How Do We Know The Truth Is Out There?

How Do We Know The Truth Is Out There?

,

By Bob Perry

There are two kinds of truth. One depends on our opinion of things. This is called subjective truth. The other depends on the way the world actually is. This is called objective truth. Most people never think about the difference between the two. And that makes any discussion of the concept of truth a difficult one to tackle. But we must tackle it. The way we understand truth impacts every aspect of our lives. And the way we answer life’s biggest questions depends on it implicitly. Truth is an objective feature of the world we live in. It’s foundational to reality itself.

Subjective Truth

When I say cookies and cream ice cream is the best kind of ice cream, that statement is true. For me. It’s my opinion. And my opinion may be completely different than yours. We are both subjects making observations about the world. But our observations about which flavor of ice cream is best say nothing about the nature of ice cream itself. They may be true statements, but they are only statements about us and our preferences. That’s why it’s called subjective truth.

Unfortunately, most people treat all truth the same way they treat their ice cream preferences. They’ll say things like, “Well, that may be true for you, but it’s not for me.” And while that’s a perfectly valid statement when it comes to our favorite kinds of ice cream, it’s wholly inadequate when it comes to our assessment of the nature of reality.

Objective Truth

Making claims regarding the nature of reality requires that we recognize a different kind of truth. It’s called objective truth. And it’s called that because it says something about objects outside of us. Objective things do not just exist inside our heads. They are real features of the real world.

For instance, if I say the Earth revolves around the Sun, I am making a statement about the nature of the Earth-Sun relationship. I am making a statement about an objective fact. My opinion about it doesn’t matter. Neither does yours. The only way to determine if the statement is true is to look at the objects themselves and see if what I say about them matches the way they really are. If it does match, I have made a true statement.

Think of it like gravity. You don’t have to believe in gravity. But saying you don’t believe in gravity doesn’t allow you to step off tall buildings without consequence. Gravity is an objective reality. It doesn’t matter if you believe in it or not. Objective truth is no different.

The Correspondence View Of Truth

This is called the “correspondence view” of truth. And the technical definition of it is this:

If what I believe about the world matches the way the world actually is, my belief about the world is true.

This way of understanding truth is perfectly natural. Our minds are wired to recognize it. You evaluate the world you live in using this definition of truth all the time. In fact, you’re unconsciously doing it right now. You’re reading these words and comparing what the words say to the reality you experience every day. You do that because you are a truth-seeking being. Your Maker made you that way. You want to know the truth. And you don’t (at least, you shouldn’t) accept things other people say unless they correspond to reality.

The truth is out there. And we are made to find it.

Alignment with The Truth

We really can’t escape the truth. Even someone who says, “There is no truth!” is making a truth claim about the world. They are saying that “there is no truth” … is a true statement.

Living in the real world requires that we recognize this definition of truth. We should be doing all we can to align our beliefs with the fixed features of that world. Those features are external to us. We don’t create them. We discover them. And we rely on them to keep us safe. We do it all the time.

If you’re about to step out into the street, you look both ways for a reason. You want to know the truth about whether a car may run you over. Knowing true things means properly aligning yourself with reality. If you believe something false about the world — if you deny reality — we have a word for that. It’s called being deluded. And being deluded will quickly get you in trouble.

False beliefs lead us to act in defiance of the way the world actually works. And that’s why we need to know the objective truth about the existence and nature of God, and our relationship with Him.

A Post-Truth Culture

Most people do not believe in objective truth. In fact, in 2016, the Oxford Dictionary Word of the Year was “post-truth.” Some say we live in a post-truth culture. This becomes especially evident when the subject of moral truth comes up. But the answers to life’s most important questions depend on us finding the truth. In fact, the truth lies at the heart of the Christian worldview. And that means Christianity doesn’t allow us to accept the assumptions or demands of a “post-truth” culture.

The Truth of Christianity

Whatever belief system you hold to should reflect the way the world actually is. This is why I believe in Christianity. Not because it “works for me.” And not because it makes my life easier. Christianity doesn’t claim it will do either of those things. It actually warns us of the opposite.

What Christianity does do is offer the most reasonable explanation for the origin and nature of the universe. And it offers the most reasonable explanation for the origin and nature of the human beings who inhabit that universe.

Christianity corresponds to reality. More than any other religion, it makes sense of the world. I believe in Christianity because it’s true. Or, as my favorite Christian apologist put it:

“I believe in Christianity as I believe the Sun has risen;
not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”
C. S. Lewis

This video by J. Warner Wallace gives a quick overview of how to think about the difference between objective and subjective truth…

 

Bob Perry is a Christian apologetics writer, teacher, and speaker who blogs about Christianity and the culture at: truehorizon.org. He is a Contributing Writer for the Christian Research Journal, and has also been published in Touchstone, and Salvo. Bob is a professional aviator with 37 years of military and commercial flying experience. He has a B.S., Aerospace Engineering from the U. S. Naval Academy, and a M.A., Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. They have five grown sons.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/33LF1qT

/by
Historical Bias, Objectivity, and the Truth of Christianity

Historical Bias, Objectivity, and the Truth of Christianity

,

By J. Brian Huffling

“Historians are biased and choose what they report. As such, history can’t be known.” That’s a typical objection to the ability to know history. If such objections prove that we can’t know history, then we can’t know that Christianity is true since it is known through history and historical claims. In his prologue, Luke says,

“In as much as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:1-4; emphasis added).

The above passage demonstrates that Luke was writing as an historian. Words such as the ones underlined show his desire to write the truth of the events he wanted to convey. So, if history can’t be known, then we can’t know that Christianity is true. Let’s look at a typical objection.

Bias is probably the most popular objection to knowing history. It is claimed by some that historians are biased. It is not always clear what the objection is really getting at, but usually it is something like the historian holds certain views that in some way make his reporting subjective or unfair. For example, an historian may be writing about a religious issue and if he is part of that religion he is likely going to be accused of being biased. The disciples are often said to be biased regarding the events of the life of Jesus, particularly his resurrection. Since they knew him and had a vested interest they must have made up the claims of the resurrection.

Ironically, there are many assumptions (i.e., biases) about the nature of bias. It is more often than not used in a negative way and is equated with subjectivity and falsity. But why should this be the case? Why should the notion of either bias or subjectivity be equated with something being false? People could be biased because of evidence. If the disciples really did see Jesus alive after he was dead, then the reason they were biased was because of evidence and proof. But this bias would not be based on any subjectivity since their knowledge was based on objective and empirical evidence. Further, someone could have a subjective view of something and still be correct. There is nothing about being biased or subjective that guarantees that the belief is false. Such is an assumption in itself.

Consider this popular argument against objectivity:

  1. To be objective one must be free from bias.
  2. No one is free from bias.
  3. Therefore, no one is objective.

This is a valid argument, meaning that the conclusion follows from the premises. But is it sound (i.e., is the argument valid and the premises and conclusion true)? Well, if no one is free from bias that means the one making this argument is not free from bias. But statements like “No one is . . .” is a universal statement that applies to everyone everywhere. But aren’t universal statements objective? What else would ‘objective’ means other than something that is universal and not simply limited to the subjective beliefs of an individual? This whole line of argument is self-defeating. In other words, when using the argument’s criteria, the very argument itself fails. The objector, in this case, is objective in trying to argue that no one is free from bias and that no one is objective. However, the only way to make such universal statements is for the objector to make objective statements. If they were subjective, then they wouldn’t necessarily be universal. If they weren’t universal, then maybe some people aren’t biased. But this contradicts the argument. Assuming the argument holds water because no one really denies that people are biased, it shows that one can be biased and objective. (Note, it is not guaranteed that one is going to be objective and biased, just that it’s logically possible. The objection is thus deflated.)

This raises another question that is rarely asked and usually assumed: What does it mean for something to be ‘objective’? By now it should be clear that it can’t mean free from bias since we’ve just seen that a person can be both biased and objective. So being free from bias is not necessary to be objective (in fact I would agree that everyone is biased in a general sense). So what does it mean? Most people think that it means being detached from a given circumstance so that one can see it as an objective outsider. In his fascinating work Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, drawing on other work on this topic (such as Samuel Byrskog’s Story as History—History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History), Richard Bauckham makes the surprising and unfashionable statement:

“A very important point that . . . for Greek and Roman historians, the ideal eyewitness was not the dispassionate observer but one who, as a participant, had been closest to the events and whose direct experience enabled him to understand and interpret the significance of what he had seen” (page 9).

He further notes that many historians wanted someone who was involved in the events in question because that person would have a vested interest. They wanted someone who was involved and really there.

This counters the usual desire or assumed need for detatchment, but it does not say what objectivity is. Objectivity is arriving at conclusions that are based on evidence and principles that have their foundation in external reality. Everyone can use and measure truth claims based on external (objective) reality. Put negatively; it is the opposite of one making conclusions that arise simply out of one’s subjective mind. Such evidence based on reality and the principles that follow is mind-independent. Since reality is objective, that is, everyone can know it (as long as their faculties are working properly), the conclusions based on reality can also be objective. When one uses universal (objective) principles to ascertain the truth of a conclusion, one can be objective. Such principles are the laws of logic (or being). One such law is the law of non-contradiction. It declares that if two statements are mutually exclusive one must be true and the other must be false. For example, Christianity teaches that Jesus died. Islam counters that Jesus did not die. These statements are mutually exclusive—one must be true and the other false since there is no third option. Thus, they are contradictory. (This is contrasted with statements that can both logically be false, such as “Buddhism is true” and “Atheism is true.” Such statements that can both be false are called ‘contrary.’) Regarding this principle and its application to historical objectivity, Maurice Mandelbaum says,

“Our knowledge is objective if, and only if, it is the case that when two persons make contradictory statements concerning the same subject matter, at least one of them must be mistaken” (The Anatomy of Historical Knowledge, 150).

The law of non-contradiction is based in the nature of reality. It is not just a principle of thought, but of being. A tree cannot exist and not exist at the same time in the same sense. That would be a contradiction. Such first principles of thought and arising out of the nature of reality since something can’t simultaneously be and not be. It is not simply a made-up principle. In fact, it is undeniable since to deny it would require using it.

Thus, if one’s conclusions are based on external and objective reality and evidence, and the principles from such reality, those conclusions can be objective. There is, in a sense, an objective apparatus giving us the possibility of being objective. Again, this is contrasted with something arising only from one’s (subjective) mind rather than from external (objective) reality. There is, therefore, nothing about biases that preclude one from making objective historical statements. Biases do not guarantee subjectivity or falsity.

Back to Bauckham’s point regarding bias, it is often the case that people are indeed biased, but biased because of the evidence. They have seen so much evidence, that they are convinced that what they are saying is true. This, however, is not subjective bias or assumption, but rather the careful examination of objective reality and the evidence that all can investigate.

When looking at historical questions, such as the resurrection, one should not base his conclusions on notions such as the alleged bias of the ones making claims. Rather, one should examine the evidence for the claims to discover their veracity. We can recognize bias in every area and by all people. However, that alone is not enough to show that a person’s claim is false. To be good and responsible historians and investigators, we must follow the evidence.

(I would like to thank Norman L. Geisler for his direction regarding my MA thesis topic which was on this issue, as well as Thomas A. Howe to whom my thoughts and work are indebted greatly.)

 

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

/by
Do You Know What’s True And Can You Handle It

Do You Know What’s True And Can You Handle It?

,

By Alex McElroy

IS IT TRUE, O Christ in Heaven,
That the highest suffer most?
That the strongest wander furthest,
And more helplessly are lost?
That the mark of rank in nature
Is capacity for pain?
And the anguish of the singer
Makes the sweetness of the strain?
Is it true, O Christ in Heaven,
That whichever way we go
Walls of darkness must surround us,
Things we would but cannot know?
That the infinite must bound us
Like a temple veil unrent,
Whilst the finite ever wearies,
So that none’s therein content?
Is it true, O Christ in Heaven,
That the fullness yet to come
Is so glorious and so perfect
That to know would strike us dumb?
That if ever for a moment
We could pierce beyond the sky
With these poor dim eyes of mortals,
We should just see God and die?

by Sarah Williams

People will always settle for a feel-good lie until the truth is fully presented. What is true about your nature, your identity, and your purpose? What criteria do you use to assess what’s true? We live in a day and an age when the truth has migrated from the boundaries of objectivity into the fluid realm of preference. If it is possible for two individuals to live by separate truths, even if one of those truths is not actually true, we are content with the ramifications as long as no one’s truth harms the other person.

However, is it possible to live in a world where we no longer know what to trust or even how to determine the standard to assess what we should trust? How can we rear our children in such a world where what we teach today may not be palatable tomorrow and therefore deemed as ‘not true’? Do you truly know who you are? Is that something that can be known? Is it possible that there is only One who has the potential to know all of us equally and perfectly? I believe so, but many will say that the existence of such a One is not true at all.

TRUTH IS A PERSON

Many people make audacious statements. We are left to decipher them and determine which are valid and which are mere boasts. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6a). In John 18:37, Jesus is talking to Pontius Pilate and says, “Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” First, we must notice that Jesus didn’t claim to know the truth. He claimed to be the truth. Only in the Christian worldview is truth not simply a concept, but a person. This cannot be overstated. The claim is significant but can it be trusted?

By rising from the grave after being fully executed, Jesus demonstrated in undeniable fashion that He was telling the truth about everything He said, including His claim to “be” the truth. Some deny the resurrection, but how do they account for the inexplicable conversion of Saul to Paul or of Jesus’ half-brothers Jude and James who mocked His claims to be the Messiah (John 7:3-6) but later became faithful followers of Him? The tomb is still empty, and over 500 saw a resurrected Jesus (1 Cor. 15:6). Is it possible that some are still willing to settle for a ‘feel good’ lie because they aren’t prepared to deal with the ramifications of the clear and present truth? Do you know the truest person to ever live?

TRUTH IS IN YOUR PURPOSE

The poet above asks God, “Is it true, O Christ in Heaven, that the fullness yet to come is so glorious and so perfect that to know would strike us dumb?” The apostle Paul writes, “Therefore we do not lose heart. Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day. For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory” (2 Cor. 4:16-17). Yes, the fullness yet to come will be glorious, and we may very well be awestricken, but until then we have a purpose to fulfill.

“The Lord will fulfill his purpose for me; your steadfast love, O Lord, endures forever. Do not forsake the work of your hands” (Psalm 138:8). The truth is that you and I have a purpose for being here. How we got here is irrelevant as are many of the unanswerable questions that we ask in this life. But we must remember that our forever has already begun, and our purpose is for such a time as this. The role you and I play in advancing His holy plan can only be played well if we adhere to what is true and live our lives accordingly.

He that takes truth for his guide, and duty for his end may safely trust to God’s providence to lead him alright. – Blaise Pascal

 

Alex McElroy is an international speaker, author, blogger, leadership advisor, and the Pastor of Education at New Life Covenant Southeast Church, with over 20,000 members led by Pastor John F. Hannah.  Alex has been serving in both youth and teaching ministries at New Life for over 12 years.  In his role, he teaches Discipleship class designed for adults to learn, fellowship, and grow in their faith within a small group setting. Alex also trains hundreds of teachers and ministers to deliver lessons in proper lifestyle, Biblical study, focused preparation, and Apologetics in order to maximize their effectiveness in and for the Kingdom of God.

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

/by
What is the Difference Between Absolute and Relative Truth

What is the Difference Between Absolute and Relative Truth?

, ,

By Natasha Crain

(This is one of 40 key questions I address in my new book, Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side: 40 Conversations to Help Them Build a Lasting Faith. If you’re a parent, grandparent, church educator, or other special person in the spiritual life of a child, please check out my book for guidance on having the most important conversations about faith given today’s secular world.)

I was driving with the kids recently when my son announced that he had seen a black, red and yellow bird on his side of the car. My daughter Kenna immediately corrected him.

“Nathan, you are NOT right! The bird was black and red. It did not have any yellow. You are wrong.”

Nathan screamed back at her, “No! I am right! The bird DID have yellow on his bottom.”

Tired mom syndrome kicked in here, and I entered the fray with this disingenuous response: “Guys! It doesn’t matter. Sometimes people see different things. Everyone can be right at the same time.”

Fast forward to the following week. My other daughter, Alexa, came running into the kitchen screaming, “Mommy! Kenna hit me!”

Kenna walked in behind her with a casual shrug. “No, I didn’t. Now stop talking about it. We can both be right. Sometimes people see different things.”

I couldn’t believe it. My lazy response from the week before had totally confused my daughter’s understanding of truth! I had given her the idea that no one is right or wrong about anything, and everyone can be right at the same time.

As obvious as it may seem that there are many things which are true or not true (Kenna hit Alexa, or she did not), this very basic understanding of truth – fundamental to Christianity – is under attack today. Kenna’s not the only one getting confused.

The Big Mix-Up: Absolute and Relative Truth

Whatever bird my kids saw was either 1) black, red and yellow (as Nathan claimed), 2) only black and red (as Kenna claimed), or 3) something else altogether (if they were both wrong). But contrary to my lazy “everyone can be right” response, the bird simply can’t be all of those things at the same time.

The color of the bird is an example of an absolute truth. To say that something is absolutely true means that it is independently true for all people, even if they do not know it or recognize it to be true.

The opposite of absolute truth is a relative truth. To say that something is relatively true means that it can be true for one person and not for another. If Kenna had said, “the bird is beautiful!” and Nathan had replied, “the bird is ugly!” they could have both told the truth because beauty is a matter of opinion; it’s a relative truth.

The existence of absolute truth is a necessary foundation of Christianity.

God didn’t exactly mince words in the Bible that what he revealed was the one and only truth. Quite directly, in John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

The secular world is increasingly teaching, however, that all truth is relative – a simple matter of each person’s perspective. That’s why understanding these truth terms, and making them crystal clear for our kids, is so critical: we can spend years giving reasons for why we believe Christianity is true, but if the response is someday a shrug because our kids come to believe all truth is relative (“Christianity can be true for you, but not for me”), it will all be for naught.

Get Your Kids Thinking: The Chorus of Relativists

Here are four common statements rooted in the secular mix-up of absolute and relative truth. Talk through each with your kids. The bird examples may help you drive the concepts home.

“All religions point to the same truth.”

Even a most basic survey of world religions shows they contradict each other on major claims. They simply can’t be entirely true at the same time, though each claims to be entirely true. It’s just like the bird that can’t be black, red and yellow AND only black and red at the same time.

That said, it’s important to understand that different religions can contain parts of the absolute truth. For example, Judaism and Islam both believe in one God, as does Christianity. But neither religion believes Jesus is God’s son, which is central to Christian belief (and which Christians claim to be absolute truth). If the bird was black, red and yellow, Nathan’s belief was true. Kenna’s belief that it was black and red contained part of the absolute truth, but in its entirety, her belief was not true because she got the yellow wrong.

“Christians are not tolerant of other beliefs.”

Tolerance is the most misused word today. By definition, tolerance simply means to bear with ideas other than your own. Most people who throw the word around, however, treat it as though it means to agree with or accept those other ideas. To agree with all ideas is the ultimate nod to relative truth. Christians, however, should treat all people with respect, but stand firm that we believe only Christianity is true. Believing in absolute truth is not intolerant. Nathan could treat Kenna with respect while firmly stating that he believed she did not know the truth.

“I like to live according to compassion, rather than a pre-determined set of beliefs.”

Many young adults today turn away from biblical Christianity in favor of living according to “good values” alone. This quote suggests that it’s OK to decide what we believe based on what we like as if a spiritual truth is simply a matter of preference (a relative truth). I might like bluebirds the best, but that has no bearing on the true color of the bird my kids saw.

“Christianity just doesn’t make sense to me because (fill in any number of reasons).”

What makes sense varies from person to person. Christianity makes sense to me. Atheism makes sense to someone else. Appealing to common sense implicitly promotes the concept of relative truth. But our subjective perspectives have no bearing on reality. Christianity might be true, or atheism might be true, but they can’t both be true just because they make sense to different people. It might not make sense to me that there is a black, red, and yellow bird in this area right now, but that doesn’t mean the bird wasn’t truly there.

 

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

/by
Is Naturalism a Good Reason to Rally_

Is Naturalism a Good Reason to Rally?

,

By Mikel Del Rosario

Today, I’m featuring a special guest post from one of my former mentors, R. Scott Smith, Associate Professor of Ethics and Christian Apologetics at Biola University. Dr. Smith was my adviser while I was doing my graduate studies in the Christian Apologetics Program at Biola University. I studied under him in the areas of ethics, philosophy and historical theology.

His guest post might sound a bit technical if you’re totally new to philosophy, but thinking hard about this stuff might help you understand naturalism more–maybe a bit more than your atheist friends. His latest work is aimed at the upper division undergraduate audience, or those with some philosophy training: Naturalism and Our Knowledge of Reality.

Guest Post by R. Scott Smith

A Good Reason to Rally?

At the “Reason Rally” in Washington, secular, atheistic people gathered in support of “reason” over [mere] “faith” of religious people. Not so hidden in the background was the widely-held cultural mindset that science uses reason and uniquely gives us knowledge of truth (the facts). But religion gives us just personal opinions and preferences, not knowledge. This bifurcation often is called the “fact-value split.”

Naturalism: “There Is No God”

This science is naturalistic; only what is scientifically knowable (i.e., by the five senses) is real. In principle, such things as God, souls, and mental states (i.e., non-physical things like thoughts, beliefs, and experiences) cannot be known to be real. Or, simplifying, they don’t exist. Yet, we can test natural, physical stuff scientifically, so that is what is believed to be real. That view of reality is the philosophy undergirding atheistic evolution by natural selection (NS) – naturalism. There’s only the physical universe, without anything non-physical.

Until Darwin, many believed there were non-physical essential natures that separated living things into kinds. Afterward, biological classification is understood as one interconnected “tree of life” – all living things share a common ancestor.

Naturalism, Truth, and Knowledge

Now, how do we know what’s true on this view? Consider Daniel Dennett, a leading philosopher, neuroscientist, and New Atheist, who takes evolution by NS very seriously. For him, NS is blind – without any goal planning, thinking about some desired outcome, believing something, or trying to make something happen. And since non-physical mental states aren’t real, the qualities they would have, e.g., their representing something (their being of or about something) also would not be real. There are only brain states, physical patterns, and behavior we take (interpret) to be about something.

Dennett realizes that if there were real, intrinsic (something that’s so due to what kind of thing it is), essential natures, there could be a “deeper” fact (beyond just behavior) of what our thoughts (or beliefs, experiences) are really about. Just due to what those mental states would be essential, they really could be of their objects, and not something else.

But, since evolution by NS denies any such essences, Dennett says we only interpret the behavior of people (and sophisticated computers and robots) as being “about” their objects. But that’s all we have to go on – just our interpretations, which we attribute to a person. Based on someone’s behaviors, we interpret them to mean the person is thinking “about” something (e.g., an errand to Lowe’s), but that’s just how we talk. In reality, there isn’t any real “aboutness” to us.

But, there could be other interpretations too. Maybe the thought is “of” something else (e.g., a movie on HBO). But, there’s no fact of the matter we can appeal to, to settle the issue. Dennett admits for that to be so, there would have to be an essence to the thought’s being of something so that it really is about the errand, not the movie.

But without essences, we’re left only with interpretations; but, of what? Apparently, another interpretation; but if we keep pressing that question, we’re left just with interpretations of interpretations, etc., without any way to get started and experience something as it is, simply because no mental state is really about anything.

Bu the same problem applies to our own mental life. Any mental state doesn’t have an essence to be about anything in particular. If they cannot really be about something, then how would we ever know how things really are?

Our Experience Tells a Different Story

Fortunately, that’s not how we experience life. Our mental states seem to have three essential features:

  1. They’re “particularized.” My thought about tonight’s dinner, or my experience of drinking a Starbuck’s chocolate smoothie, is not generic or unspecified. Each is about something particular.
  2. These mental states must be about something. It doesn’t seem we could have one that lacks this quality. (Try having a thought that isn’t about anything!)
  3. That “ofness” seems to be intrinsic, or essential, to each mental state. My thought about last night’s dinner could not be about anything else and still be the thought it is. I could observe the price of gas at the Exxon station, but that experience couldn’t have been of my dinner.

God: The Best Explanation

How do we best explain these three apparently essential features of mental states? Dennett realizes that if mental states had essential natures, they really could be of their intended objects, so we could know them.

If atheistic evolution by NS were true, we’d be in a beginningless series of interpretations, without any knowledge. Yet, we know many things. So, naturalism & NS are false – non-physical essences exist. But, what’s their explanation? Being non-physical, it can’t be evolution. So, maybe we have souls that use them. It seems likely their best explanation is there’s a Creator after all.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2B8gmT1

/by
Q&A_ Answering Questions Of An Agnostic Brother

Q&A: Answering Questions Of An Agnostic Brother

, ,

By Evan Minton

Hi Evan,

I really like your work, really helped me.

But I have a brother, he is agnostic, and he has a few objections I can’t answer (it’s so uncomfortable), so I decided to ask you.

The first is on skepticism in general. Shouldn’t we be skeptical about anything? Since everything is subjectively perceived? Especially moral values? Also, in a pragmatic sense, shouldn’t we agree we can’t know and just follow Aristotle’s “man is a political animal”?
And then on the fine-tuning argument, well he has a weird objection, but I found it difficult (not very well read in this topic, only read on guard and Strobel), couldn’t a different type of life emerge in different universes with different constants?

I thought it was arguing from ignorance, but another thing he said fine tuning only works from the perspective that we are the final product (carbon-based life).

So, I hope you understood these questions, have any recommended resources that wouldn’t be to difficult for a 14-year-old?

Thanks, Evan.

Hugs

Thanks for your question. I’m glad you’ve found my work helpful in your walk with Christ.
On Skepticism

First, you ask “Shouldn’t we be skeptical about anything? Since everything is subjectively perceived? Especially moral values? Also, in a pragmatic sense, shouldn’t we agree we can’t know and just follow Aristotle’s ‘man is a political animal’?

Based on how you worded this section, it sounds to me like your brother has been reading Immanuel Kant. He seemed to make a similar argument that Kant made regarding the knowability of the world. In his weighty Critique of Pure Reason (1781) and his Religion Within the Limits of Mere Reason (1793) he argued that God is unknowable, and Kant also insisted that our mind and senses are so structured that we cannot know reality in itself (the noumenal realm) but only what appears to us (the phenomena). Thus, as Frank Turek humorously puts it: “According to Kant, you Kant know what the world is really like.”

The major problem with Kant’s argument is that it is self-refuting. That is to say, Kant, in claiming that the external world is unknowable is claiming to know something about the external world! Namely, that it’s unknowable! But how would Kant know that we cannot know reality in itself unless he knew at least one thing about reality? Thus, Kant’s view saws off the branch it’s sitting on. To affirm it, one needs access to the very thing the view says we can’t access.

So should we be skeptical about anything? Not if the basis of that skepticism is that all perception is subjective, for that relies on a self-refuting philosophy.

As far as the affirmation of moral values, I have always defended the objectivity of moral values and duties in the same way that Craig has. William Lane Craig states that the evidence for the existence of objective morality is on par with the evidence for the existence of the external physical world. We recognize that both are real because we can sense that they’re there. He states “In moral experience, we apprehend a realm of moral values and duties that impose themselves upon us. There’s no more reason to deny the objective reality of moral values than the objective reality of the physical world.”

Craig argues that our moral experience is on par with our physical experience. Our five senses tell us that the physical world is real, that you are really sitting there reading this blog post. In a similar way, your moral senses tell you what is good and what is evil. Now, we can’t get outside of our moral senses to test whether they’re giving us reliable information, but neither can we get outside of our physical senses to test whether they’re giving us reliable information. Should we, therefore, conclude that we can’t know what the physical world is like? Of course not. But then, why should we deny the existence of objective morality because we can’t get outside of our moral perceptions to test their reliability? I’ve noticed that most skeptics, in trying to knock down the epistemological justification of the second premise of the moral argument, they tend to make arguments that would undermine our 5 senses if the same logic was applied to them. For example, some will point out that different people have disagreements on whether a certain action is morally right or wrong (e.g. abortion, the eating of animals). Based on this, they’ll say that we, therefore, can’t trust our moral intuitions. But what if this line of reasoning was applied to our sense of sight? No one could forget that a whole internet sensation was based on a debate as to whether a dress was black/blue or white/gold. People disagreed on what color “The Dress” was. I remember back in the day disputing with my friends on the playground whether James of Team Rocket from the Pokemon anime had blue hair or purple hair. However, would anyone argue that such disagreements on color render color a non-objective feature of reality?

I think the person is within his rational rights in affirming the objectivity of morality on the basis of his moral compass unless he is presented with a powerful argument that his moral compass has a spring loose, so to speak. However, I’ve never encountered such a refutation.

An Objection To The Fine-Tuning Argument

Your brother objects to the fine-tuning argument with “Couldn’t a different type of life emerge in different universes with different constants?” This is an objection to The Fine-Tuning argument that I get all the time in my conversations with non-theists.

Often these people make use of an illustration by Douglas Adams, the well-known author of Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (although this quote is not from that book):

“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact, it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’”

Richard Dawkins applied this to the fine-tuning at Adams’ eulogy. Now, these atheists argue that just as that man is a fool, so we would be fools to believe the universe was designed so that we could exist.

The problem with this argument is that it radically misunderstands the consequences of what would happen if the physical constants and quantities were off.  Take the expansion rate of the universe for example. If the universe expanded too rapidly, then gravity would not have had the opportunity to collect gas and dust and condense it into galaxies, stars, and planets. The universe would forever
exist as nothing but isolated pieces of matter, gas, and dust. Because if the universe expanded too quickly, then all of the stuff of the universe would fly apart too quickly for gravity to take them and to condense them into galaxies, stars, and planets.  If the ratio of the number of electrons to protons were off by a little bit, electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet
formation. Again, the universe would be completely devoid of galaxies, stars, and planets. If you don’t have galaxies, if you don’t have stars, and if you don’t have planets, you can’t have any life. One reason is that without a planet, there’s no hope for life to evolve and live on. A second thing is that, regardless of whether life must be carbon based, you need stars to “cook” the elements needed for life. No stars, no elements. No elements, no life. Even if one thinks silicon-based life forms are possible, stars are needed to make the silicon.

If the Strong Nuclear Force were slightly weaker, it would be too weak to bind together protons and neutrons inside the nucleus of the atom. Therefore, no atoms could exist in the universe except the hydrogen atom; the simplest atom there is, consisting of a single proton and a single electron. In the case of The Strong Nuclear Force being weaker, the only existing element would be hydrogen. You couldn’t possibly get to any higher levels of complexity in such a scenario.

So, it is my judgment that comparing the fine-tuning to a man waking up in a puddle is an analogy that…. doesn’t hold water.

Recommended Resources

“Have any recommended resources that wouldn’t be to difficult for a 14-year-old?”

Sure! First and foremost, I’d suggest my own Inference To The One True God: Why I Believe In Jesus Instead Of Other Gods, a book that I’m currently working on upgrading in Google Docs. In the book, I talk about The Kalam, Fine-Tuning, Moral, and Ontological Arguments, as well as the historical evidence that Jesus died and was resurrected. According to one reviewer on Amazon, “His easy conversational style throughout the text reminds one of Max Lucado, and he presents material of great import in a comfortable manner that is a joy to read. This book is an excellent introduction to the most significant and well-founded Christian apologetics in the modern era and is well-suited to high school and college students, as well as adults interested in Christian apologetics and philosophy. I highly recommend this book.” another Amazon reviewer wrote “Mr. Minton helpfully surveys some of the best arguments for God’s existence, appealing to the most robust scholars and answering the most difficult challenges to the arguments. While some of the scholars who have written about philosophy of religion might be too academic and difficult to read, this author’s writing style makes the most complicated arguments (even the ontological argument) relatable. Recommended for those who are new to apologetics or those who want to brush up.” 

Another book I’d recommend is J. Warner Wallace’s God’s Crime Scene. Among books on Natural Theology, this one is really unique. Like his previous book Cold Case Christianity, it reads like a combination of a detective novel and apologetic book. He lays out the evidence for a Creator on the origin of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe, the existence of the moral law, the complexity of the cell, and even argues for the existence of the soul based on the phenomenon of consciousness, and he does it all from the perspective of a detective, in a very easy-to-read manner.

But I think the most accessible book on these topics would be Leslie Wickman’s God Of The Big Bang: How Modern Science Affirms The Creator. Wickman is an internationally respected research scientist, engineering consultant, author and inspirational speaker.and is also executive director of the American Scientific Affiliation (a non-profit organization promoting the dialog between science and faith), and as a Professor of Aerospace-Industrial-Mechanical Engineering at California Baptist University. Her book God Of The Big Bang should certainly be not “be too difficult for a 14-year-old.”

So,
1: “Inference To The One True God” by yours truly.

2: “God’s Crime Scene” by J. Warner Wallace

3: “God Of The Big Bang” by Leslie Wickman

are what I recommend.

God bless you.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/Dsiuae

/by
Truth Claims

Simple Tools to Test Truth Claims

,

By Brian G. Chilton

We live in a day called the information age. This is a time when we are inundated with information. Some information is based on truth, whereas other truth claims are flawed. While it is not a popular assumption to hold: Not every opinion is correct. Not every worldview is truthful. So, how does one know whether a claim is truthful or flawed? You could take detailed courses in logic, which is advised if you are able to do so. However, a few simple tools in your tool belt will help you decipher truth claims. This article will focus on two: the laws of logic and testing truth claims.

  1. Know the Essential Laws of Logic

First, it is important for you to know the essential laws of logic. Let’s focus on five of the more important laws.

Law of Identity: (A = A). The law of identity simply states that something is what it is. Douglas Groothuis compares this to a person saying to another, “You aren’t acting like yourself today.” The person infers the identity of the individual as a particular thing.[1] The claim “An oak is a tree” infers that oaks are identified as trees.

Law of Noncontradiction: (A ≠~A). The law of noncontradiction states that nothing can be what it is not. That is, an oak cannot be a tree and cow’s milk. Either it is a tree, or it is cow’s milk. Thus, a thing cannot be what it is at the same time being what it is not.

Law of Excluded Middle: (A V ~A). The law of excluded middle shows that a claim must either be the thing it claims to be or not. It cannot be both. An oak cannot be milk. Therefore, if a person needs shade in the summer, then the person must decide whether the shade from the oak’s leaves will be beneficial or milk. Since milk does not provide shade, the person must choose the oak. But, perhaps the milk would provide a refreshing beverage, but it cannot be chosen to provide shade.

Law of Bivalence: (A⊕~A)=(A V ~A).[2] The law of bivalence simply notes that one must choose between proposition A or proposition ~A. That is, every truth claim is either true or false. It can’t be both. Therefore, one must choose.

Law of Rational Inference: (A = B, and B = C, then A = C). Coinciding with the previous four, the law of rational inference may be helpful in deciphering truth claims. In this sense, if A is shown to equal B, and B equals C, then naturally it follows that A would equal C. For example, if my son’s father’s name is Brian, and I am my son’s father, then it logically follows that I am Brian, my son’s father.

  1. Know How to Test Truth Claims

A syllogism is a logical construct that has two criteria and one conclusion. The kalam cosmological argument is a syllogism. It has two premises and one conclusion. The argument goes as follows: 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2) The universe had a beginning. 3) Therefore, the universe has a cause. How does one test such arguments such as these? Simply follow three steps.

  1. Define the terms. Terms will either be clear or unclear. Are the terms that used clear? In the case of the Kalam, they are. The term universe refers to the material cosmos. Beginning refers to the origin or starting point of a thing. Cause references the reason for something’s existence. In the case of the kalam, the terms are clear.
  2. Test the premises. Premises, or statements, are either true or false. Do things that begin to exist have a cause? Certainly! Homes have a reason for their existence, to provide shelter. The second statement is also true. It is nearly unanimously agreed that the universe had a beginning, a starting point. Both premises in the Kalam are true.
  3. Evaluate the argument.[3] Arguments are either valid or invalid. If the first statement is true, “Everything that begins to exist has a cause,” and the second statement is also true in that “The universe had a beginning,” then the argument naturally flows to its conclusion that “The universe has a cause.” That Cause can be inferred to be the Creator. The kalam cosmological arguments pass the truth test.

Conclusion

The tools given in this article do not only apply to syllogisms, they apply to any truth claim. The fact is that not everything you hear from others, read online and in the newspapers, or see on television is based on truth. Use these tools, and you will have, what I call, an instant bologna tester. You will be able to decipher truth from fiction. As wonderful as it is to proclaim, Christianity gloriously holds to the test of truth. That being said, the Christian should strive to find the truth, because the “truth will set you free” (Jn. 8:32, CSB).

Notes 

[1] Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2011), 48.

[2] The ⊕ symbol refers to exclusive or propositions. In this case, one is forced to choose between A or ~A because both cannot be true.

[3] For further details, see Peter Kreeft, Socratic Logic (South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s, 2014), 26-27.

 

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/2ojHsgo

/by
Impse Preferences External World

Can We Impose Our Preferences On The External World?

,

By Arthur Khachatryan

We are subjective creatures. We have a consciousness that provides us with an internal reality, one we experience within of our inner self. We have private preferences, opinions, fears, and biases, which are very real in our thoughts and reflect in our actions. This internal reality is immediate and cannot be overthrown, at least not without receding into irrational alternatives. However, there is also the external world for which we have to account.

Reality is after all comprised of not only conscious creatures but also the environment in which they live. When people say, ‘you have your truth, and I have mine,’ are they suggesting that the world is different for them? Or are they trying to say that truth is merely subjective? It couldn’t be the latter though since truth is that which corresponds to reality. And since reality includes the entire known physical world, it cannot be a personal internal thing. So, while the ‘your truth, my truth’ mentality is representative of the popular sentiment of the day, it is rooted in a personal internal battle with the external reality.

When Christians assert that Jesus is the only way to heaven, it is not meant to be taken merely as an internal subjective belief that Jesus saves, but one that corresponds to an external reality. The belief is an internal representation of an outward reality. Some would think it to be arrogant and intolerant of people to claim that they have come to the one true God and reject all false gods and religions. But mutually exclusive claims are made by virtually all religions. Are all religious views arrogant? Or do they merely all make truth claims, which may or may not be representative of reality? Truth, by its very definition, is exclusive. If something is true, then all views contradicting that must be false.

We may legitimately differ in our preferences, and there’s nothing wrong with these differences. But truth does not lay hostage, shackled by our preferences. An overwhelming body of work that includes the biblical writings and ancient historians testify of Jesus of Nazareth. But many atheists claim that such a man never existed. Jesus either existed, or he didn’t. The Bible tells us that Jesus was crucified. The Koran tells that Jesus was not crucified. Jesus was either crucified, or he wasn’t. He either rose from the dead or he didn’t. There is little use for opinion in the matter. When we look at the historical record we can be fairly certain that Jesus of Nazareth existed and was crucified, even though the Koran would tell us that he was not. When we look at the historical record, we see a very compelling case for the Bible being the inspired word of God, even though virtually every other religious view would be in disagreement.

Now, how do you see Jesus? Did he exist? Who was he? Was he just a human being, perhaps a good moral teacher? These are relatively common conclusion that people have come to regarding Jesus. But are any of these real options? When we read what Jesus claimed about Himself, we should be awestruck at how precisely he pointed to himself as the one and only true God. C.S. Lewis put it brilliantly when he said,

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him, ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon, or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”[1]

Preferences will differ, and that’s what makes the world so diverse and interesting. However, that which is to be found in the real world apart from mere desire or preference, that which aligns with reality, cannot be approached merely by the existential monotony of the merely internal self. It must be cohesive with the external world. Preferences, as wonderfully diverse as they may be, cannot be rationally imposed on the external world.

Notes

[1]Lewis, C. S., Mere Christianity: Revised/Amplified Edition, 52.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2r0H5Ml

/by
Logic Is Bedrock

Logic Is Bedrock

By Tim Stratton

All philosophical conversation, scientific hypotheses, mathematics, and conclusions based on the historical method entail the reality of logical laws. It would be impossible to engage in any of these disciplines if there were not logical absolutes providing parameters to help us reach conclusions that follow from given premises. Here are three fundamental Laws of Logic that are always required in rational interaction:

The Law of Identity:
 Something is what it is. ‘A’ is ‘A’. Things that exist have specific properties that identify them

The Law of Non-Contradiction: ‘A’ cannot be both ‘A’ and ‘Non-A’ at the same time, in the same way, and in the same sense

The Law of Excluded Middle:
 A statement is either true or false. There is no middle position. For example, the claim that “A statement is either true or false” is either true or false.

You may have never heard of the laws of logic before; however, you use them every day whether you realize it or not. These laws are just as necessary to keep us grounded in rationality as the law of gravity is necessary to keep us grounded on the earth. Logical laws apply to everyone no matter when or where one lives. That is to say, the laws of logic transcend humanity and are objectively true.

Logical laws are not material substances. We do not discover them by digging them up or viewing them under a microscope. We cannot employ the scientific method to discover the laws of logic; rather, a scientist must assume the laws of logic before engaging in the scientific method. These laws are the bedrock of reason and rationality.

Christian theism makes this point stronger. John 1:1 states, “In the beginning was the Logos.” The Greek word “logos” is used synonymously with Jesus in the text. What is interesting is that logos in Greek means “the principle of reason.”[1] This is where we get the term “logic.” The Bible is clear that Jesus is God and suggests that he is the ground of logic itself. This makes perfect sense as to why the immaterial laws of logic impose themselves on the material world. God created the material world according to the logical laws he had in mind or that are grounded in his essence and nature. This explains why these abstract laws of logic impose themselves upon the material world.

Just as computers function correctly when programmed to work according to the laws of logic, humans behave correctly (in an objective sense) when approximating to “The Logos.” When humans freely choose to think and behave logically, we simultaneously think and behave in a godly manner. Isaiah seems to agree: “Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord…” (Isaiah 1:18). The Apostle Paul makes this point even stronger in the New Testament: “Let your reasonableness be known to everyone…” (Philippians 4:5 ESV).

Stay reasonable my friends,

Tim Stratton

Notes

[1] The ESV Study Bible, English Standard Version, 2008, Crossway Bibles, Good News Publishers (Commentary on John 1:1)

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2oviHC0

/by
Doubt: A Splinter In The Mind

Doubt: A Splinter In The Mind

Beyond surpassing wonder about God or mere inquiry about Him and His truth, doubt digs much deeper. Doubt doesn’t just ask, “What is real?” It poses the challenge, “Is my faith real?” Is what I believe really valid? Or is it simply a modified myth, an uber-marketed religious fairy tale supported by millions of gullible minds throughout history?

Doubt trumps wondering, and it body-slams mere curiosity. In its worst form, it goes beyond simply searching for answers to questions, inevitably denying the legitimacy of the questions themselves.

FREE “Doubting Toward Faith” Chapter – Click here to DOWNLOAD NOW!

For Christians, doubt can either serve us or sink us. It can drive us to seek truth or it can drown us in despair, hopelessness, and confusion. If ignored or left unchecked, it can bore into our brain, releasing a virus of unbelief, infecting and eventually destroying every healthy thought about God. It can take us to the place where nothing else matters. Where we find ourselves loathing even life itself.

If left unchecked, intellectual doubt metastasizes, seeping its way into our emotions and collecting a wide array of fears, worries, anxieties, anger, confusion, depression, and ultimately despair at the thought of being played or duped or envisioning a life without our once “cherished belief” in God.

Horrifying so, doubt is no stranger to our time. And capturing the zeitgeist of our changing times is quite the project. We live in a multi-textured culture that is replete with innumerable beliefs, opinions, ideas, and life philosophies. Ours is a culture of doubt and longing, faith and questioning, searching and probing. And much of the doubt has been accelerated by fast-paced change. Our culture is living between the tension of what we once were and what we are now becoming. And for many, waiting in the blank space between the definition of what we were and the search to define what we are becoming feels for the moment confusing, and even a bit uncomfortable.

Echoing this angst, Os Guinness writes, “We live in an age of doubt, disillusion and disaffiliation, which naturally prizes what has been described as ‘the faith that you go to when you don’t know where to go.”[i] Both our pluralistic and secularized culture has produced a fragilized-self as it pertains to doubt.[ii] We’ve shifted from Christianity to Anyanity (pluralism) or Noanity (atheism).

Belief isn’t nearly as comfortable and cozy as it once seemed. There’s an irritant to it; like a pebble in a shoe, these competing beliefs have made the faith walk a little less comfortable. Today, record numbers of those who once professed faith in Christ are walking away from the church, even limping, in the name of doubt.

Such torturous doubt splits the mind. And contrary to popular belief, intellectual doubt is not the opposite of faith; unbelief is. Doubt is in between, seesawing and dangling in the middle.

Yet, make no mistake. Doubt never stays put. It’s not neutral.

It makes up its mind.

It’s directional.

It’s going somewhere.

This means a person will either doubt toward unbelief or they will doubt toward faith. You’ll waver one way or another. But thankfully God can discern the nature of our doubts. There’s skeptical doubt and sincere doubt. There is antagonistic doubt and authentic doubt. And the difference between them is worlds apart. Those who hold to the latter want their doubts solved so they can go forward with God, while the former want their doubts confirmed so they can move beyond God.

Next time you find yourself experiencing a bout with doubt, or the angst of a splintered mind let me encourage you to doubt toward faith. And I’m not talking about an empty existential faith that takes a leap into the darkness, but rather a bona fide trusting faith in the Person of Jesus Christ. Yes, next time you doubt.

Doubt.

Toward.

Jesus!

[i] Os Guinness, Renaissance (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2014), 25.

[ii] Philosopher James K.A. Smith describes fragilization as follows, “In the face of different options, where people who lead ‘normal’ lives do not share my faith (and perhaps believe something different), my own faith commitment becomes fragile—put into question, dubitable.” How (Not) To Be Secular (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2014), 141.

[iii] Adapted from: DOUBTING TOWARD FAITH

Copyright © 2015 Bobby Conway

Published by Harvest House Publishers

Eugene, Oregon

www.harvesthousepublishers.com

Used by Permission.

/by