show.

The point I’d like to make is she’s a 6th grader, and she’s capable of thinking with a free mind, taking in competing theories about something, and, to a certain extent, analyzing them. This is how critical thinking skills are developed. But as this Crosshairs, also from Salvo 11, points out, wherever the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) gets its way, teachers are prohibited from informing students about competing scientific theories concerning the origin of life, including the one offered, though not by name, as a valid theory by no less a science luminary than Stephen Hawking. (The NCSE also opposes students being informed of different views concerning global warming, but that’s another issue for another post.)

Stephen Hawking is an amazing and inspiring man, and we enjoyed watching his show. I’d like to focus on that ideal of a free mind and note two things. First, the NCSE, by intentionally ignoring ID (and vehemently opposing it when active ignorance is no longer an option), limits free inquiry and hinders, rather than advances, science. They do our children a disservice.

Second, while Hawking does believe that alien life likely exists, including the life of superior intelligence, he allows no room for the possibility that that intelligence might be a supernatural being. In so doing, I suggest he limits himself and his scientifically brilliant mind more than he realizes. To limit experimental science to only those things which can be seen, heard, and touched is reasonable. To limit your mind and imagination, in the same manner, hinders free inquiry.

Even a 6th grader can understand that.

This post first appeared in the Salvo Signs of the Times blog. (By the way, a very interesting discussion ensued. If you like open discussions, check it out.)

 

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

/by
Quantum Leap - Darwin's

Darwin’s Quantum Leap

,

By Terrell Clemmons

The Quantum Leap

Early in 2009, the International Year of Darwin got underway in Shrewsbury, England, the birthplace of Charles Darwin. As part of the celebration marking both Darwin’s 200th birthday and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his seminal work, On the Origin of Species, a sculpture was unveiled in Shrewsbury’s Mardol Quay Gardens. Nearly forty feet high, sixty feet long, and weighing over 200 tons, the structure, named Quantum Leap, resembles a gigantic slinky placed on the ground like an upside down ‘U.’ Darwin coordinator, Jon King, explains, “What we wanted was an iconic structure – something that was big was bold, but something that could be interpreted in different ways.” In an irony apparently lost on its celebrants, the name ‘Quantum Leap’ makes a fitting metaphor for the thinking of contemporary Darwinists.

Charles Robert Darwin began his career in the summer of 1831 when he boarded the H.M.S. Beagle on a four-year surveying mission. The budding naturalist had studied a bit of medicine and divinity at Cambridge, but geology and nature interested him most. During his five-week stay on the Galapagos Islands Darwin was particularly struck by the varieties of plant and animal life on the different islands.

A Paradigm is Born

On return, he took up pigeon breeding and discovered that with selective breeding, he could produce a variety of pigeons from a common rock pigeon. Like any curious scientist, Darwin began to speculate. What if, over time, little changes added up to big changes? And if random variations arose along the way, could not entirely new species come into existence? If the changes had enough time to accumulate, and if changes that failed to meet the requirements for survival died out, then the result could be a multiplicity of organisms adapted to their surroundings. This extrapolation from observed variations among species to adaptation and survival of the fittest came to be known as the Law of Natural Selection.

Darwin later put forth his ideas in On The Origin of Species, which reportedly sold out on its first day of publication in 1859. Though Darwin stopped short of atheism – in his autobiography he called himself an agnostic, and in fact never addressed the origin of life in any of his books, the intimation that life could have freely emerged, independent of any pesky notion of God, took on a life of its own, and within a century Darwinism, or ‘Evolution as the Explanation of Everything,’ would become the reigning paradigm of science.

Questioning the Premise

But is this paradigm itself a scientifically established fact? That was the question raised by a surprise entrant to the creation/evolution debate. Phillip E. Johnson, neither a theologian nor a scientist but a professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley, entered the ring in 1991 with Darwin on Trial, a lawyer-like examination in which he weighed the evidence for Darwinism and found it insufficient to support the conclusion. In Darwin on Trial, Johnson drew out the suspiciously sequestered fact that Darwinism presupposes a naturalistic worldview. Naturalism, as a worldview, says that nature or matter is all there is; the supernatural does not exist or, if it does, is entirely irrelevant to life in the natural realm. Johnson deftly pointed out that naturalism is not a scientifically deduced fact but rather a philosophical presupposition.

The first result of Johnson’s contribution was to expose the atheistic scientists’ philosophical presupposition of naturalism and separate it from their science. Like the lad saying the emperor has no clothes, he identified the philosophy masquerading as science and pointed it out. More far-reaching, though, Johnson gave birth to the scientific movement of intelligent design theory (ID).

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and not by an undirected process such as natural selection. ID does not begin with the book of Genesis, nor does it address the question of who the intelligent cause might be, and for that reason, it’s been criticized by some creation scientists, who believe the study of creation shouldn’t be divorced from the Creator.

Three Facts of Life Evolution Fails to Explain

But ID provocatively challenges Darwinism’s overreaching claims. Here are three major problems for which Darwinian Evolution supplies no answer (but ID does):

(1) The Initiation of life. Natural selection says that evolution favors one already existing organism over another, but it says nothing about how those organisms came into existence in the first place. In The Selfish Gene, atheist zoologist Richard Dawkins ponders how the first living molecule might have formed. His speculative language suggests we “imagine” or “suppose” how it “could” or “might” have happened. “It was exceedingly improbable,” he concedes and says science has no idea how it happened. But he’s admitted he’s open to one possibility, that life on Earth was seeded from outer space. Seriously. The theory is called Panspermia, and, setting aside the implied drift from empirical science to science fiction, its mere suggestion reveals the dearth of working theories of abiogenesis, or how life got started without a Starter.

(2) The Information of life. The information content of DNA is mind-boggling. The DNA molecule for the single-celled bacterium E. coli contains enough information to fill a whole library of encyclopedias. Geneticists are still learning how to read the coded chemistry, but evolutionary science has no plausible theory as to how random processes can produce so complex, specific, and detailed a set of instructions.

DNA precipitated the undoing of one prominent atheist’s naturalistic worldview. In December of 2004, Antony Flew, one of the world’s leading philosophers of atheism for half a century, dropped an intellectual bombshell on the scientific community when he announced that he had come to believe there is a God. The 81-year-old British professor said his life had always been guided by the principle of Plato’s Socrates: “Follow the evidence, wherever it leads,” and that he had arrived at this startling conclusion after studying DNA. “The enormous complexity by which the results [DNA] were achieved a look to me like the work of intelligence.”

(3) The Irreducible Complexity of life. An irreducibly complex system is one involving interrelated parts or subsystems, all of which are necessary for the system to function. Given the technology of his day, Charles Darwin believed a simple cell was only a little blob of protoplasm, and he envisioned it emerging spontaneously “in some warm little pond.” Still, he anticipated the potential difficulty of irreducible complexity. “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications,” he wrote, “my theory would absolutely break down.”

Too bad Darwin never met Dr. Michael Behe. A lifelong Catholic, Dr. Behe says he believed the standard story he was taught in school about evolution until he read Evolution: A Theory in Crisisby agnostic geneticist Michael Denton. “I was shocked because I had never heard a scientist question Darwin’s theory before. And here I was an associate professor of biochemistry, and I didn’t have any answers for his objections.” At that point, Dr. Behe realized he’d accepted the Darwinian theory, not because of compelling evidence, but for sociological reasons. “That’s what I was supposed to believe,” he said.

Dr. Behe went on to explore cellular life and ultimately concluded its great complexity could never have come about by random and unguided processes as Darwinism requires. His research culminated in Darwin’s Black Box, in which he describes in elegant detail several microbiological systems, all of them intricately and irreducibly complex.

Questioning the Quantum Leap

“There is something fascinating about science,” Mark Twain, a contemporary of Darwin, once quipped. “One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of facts.”

He could have been referring to the Darwinists. Keep in mind that the starting point one chooses when it comes to the origin of life is not a question of science but of philosophy or, if you will, faith. Ultimately, we choose to adopt one worldview or another, and that involves making a faith choice. Darwin assumed that God – if he existed at all – was irrelevant, and then concluded that natural selection must have been the mechanism by which life developed into its present form. His intellectual descendants effectively consecrated his hypothesis, decreed Darwinism the principle canon of science, and began interpreting all data accordingly.

ID differs from Darwinian Evolution in that it allows for the possibility of an outside agent. It begins from a different philosophical starting point and asks, “Where does the evidence lead?” As technology advances, the three ‘I’s of life – initiation, information, and irreducible complexity – pose ever-growing difficulties for evolutionists. Michael Behe summed up his inquiry this way, “We are told by ‘Science’ with a capital ‘S’ that the universe is just matter and energy in motion. But it turns out that actual evidence of science does not necessarily support that philosophical claim.”

To Behe and other ID scientists, life looks more and more like an outside job.

This article first appeared in The Lookout and was reprinted in Salvo Winter 2009, Issue 11.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2I4cnXb

/by
Mythos, Logos, And Revelation

Mythos, Logos, And Revelation

, ,

By Terrell Clemmons

The Wall Street Journal ran an article in its Life & Style section a few weeks back called, “Man vs. God.” They had commissioned Karen Armstrong and Richard Dawkins to address the question, Where does evolution leave God? You can read the article here.

If you’re familiar with an outspoken atheist, Richard Dawkins, you won’t be surprised at his take. Evolution is. God isn’t. End of story.

Karen Armstrong’s response, though, was more artistic. She spoke of two complementary ways of arriving at truth, which the Greeks called mythos and logos. Both were recognized by scholars as legitimate. Logos was reason, logic, intellect. But logos alone couldn’t speak to the deep question human beings ask like, What is the meaning of life? And, Why do bad things happen to good people? For that, she said, people turned to mythos – stories, regardless of whether or not they were true, that helped us make sense out of the difficulties of life. They were therapeutic. We could think of them as an early form of psychology. Here’s what she said:

“Religion was not supposed to provide explanations that lay within the competence of reason but to help us live creatively with realities for which there are no easy solutions and find an interior haven of peace; today, however, many have opted for unsustainable certainty instead. But can we respond religiously to evolutionary theory? Can we use it to recover a more authentic notion of God?

“Darwin made it clear [that] we cannot regard God simply as a divine personality, who single-handedly created the world. This could direct our attention away from the idols of certainty and back to the ‘God beyond God.’ The best theology is a spiritual exercise, akin to poetry.”

Here’s how I understand what she’s saying: Not only is the truth of any religious story irrelevant, it is incorrect to believe any account concerning God as objectively true. To do so is to construct an idol of certainty. How do we know that? Because of the certainty of Darwinian Evolution.

Her response, at the bottom, isn’t very different from the atheist’s. Evolution is. God isn’t. But some of us like to imagine that he is.

The frontrunner in “Man vs. God” according to the Wall Street Journal appears to be unanimous: Man. I’d love to have the platform of the Wall Street Journal, but since I don’t, I’ll just toss out my piece here: God is.

I suggest a third way of knowing truth – revelation. Because if there is a God, he can reveal himself if he so chooses. I like the ideas of mythos and logos. Some people come to believe in God through the portal of mythos. Rituals, stories, and artistic expressions can communicate to the soul in ways words can’t. Others come to know God through the portal of logos. Long time atheist intellectual, Antony Flew renounced his atheism a few years ago after seeing the complex language of DNA. “Intelligence must have been involved,” he said.

But revelation is a whole new realm, and my personal opinion is it only comes to those who want to know. “You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart,” God said. The real question is, Do you want to know?

For all my friends out there who do believe, I’d love to hear how you came to that place.  Logos? Did God later reveal himself to you in a supernatural way? I suspect there are some great stories that are well worth being told. Here’s a platform. Would you tell it? Or if you don’t want it posted, send it to me in an email.

I believe the winner of Man vs. God will ultimately be God. What do you think?

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2I5yVGS

/by
Thoughts and Prayers

If You’re Sick of Thoughts and Prayers Because Shootings Still Happen, You Don’t Understand Christianity

, , ,

By Natasha Crain

In response to the latest tragic school shooting, social media is on the warpath against anyone who dares to offer “thoughts and prayers” for the situation.

Popular articles feature headlines like, “Everyone Is Finally Realizing ‘Thoughts And Prayers’ Are Not Saving Our Kids” and “People Sick of ‘Thoughts and Prayers’ Demand Action After Florida School Shooting.”

The hashtag #thoughtsandprayers is trending on Twitter, with scathing tweets about how worthless thoughts and prayers are.

My own Facebook newsfeed is filled with similar posts and comments.

Scrolling through these articles and social media posts, I can’t help but wonder how many people who make such comments understand the Christian worldview and the role of prayer within it. The online commentary often reflects a serious misunderstanding of what Christians believe.

With that in mind, I’m writing this post for two reasons. First, if you’re a regular reader of my blog, this is an important subject to discuss with your kids. The war on “thoughts and prayers” is one they need to understand given the unfortunate frequency with which this subject is arising. Second, I hope non-Christians will take the time to read this and better understand why being “sick of thoughts and prayers” because shootings still happen doesn’t make sense if you know what Christians believe.

Let’s start here: the phrase “thoughts and prayers” lumps two completely different things together.

The “thoughts and prayers” verbiage became part of our cultural lexicon because people wanted a way to request help and/or care from a mixed audience of religious and non-religious listeners. But just thinking something—no matter how charitable those thoughts may be—does nothing. This is something that Christians and non-Christians should all be able to agree on. “Sending thoughts” is simply an expression of solidarity with no practical consequence.

Now, some people would say, “There’s no difference between those inconsequential thoughts and prayer. Thoughts do nothing, and prayers do nothing. That’s the point.”

If God doesn’t exist, then that’s true. People are praying to a supernatural being who isn’t there. By saying, “I’m sick and tired of thoughts and prayers because they don’t matter,” you’re basically just stating you don’t believe God exists. Fair enough. In that case, it makes more sense just to say, “I don’t believe in God, so I don’t pray as part of my response, but here’s what I think we should do…”

However, there’s no reason to be sick and tired of Christians praying to the God you don’t believe in unless you hold the faulty assumption that Christians see prayer as an alternative to other actions and you’re resentful of that presumed choice. That leads me to the next point.

Christians expect to pray and take other action.

When Christians say, “We’re praying about this,” it doesn’t mean we don’t think anything else should be done. We don’t, for example, say we’re praying over the school shooting, and therefore we don’t need to have discussions about gun control policy, about how to provide for the financial and physical needs of victims, or about school security. Commenting on how prayer won’t do something, but (fill in the blank) action will, betrays the incorrect assumption that Christians think only prayer is needed. Kim Kardashian’s recent tweet is one example of such faulty logic:

Note that some people are complaining specifically about what they see as the hypocrisy of leaders who offer thoughts and prayers and allegedly do nothing else, but that’s another issue. The Bible clearly demonstrates that God asks Christians to pray and take other action.

So what do Christians pray about in a situation like this? A number of things, such as comfort for the victims’ families that God would bring some kind of good from the tragedy, that those who are injured would heal, that the families of the kids who survived would know how to get the help they need, and much more. But for purposes of this post, it’s more important to understand what Christians don’t pray for… 

Christians don’t pray expecting God to rid the world of free will.

Many people, like the Twitter user below, seem to resent that Christians and other theists still believe in God when our past prayers didn’t “work” to prevent school shootings—in other words, could we all just dump this crazy belief in God already?

It’s important to understand why this is a significant misunderstanding of the nature of free will in a Christian worldview.

Christians believe God created humans with the ability to make morally significant choices. We can use that free will to do good or to do evil. If God had chosen to create us without free will, we would simply be robots. Given this nature of our world, it’s hard to imagine how this Twitter user and so many like him envision God eliminating school shootings specifically—through prayer or anything else.

Would God make it so that every time a troubled youth enters a school for such a purpose, they change their mind? Or would He make it, so they accidentally break their gun on the way in? Or would He have them fall and break a leg? Or would He make a vicious dog appear out of nowhere to attack them?

It would be a bizarre world where God completely eliminated the free will to conduct a specific type of evil. Christians don’t pray expecting that as an outcome of prayer because it’s inconsistent with the basic nature of the world we believe God created.

The continuation of school shootings literally has nothing to do with whether or not God exists and whether or not God answers prayer.

There’s, therefore, no reason to look at Christians with contempt for continuing to believe in God after multiple school shootings. We never expected our prayers to eliminate free will.

Furthermore, it should be noted that if God doesn’t exist, there’s little reason to believe people have free will at all. In an atheistic worldview, life is the product of purely natural forces. In such a world, our decisions would be driven strictly by physical impulses—we would be bound by the shackles of physical law.

As biologist Anthony Cashmore acknowledges regarding his atheistic worldview, “The reality is, not only do we have no more free will than a fly or a bacterium, in actuality, we have no more free will than a bowl of sugar. The laws of nature are uniform throughout, and these laws do not accommodate the concept of free will.”

If you don’t believe God exists, then don’t blame the shooter. He would just be acting according to his physical impulses. And don’t blame people for offering thoughts and prayers. They didn’t have a choice.

Finally, if you assume that shootings are evil and something needs to be done, you’re assuming an objective moral standard that only exists if God exists.

I understand the outrage that everyone feels right now. A tragic event like this is evil. But here’s the thing: If you believe that certain actions like killing 17 people at a school are objectively wrong—meaning they are wrong regardless of anyone’s personal opinion—then you believe objective moral standards exist. However, objective moral standards cannot exist unless a higher-than-human moral authority like God exists.

I’ve talked a lot about this moral argument for God’s existence with my kids, and my 9-year-old son came up with an insightful example to illustrate it last week. He loves Rubik’s Cubes and for some reason had been looking at a video with my husband where someone was using an all-black one. A normal cube has different colors on each square, and the challenge is to turn the cube until each side only has one color.

The day after he saw the video, he came to me with a serious face and wide eyes and said, “I think I have an example of what we were talking about with morality. When a Rubik’s Cube is all black, none of the moves matter. You can do anything. But when they have colors, then there is a pattern you’re supposed to do.”

It took me a second and then I realized what a great insight that is! If God doesn’t exist, morality is like the squares on an all-black Rubik’s Cube. There’s no right or wrong way to go; no move is better than another because there is no pattern or standard in place. It’s just your choice. In such a world, school shootings can legitimately be considered good or evil. But if God exists, He provides the colors and the objective standard for how they are to line up; we can see where the pieces should or should not go. In such a world, school shootings are an example of what should not happen. On all-black Rubik’s Cubes, however, there can be no should.

So let’s sum up what Christians believe:

  • God exists.
  • He’s perfectly good, and that goodness is the basis for the objective moral standards by which we can call things good and evil.
  • School shootings are objectively evil.
  • School shootings and other evil actions will always occur in our world because God created us with free will.
  • We don’t expect prayer to eliminate free will because that’s the nature of our created world.
  • We pray for God’s help in the midst of evil.
  • Prayer is in addition to, not instead of, other human action.

There’s nothing here to resent if you don’t believe in God.

In fact, if you believe that shootings are evil and that people have the free will to choose whether to shoot or not, your worldview is actually more consistent with theism than atheism. Maybe you should reconsider prayer after all.

For full conversations to have with your kids on the subjects discussed in this post, see the following chapters in my book, Talking with Your Kids about God:

Chapters 1-6: Evidence for God’s existence

Chapter 23: How do we know God hears and answers prayer?

Chapter 26: Do we really have free will?

Chapter 29: How should we make sense of evil?

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2oADJv9

/by