By Evan Minton
When it comes to investigating the evidences and arguments for and against worldviews, we need to realize that we human beings are not mere thinking machines; only considering the facts and logic, and generating conclusions based on hard, cold rationality. We’re not perfect, and one of the effects of the fall said by theologians is said to be “The Noetic Effect,” that the sin nature affects our ability to reason properly. Sin doesn’t completely debilitate us from reasoning. If that were the claim, it would be self-refuting in nature for we could ask, “Did you use your reason to come to the conclusion that you cannot trust reason?”
Nevertheless, we need to be aware that biases, emotional like or dislike of implications, and other things can lead us away from the truth. None of us is immune, whether we are Christian or Non-Christian, and each one of us needs to do deep introspection when we’re evaluating competing systems of thought. In this blog post, I will mention 5 questions we need to pose to ourselves and meditate upon when it comes to evaluating whether Christianity is true or false.
Question 1: If I Knew Beyond a Reasonable Doubt That Christianity Were True, Would I Follow Christ?
The first thing you need to decide is whether or not if Christianity were demonstrated to be true beyond a reasonable doubt, you’d become one of Christ’s followers. If you knew God existed, would you worship Him? Would you try to live the life that God wants you to live? Would you give up anything in your life that He considers sin? If you hesitate or if your answer is no, then your problem is not with regards to the strength of the evidence for Christianity or lack thereof, your problem is either emotional or moral. In other words, you simply don’t want Christianity to be true. If Christianity were true, then you would have to repent or else face judgment. Rather than live life in open rebellion against God knowing that Hell awaits, they comfort themselves by talking themselves into believing that The Bible is nothing but a book a fairy tales. It’s much easier to live your life in sin if you can convince yourself that there isn’t someone who’s going to hold you accountable beyond the grave.
If Christianity is true, then several implications follow. It means that if you’re living in sin, you’ll have to repent. Jesus said that if you even look at a woman with lust, you’ve committed adultery in your heart (Matthew 5:28), and adultery is one of the things God said not to do (Exodus 20:14). If you like to spend your evenings downloading and looking at pornography, you’ll have to get that out of your life or answer to God for it (2 Corinthians 5:10). But porn watchers don’t want to do that. Watching porn is fun! It’s exciting! Porn watchers don’t want to give up porn because they enjoy it too much. Others may want to sleep around, bouncing from woman to woman.
According to Hebrews 13:4, this is a no-no. If someone engaged in this behavior doesn’t repent, they’ll be facing judgment. Romans 1:26-28, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, and 1 Timothy 1:9-11 prohibit homosexual relationships. Some people don’t want Christianity to be true because it means they’ll have to stop having sex with their same-sex partner. 2 Corinthians 6:14 prohibits a believer marrying an unbeliever. Some people may not want Christianity to be true because they know that if it is, they need to become Christians, or else they face Hell, and if they’re Christians themselves, they’ll be prohibited from marrying their boyfriend or girlfriend who is also an unbeliever.
For many people, it’s a purely intellectual issue. Merely being presented with the evidence for Christianity, as I’ve done in several posts on this blog and as I’ve done in my books, will be sufficient to persuade them to become Christians. For others, they will talk themselves out of any argument, no matter how compelling it otherwise would be. They have to. Their autonomy is at stake.
This is why the Christian Apologist and Oxford mathematician John Lennox said: “If religion is a fairy tale for people afraid of the dark, then atheism is a fairy tale for those afraid of the light.”[1] Lennox was echoing the words of Jesus; “This is the verdict; that light has come into the world, but people loved the darkness rather than the light for their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light and will come nowhere near the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed.” (John 3:19-20).
Ask yourself, am I suppressing the truth in my unrighteousness? Is my love of sin overriding my love for finding the truth? Do I love truth when it enlightens me, but hate it when it convicts me?[2]
Love of sin is not the only non-intellectual “reason” you might have for rejecting Christ. Perhaps, like Charles Darwin,[3] you know that if Christianity is true, someone you loved who died as a non-believer is in Hell. If you can convince yourself there is no God, and there is no Hell, you don’t need to walk around with that uncomfortable thought. But, our feelings do not determine truth. How you feel about Christian doctrine is irrelevant to whether or not it’s true.
Question 2: What Evidence Would I Expect There to Be If Christianity Is True and Is This Expectation Reasonable?
The second question you need to ask yourself is how what kind of evidence you would expect to find if Christianity were true? What kind of evidence are you looking for that would lead you to say there is or is not any evidence?
For me, a universe with an ex nihilo beginning that is impeccably fine-tuned to permit life to exist on both the cosmic and local levels, the existence of the moral law, the modal possibility of the existence of a Maximally Great Being, and five historical facts about Jesus’ death and what happened afterward and the fact that only the resurrection can account for all five of those facts is exactly what I would expect if Christianity were true.
If Christianity were false, the universe should have always existed, the possibility of biological life should be way more probable, we should have no moral law written on our hearts, a Maximally Great Great Being should be conceptually incoherent, and Jesus’ tomb should have remained occupied with all of his disciples moving on with their lives as they did before they even met Jesus. But we don’t live in that kind of world.[4]
However, that’s just me. What kind of evidence are you looking for? If you say “there’s no evidence,” you must either have not encountered the aforementioned evidence, or else they don’t fit your definition of evidence. Moreover, is what kind of evidence you’re looking for reasonable to expect if the Christian worldview is true?
Perhaps your epistemology is too restrictive. There are those who hold to a view called Scientism. This view asserts that the only truth that can be known is what can be tested by science. If this view is true, then supernatural entities like God, angels, demons, souls, et al. cannot be known since they cannot be tested by science. Although, I do think that science can provide evidence in a premise in a philosophical argument for God’s existence (e.g. The Kalam’s premise that “The universe began to exist”).
If scientism is your epistemology, then it’s no wonder why you aren’t convinced by philosophical arguments for God’s existence or the historical evidence for Jesus’ divine self-understanding and resurrection from the dead. This is because philosophy and history aren’t scientific enterprises. Science is great, and it has provided us with much knowledge of our world over the past several centuries. However, it is fallacious to say that science is the only path towards truth. Think about it. Can the statement “Only science can provide knowledge” subject to scientific testing? Can you put the claim “Only what science can establish as true is true” underneath a microscope or a super collider? No! These are philosophical statements not subject to scientific testing. Since they cannot be verified through science, and only that which can be verified through science can be known, then the epistemology of scientism cannot be known! Scientism is self-refuting. It collapses under its own criterion.
Question 3: Am I Setting Too High of a Standard of Proof?
How much evidence is enough evidence? You need to reflect on whether or not you’re setting the bar too high. Are you a skeptic or a hyper-skeptic? What’s the difference? I’ll never forget a Facebook post my friend Luke Nix made several years ago. He said, “Hyper-Skepticism is having to drink an entire carton of milk before concluding that the milk is bad and should have been thrown out after the first sip.”
The fact is that the vast majority of the conclusions we reach, even in our daily lives, are based on probability, not absolute certainty. I don’t even have 100% certainty that I’m sitting at my desk right now typing up this blog post. It’s possible that I’m just a brain in a vat of chemicals with electrodes hooked up to my brain, and there’s a scientist sending stimulates into my brain to make me experience the sensation of sitting at my desk, typing up a blog post. There is a possibility that that is the case, but that possibility is so unfathomably tiny that I don’t give such a scenario any serious consideration. I am 99% certain that I am not a brain in a vat, but I still can’t get up to 100% certainty.
If you can’t believe with 100% certainty that you are not a brain in a vat of chemicals, yet you still give mental assent to the claim that the external world is real, why wouldn’t you give mental assent to the truth claims of Christianity?
J. Warner Wallace wrote that,
“In legal terms, the line that must be crossed before someone can come to the conclusion that something is evidentially true is called the ‘standard of proof” (the ‘SOP’). The SOP varies depending on the kind of case under consideration. The most rigorous of these criteria is the ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ standard that is required at criminal trials. But how do we know when we have crossed the line and are ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’? The courts have considered this important issue and have provided us with a definition:
‘Reasonable doubt is defined as follows: It is not a mere possible doubt; because everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge.’
This definition is important because it recognizes the difference between reasonable and possible that we discussed earlier. There are, according to the ruling of the court, ‘reasonable doubts,’ ‘possible doubts,’ and ‘imaginary doubts.’ The definition acknowledges something important: every case has unanswered questions that will cause jurors to wonder. All the jurors will have doubts as they come to a decision. We will never remove every possible uncertainty; that’s why the standard is not ‘beyond any doubt.’ Being ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ simply requires us to separate our possible and imaginary doubts from those that are reasonable.”[5]
Question 4: I Find Theological Position X Unreasonable. Is This a Central Tenet of Christianity or Is This Debated Within the Church? Can I Be a Christian and Still Reject X?
Just can’t bring yourself to believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old? Don’t believe a good God would causally determine people to sin? Don’t think a just God would leave people in eternal conscious torment? It’s possible that these seem unreasonable because they are unreasonable. And guess what? Many Christians would agree with you. Not every position you find a Christian defending is central to the Christian worldview. Some are. You can’t be a Christian and not believe that God exists, that God is one being who consists of three persons (The Doctrine of the Trinity), that we’re sinners in need of salvation, and that Jesus died on the cross and bodily rose from the dead. However, other issues are debatable, such as how to interpret Genesis 1, whether humans have free will or whether God causally determines all things, and whether or not God lets human experience eternal conscious torment or whether God annihilates the condemned from existence (a view known as Annihilationism).
Don’t reject Christianity simply because you find some secondary doctrine unreasonable. I myself find two of the three secondary issues mentioned above unreasonable. That’s why I’m an Evolutionary Creationist and a Molinist rather than a Young Earth Creationist and a Calvinist.
Conclusion
These are 4 questions that everyone who’s investigating the truth claims of Christianity needs to ask themselves. More importantly, you not only need to ask them to yourself; you need to reflect on them. Do introspection. We can be our own worst enemy. Don’t let yourself trip you up! Eternity is at stake!
NOTES
[1] I can’t find a written source for this quote anywhere. Evidently, it was something Lennox uttered publicly in a debate with Stephen Hawking, but this quote was never put into writing.
[2] I’m alluding to a quote attributed to St. Augustine that goes, “We love the truth when it enlightens us, but hate it when it condemns us.” Whether Augustine was the original person to say this is, like so many quotes often attributed to him, debatable. Certainly, someone at some point said it, and I have found it to be one of many true statements about humanity.
[3] Charles Darwin didn’t become an atheist because of his theory of evolution. In fact, Darwin may rightly be called the very first evolutionary creationist. He believed God used evolution to create life. I believe two things caused Darwin to turn away from God, the death of his father and the death of his
daughter, and the doctrine of Hell amplified the power of the former. Darwin wrote “I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the [New Testament] text seems to show that the men who do not believe, & this would include my Father, Brother & almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.” — Charles Darwin, as cited in the online article “The Evolution Of Darwin’s Religious Faith,” October 20, 2016, | By Ted Davis on Reading the Book of Nature – http://biologos.org/blogs/ted-davis-reading-the-book-ofnature/the-evolution-of-darwins-religious-faith#sthash.g2ZJUuV0.dpuf
[4] Check out my book The Case for The One True God: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Historical Case for The God of Christianity, where I go into these arguments and evidence in far more detail, even in more detail than I do in the articles on The Cerebral Faith website, which I linked to in the paragraph this footnote proceeded.
[5] J. Warner Wallace, Cold-Case Christianity, Kindle Locations 2163-2195, David C Cook.
Evan Minton is a Christian Apologist and blogger at Cerebral Faith (www.cerebralfaith.blogspot.com). He is the author of “Inference To The One True God” and “A Hellacious Doctrine.” He has engaged in several debates which can be viewed on Cerebral Faith’s “My Debates” section. Mr. Minton lives in South Carolina, USA.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2YUBdAL
Lógica 11: utilizando las 4 reglas para proposiciones cuantificadas
EspañolEn el artículo anterior vimos sobre las reglas de inferencia para proposiciones cuantificadas. Hoy veremos algunos ejemplos en lenguaje formal.
Instanciación Universal (UI)
Argumento:
Prueba:
Dado que Luna es un individuo específicamente elegido, podemos utilizar la letra l para representarla en nuestra prueba:
Generalización Universal (UG)
Argumento:
Todos los objetos existen o no existen.
Prueba:
Instanciación Universal (UI) y Generalización Universal (UG)
Argumento:
Prueba:
Aquí no tenemos ningún individuo específico, solo arbitrarios. Usemos la letra a para representar a nuestros individuos arbitrariamente elegidos:
Instanciación Existencial (EI), Instanciación Universal (UI) y Generalización Existencial (EG)
Argumento:
Prueba:
Recuerda siempre simbolizar primero las premisas existencialmente cuantificadas, no importa el orden de las premisas, esto es para evitar usar algún nombre específico que ha aparecido antes y podríamos cometer el error de aplicar EI a ese individuo.
PALABRAS FINALES
Con este artículo doy por terminado la serie de conceptos básicos de lógica clásica para apologistas cristianos que deseen construir sus propios argumentos con cierta noción que les ayudará a evitar algunas falacias, así como a identificar las estructuras de argumentos y demostrar si son válidos. Por supuesto, esto es solo la superficie en cuánto a la lógica clásica se refiere y no hay necesidad de que el apologista se quede solo con este conocimiento introductorio, siempre puede profundizar más en esta disciplina.
Jairo Izquierdo es parte del equipo de Social Media y autor para la organización cristiana Cross Examined. Estudia filosofía y teología, siendo su actual foco de estudio la lógica clásica, epistemología, doctrinas cristianas y lingüística. Es cofundador de Filósofo Cristiano. Es miembro en la Christian Apologetics Alliance y ministro de alabanza en la iglesia cristiana bautista Cristo es la Respuesta en Puebla, México.
4 Questions Everyone Investigating the Case for Christianity Should Ask Themselves
Atheism, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Evan Minton
When it comes to investigating the evidences and arguments for and against worldviews, we need to realize that we human beings are not mere thinking machines; only considering the facts and logic, and generating conclusions based on hard, cold rationality. We’re not perfect, and one of the effects of the fall said by theologians is said to be “The Noetic Effect,” that the sin nature affects our ability to reason properly. Sin doesn’t completely debilitate us from reasoning. If that were the claim, it would be self-refuting in nature for we could ask, “Did you use your reason to come to the conclusion that you cannot trust reason?”
Nevertheless, we need to be aware that biases, emotional like or dislike of implications, and other things can lead us away from the truth. None of us is immune, whether we are Christian or Non-Christian, and each one of us needs to do deep introspection when we’re evaluating competing systems of thought. In this blog post, I will mention 5 questions we need to pose to ourselves and meditate upon when it comes to evaluating whether Christianity is true or false.
Question 1: If I Knew Beyond a Reasonable Doubt That Christianity Were True, Would I Follow Christ?
The first thing you need to decide is whether or not if Christianity were demonstrated to be true beyond a reasonable doubt, you’d become one of Christ’s followers. If you knew God existed, would you worship Him? Would you try to live the life that God wants you to live? Would you give up anything in your life that He considers sin? If you hesitate or if your answer is no, then your problem is not with regards to the strength of the evidence for Christianity or lack thereof, your problem is either emotional or moral. In other words, you simply don’t want Christianity to be true. If Christianity were true, then you would have to repent or else face judgment. Rather than live life in open rebellion against God knowing that Hell awaits, they comfort themselves by talking themselves into believing that The Bible is nothing but a book a fairy tales. It’s much easier to live your life in sin if you can convince yourself that there isn’t someone who’s going to hold you accountable beyond the grave.
If Christianity is true, then several implications follow. It means that if you’re living in sin, you’ll have to repent. Jesus said that if you even look at a woman with lust, you’ve committed adultery in your heart (Matthew 5:28), and adultery is one of the things God said not to do (Exodus 20:14). If you like to spend your evenings downloading and looking at pornography, you’ll have to get that out of your life or answer to God for it (2 Corinthians 5:10). But porn watchers don’t want to do that. Watching porn is fun! It’s exciting! Porn watchers don’t want to give up porn because they enjoy it too much. Others may want to sleep around, bouncing from woman to woman.
According to Hebrews 13:4, this is a no-no. If someone engaged in this behavior doesn’t repent, they’ll be facing judgment. Romans 1:26-28, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, and 1 Timothy 1:9-11 prohibit homosexual relationships. Some people don’t want Christianity to be true because it means they’ll have to stop having sex with their same-sex partner. 2 Corinthians 6:14 prohibits a believer marrying an unbeliever. Some people may not want Christianity to be true because they know that if it is, they need to become Christians, or else they face Hell, and if they’re Christians themselves, they’ll be prohibited from marrying their boyfriend or girlfriend who is also an unbeliever.
For many people, it’s a purely intellectual issue. Merely being presented with the evidence for Christianity, as I’ve done in several posts on this blog and as I’ve done in my books, will be sufficient to persuade them to become Christians. For others, they will talk themselves out of any argument, no matter how compelling it otherwise would be. They have to. Their autonomy is at stake.
This is why the Christian Apologist and Oxford mathematician John Lennox said: “If religion is a fairy tale for people afraid of the dark, then atheism is a fairy tale for those afraid of the light.”[1] Lennox was echoing the words of Jesus; “This is the verdict; that light has come into the world, but people loved the darkness rather than the light for their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light and will come nowhere near the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed.” (John 3:19-20).
Ask yourself, am I suppressing the truth in my unrighteousness? Is my love of sin overriding my love for finding the truth? Do I love truth when it enlightens me, but hate it when it convicts me?[2]
Love of sin is not the only non-intellectual “reason” you might have for rejecting Christ. Perhaps, like Charles Darwin,[3] you know that if Christianity is true, someone you loved who died as a non-believer is in Hell. If you can convince yourself there is no God, and there is no Hell, you don’t need to walk around with that uncomfortable thought. But, our feelings do not determine truth. How you feel about Christian doctrine is irrelevant to whether or not it’s true.
Question 2: What Evidence Would I Expect There to Be If Christianity Is True and Is This Expectation Reasonable?
The second question you need to ask yourself is how what kind of evidence you would expect to find if Christianity were true? What kind of evidence are you looking for that would lead you to say there is or is not any evidence?
For me, a universe with an ex nihilo beginning that is impeccably fine-tuned to permit life to exist on both the cosmic and local levels, the existence of the moral law, the modal possibility of the existence of a Maximally Great Being, and five historical facts about Jesus’ death and what happened afterward and the fact that only the resurrection can account for all five of those facts is exactly what I would expect if Christianity were true.
If Christianity were false, the universe should have always existed, the possibility of biological life should be way more probable, we should have no moral law written on our hearts, a Maximally Great Great Being should be conceptually incoherent, and Jesus’ tomb should have remained occupied with all of his disciples moving on with their lives as they did before they even met Jesus. But we don’t live in that kind of world.[4]
However, that’s just me. What kind of evidence are you looking for? If you say “there’s no evidence,” you must either have not encountered the aforementioned evidence, or else they don’t fit your definition of evidence. Moreover, is what kind of evidence you’re looking for reasonable to expect if the Christian worldview is true?
Perhaps your epistemology is too restrictive. There are those who hold to a view called Scientism. This view asserts that the only truth that can be known is what can be tested by science. If this view is true, then supernatural entities like God, angels, demons, souls, et al. cannot be known since they cannot be tested by science. Although, I do think that science can provide evidence in a premise in a philosophical argument for God’s existence (e.g. The Kalam’s premise that “The universe began to exist”).
If scientism is your epistemology, then it’s no wonder why you aren’t convinced by philosophical arguments for God’s existence or the historical evidence for Jesus’ divine self-understanding and resurrection from the dead. This is because philosophy and history aren’t scientific enterprises. Science is great, and it has provided us with much knowledge of our world over the past several centuries. However, it is fallacious to say that science is the only path towards truth. Think about it. Can the statement “Only science can provide knowledge” subject to scientific testing? Can you put the claim “Only what science can establish as true is true” underneath a microscope or a super collider? No! These are philosophical statements not subject to scientific testing. Since they cannot be verified through science, and only that which can be verified through science can be known, then the epistemology of scientism cannot be known! Scientism is self-refuting. It collapses under its own criterion.
Question 3: Am I Setting Too High of a Standard of Proof?
How much evidence is enough evidence? You need to reflect on whether or not you’re setting the bar too high. Are you a skeptic or a hyper-skeptic? What’s the difference? I’ll never forget a Facebook post my friend Luke Nix made several years ago. He said, “Hyper-Skepticism is having to drink an entire carton of milk before concluding that the milk is bad and should have been thrown out after the first sip.”
The fact is that the vast majority of the conclusions we reach, even in our daily lives, are based on probability, not absolute certainty. I don’t even have 100% certainty that I’m sitting at my desk right now typing up this blog post. It’s possible that I’m just a brain in a vat of chemicals with electrodes hooked up to my brain, and there’s a scientist sending stimulates into my brain to make me experience the sensation of sitting at my desk, typing up a blog post. There is a possibility that that is the case, but that possibility is so unfathomably tiny that I don’t give such a scenario any serious consideration. I am 99% certain that I am not a brain in a vat, but I still can’t get up to 100% certainty.
If you can’t believe with 100% certainty that you are not a brain in a vat of chemicals, yet you still give mental assent to the claim that the external world is real, why wouldn’t you give mental assent to the truth claims of Christianity?
J. Warner Wallace wrote that,
Question 4: I Find Theological Position X Unreasonable. Is This a Central Tenet of Christianity or Is This Debated Within the Church? Can I Be a Christian and Still Reject X?
Just can’t bring yourself to believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old? Don’t believe a good God would causally determine people to sin? Don’t think a just God would leave people in eternal conscious torment? It’s possible that these seem unreasonable because they are unreasonable. And guess what? Many Christians would agree with you. Not every position you find a Christian defending is central to the Christian worldview. Some are. You can’t be a Christian and not believe that God exists, that God is one being who consists of three persons (The Doctrine of the Trinity), that we’re sinners in need of salvation, and that Jesus died on the cross and bodily rose from the dead. However, other issues are debatable, such as how to interpret Genesis 1, whether humans have free will or whether God causally determines all things, and whether or not God lets human experience eternal conscious torment or whether God annihilates the condemned from existence (a view known as Annihilationism).
Don’t reject Christianity simply because you find some secondary doctrine unreasonable. I myself find two of the three secondary issues mentioned above unreasonable. That’s why I’m an Evolutionary Creationist and a Molinist rather than a Young Earth Creationist and a Calvinist.
Conclusion
These are 4 questions that everyone who’s investigating the truth claims of Christianity needs to ask themselves. More importantly, you not only need to ask them to yourself; you need to reflect on them. Do introspection. We can be our own worst enemy. Don’t let yourself trip you up! Eternity is at stake!
NOTES
[1] I can’t find a written source for this quote anywhere. Evidently, it was something Lennox uttered publicly in a debate with Stephen Hawking, but this quote was never put into writing.
[2] I’m alluding to a quote attributed to St. Augustine that goes, “We love the truth when it enlightens us, but hate it when it condemns us.” Whether Augustine was the original person to say this is, like so many quotes often attributed to him, debatable. Certainly, someone at some point said it, and I have found it to be one of many true statements about humanity.
[3] Charles Darwin didn’t become an atheist because of his theory of evolution. In fact, Darwin may rightly be called the very first evolutionary creationist. He believed God used evolution to create life. I believe two things caused Darwin to turn away from God, the death of his father and the death of his
daughter, and the doctrine of Hell amplified the power of the former. Darwin wrote “I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the [New Testament] text seems to show that the men who do not believe, & this would include my Father, Brother & almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.” — Charles Darwin, as cited in the online article “The Evolution Of Darwin’s Religious Faith,” October 20, 2016, | By Ted Davis on Reading the Book of Nature – http://biologos.org/blogs/ted-davis-reading-the-book-ofnature/the-evolution-of-darwins-religious-faith#sthash.g2ZJUuV0.dpuf
[4] Check out my book The Case for The One True God: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Historical Case for The God of Christianity, where I go into these arguments and evidence in far more detail, even in more detail than I do in the articles on The Cerebral Faith website, which I linked to in the paragraph this footnote proceeded.
[5] J. Warner Wallace, Cold-Case Christianity, Kindle Locations 2163-2195, David C Cook.
Evan Minton is a Christian Apologist and blogger at Cerebral Faith (www.cerebralfaith.blogspot.com). He is the author of “Inference To The One True God” and “A Hellacious Doctrine.” He has engaged in several debates which can be viewed on Cerebral Faith’s “My Debates” section. Mr. Minton lives in South Carolina, USA.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2YUBdAL
Faith and Doubt – How to Honor God in the Midst of Your Doubts
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Mikel Del Rosario
Today, I’m pleased to feature an exclusive guest post by my friend, Dena Jackson, who is working hard to bring accessible apologetics training to our local area. Dena recently graduated with an M.A. in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. She currently trains college students at Bayside Church, where she also coordinated the 2010 Apologetics Conference featuring J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig.
Dena Jackson Talks About Faith and Doubt
How do you deal with your doubts about God and Christianity? Many of us have been taught to rebuke, bury, or pretend they’re not there. We know doubts dishonor God, so we suppress them and tout a cheery line of faith. When people ask us to answer the very questions that disturb us, we hastily encourage them to “just have faith!” We believe this is the way to glorify God.
But this may not be the best way to deal with our doubts. One of my favorite Bible stories is of a man who brings his demon-possessed boy to Jesus. The man says “if you can do anything, take pity on us and help us” (Mark 9). Jesus replies, “‘If you can?’”
Alarm bells were probably going off in the crowd surrounding Jesus. “He just said if!” That one word exposed this man’s doubts. “Quick, cover! Say, if you choose!”Jesus was clearly disappointed with this man’s doubt. Yet he does not banish the man from his presence until he could muster up faith, or at least hide his doubts. Rather, Jesus tells him that everything is possible for one who believes.
Here, Jesus reveals the true nature of the situation. This man, half doubting, half desperately hoping that Jesus can help him out, approaches Jesus and begs him to do what he can. Jesus tells the man that the question is not if He can heal the man’s son. There is no “if” about that. The question is whether the man knows Jesus can heal his son. The issue was not with Jesus. It was with the man.
This is the case with us and all our doubts about God. When we doubt God’s goodness, it is not because God is not good. It is because we lack understanding. When we doubt that God is real, it is not because of a lack of evidence. It is because there is something blocking us from seeing all the evidence. At a fundamental level, I think many of us hide our doubts from God because we are worried that our doubt reveals some deficiency in God. Not so. It reveals a deficiency in us. That is why we need to admit it to God like every other deficiency so that he can help us with it. Understanding this is pivotal.
Jesus reveals that the problem is in the man. The man’s response should be ours as well. He cries out “I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!” He confesses both his faith and his doubt. Does God like it when we doubt him? Probably not. But God is a God of truth, and He loves honesty.
Any confession of faith in the midst of doubt is extremely glorifying to God. It is easy to have faith when everything makes sense. It is difficult and painful to trust God and live for Him when things don’t seem to add up.
When you doubt, be honest. Lay bare your thoughts before God. The deficiency is in you, not in God. Show that you believe that by presenting your doubts to God and asking him to help you understand.
Let our response in the midst of doubt be:
Dealing with doubt? Check out these resources on faith and doubt:
Mikel Del Rosario helps Christians explain their faith with courage and compassion. He is a doctoral student in the New Testament department at Dallas Theological Seminary. Mikel teaches Christian Apologetics and World Religion at William Jessup University. He is the author of Accessible Apologetics and has published over 20 journal articles on apologetics and cultural engagement with his mentor, Dr. Darrell Bock. Mikel holds an M.A. in Christian Apologetics with highest honors from Biola University and a Master of Theology (Th.M) from Dallas Theological Seminary where he serves as Cultural Engagement Manager at the Hendricks Center and a host of the Table Podcast. Visit his Web site at ApologeticsGuy.com.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2xKOKPa
Give Credit Where Credit Is Due
2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Alex McElroy
I’ve never been much of an artist. I do, however, have great respect for those that possess the skill and patience to create a masterpiece. In fact, I admire anyone that can draw anything beyond a stick figure. I remember when I was growing up, my brother would draw figures from comic books, and my best drawings would pale in comparison. My wife is an amazing artist as well, and I now see similar talents in my daughter. I have to give credit where credit is due.
Often when you are in the presence of a great work of art or anything that has been finely made, you stand in awe. However, we are not simply in awe of what was made but that someone was able to conceive of and make it. The magnificence of the ceiling in the Sistine Chapel is not the details in the design of what has been painted but in the fact that Michelangelo had the ability to paint such details.
To not give credit to Michelangelo is a lesser example of not giving credit to the designer of everything… including Michelangelo. We also see evidence of design in ourselves, on the earth and in the universe. We all see it, but we don’t all give credit to whom it is due. To acknowledge a work of art while ignoring the artist is disrespectful. To benefit from the works of the ultimate artist and not give Him credit is to worship the creation while ignoring the Creator. We have a purpose precisely because the ultimate designer has purposefully designed us.
Credit for making
When we see elements of design, we always understand that a designer initiated the process. In 1953 Francis Crick helped discover DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), the molecular building blocks of life. DNA is the most complex system of message every composed. There are five levels of information transmission (statistics, cosyntics, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics). The highest level, apobetics, involves requests with an expectation of a response. DNA is information at the highest level. In other words, there is a clear design to DNA. To assume that this level of information could be achieved randomly or as a result of impersonal, non-communicative physical forces seems illogical. It seems, in that case, we would not be giving credit to whom it is due.
In Life Itself, Francis Crick proposed that some form of primordial life was shipped to the earth billions of years ago in spaceships—by supposedly ‘more evolved’ (therefore advanced) alien beings. Unfortunately, that theory still begs the question – who created the aliens? When it comes to how we’re made, maybe there is someone else we should be giving credit to.
Credit for morality
When we are trying to understand objective truths, it is helpful to note that they usually exist through their opposite. For example, we know what left is because we know what right is. Almost everyone agrees that true evil does exist. This implies that true good must exist. For those that don’t believe in God, where do you root this idea of objective good? C.S. Lewis, who was an atheist and called himself ‘England’s most reluctant convert,’ wrote, “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?”
If moral values originate from humans, they will fluctuate with the whims and preferences of humans – thereby making them subjective. If there is objective evil, then there is an objective moral law. If that is true, then there is an objective moral law-giver – God. And He deserves the credit for the moral standard that we seek to live by.
Credit for meaning
If we are the product of time plus matter plus chance, then life has no meaning. However, everything about how we live and the fact that we are able to live points to the fact that life does have meaning. It behooves us to give credit to the source of that meaning.
The worldview we espouse will, by and large, determine our understanding of the meaning of life itself. This is important because if life has no ultimate purpose, then neither do you or I. In that case; there would be no purpose to fulfill, assignment to complete, or reason to exist. Once you are clear about your origin, you can gain clarity on your purpose. Once you gain clarity on your purpose, you gain clarity on where you’re going. That clarity comes from determining what is true and by giving credit to the source of all truth.
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/2XCLosh
Siete aspectos de la vida de Jesús que son históricamente ciertos
EspañolPor Brian Chilton
Cuando llegué a tener dificultades con mi fe, no las tuve en el área de la ciencia. He creído que la ciencia y la fe pueden coexistir, y aún lo creo. El Dios que dio la revelación especial de la Biblia, es también el mismo Dios que creó los cielos y la tierra de ninguna materia existente. Mis luchas, fueron en el área de la historia. En 1997, me topé con el trabajo de un grupo llamado El Seminario de Jesús (compuesto de individuos tales como: Jhon Dominic Crossan, Robert Funk, y Marcus Borg) los cuales afirmaban que la mayoría de las palabras de Jesús, como están escritas en los evangelios, no podían ser históricamente verificadas. Más tarde me percaté en que El Seminario de Jesús, no tenía evidencias para apoyar sus afirmaciones si no que, solo contaban con sus propias presuposiciones.
Sin embargo, cuando comencé a estudiar las áreas de historia, filosofía y teología, noté que los detalles esenciales de la vida de Jesús de Nazaret pueden ser conocidos con gran certeza. Uno de mis profesores en “Liberty”, Gary Habermas, desarrolló lo que él llama “acercamiento mínimo de hechos”. Este enfoque enumera seis áreas de la vida de Jesús que son universalmente aceptadas por todos los historiadores. También agregó una séptima, la cual sostiene un gran peso como evidencia; aunque quizás no al grado que las otras seis. Entonces, ¿cuáles son estos siete aspectos históricos de la vida de Jesús que se pueden considerar con tanta certeza? Son los siguientes:
Es muy probable que, a medida que nos acercamos a la temporada de Pascua, usted se encontrará con programas de televisión, libros, y folletos que intentarán disuadirlo de creer que Jesús se levantó de entre los muertos. La realidad es que la mejor evidencia no solo apoya que Jesús vivió y murió, pero que también se levantó de entre los muertos. De la misma manera que Santiago y Pablo fueron transformados por la resurrección de Jesús, ¡tú también puedes serlo! Exclamemos en triunfo con los ángeles parados junto a la tumba de Jesús, “Él no está aquí, ¡ha resucitado!” (Lc. 24:6).
Notas
[1] Bart D. Ehrman, Porqué Jesus fué asesinado?, Edición Kindle
[2] Bart D Ehrman, Jesús existió? Este argumento histórico de Jesús de Nazaret (New York: HarperOne, 2012), 141.
[3] James D.G. Dunn, Jesús recordado, Cristianismo en la fabricación, vol.1 (Grand Rapids;Cambridge,UK: Eerdmans,2003),864.
Brian G. Chilton es el fundador de BellatorChristi.com y es el presentador de The Bellator Christi Podcast. Recibió su Maestría en Divinidad en Liberty University (con alta distinción); su Licenciatura en Ciencias en Estudios Religiosos y Filosofía de la Universidad Gardner-Webb (con honores); y recibió la certificación en Christian Apologetics (Apologética cristiana) de la Universidad de Biola. Brian actualmente está inscrito en el programa Ph.D. en Teología y apologética en Liberty University. Brian ha estado en el ministerio por más de 15 años y sirve como pastor en el noroeste de Carolina del Norte.
Blog Original: http://bit.ly/2CGBvlK
Traducido por Natalia Armando
Editado por Billy Morales
Dr. Norman Geisler’s Greatest Hits
PodcastPodcast: Play in new window
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS
Join Frank as he describes more than 50 important truths that his mentor, Dr. Norman Geisler, taught him over the years. All of these insights— some of them were profound quips— will help you defend the faith and make you a better disciple. You better get ready to listen intently because there is more than one insight per minute! Dr. Geisler wrote or co-wrote 129 books over his 86 years, and founded Southern Evangelical Seminary. That’s still a great place to learn apologetics, philosophy and theology. www.SES.edu.
If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.
Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
No, the argument from miracles has not been debunked (Pt. 1)
3. Are Miracles Possible?, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Erik Manning
Is the argument from miracles full of fallacies? Popular atheist YouTuber ‘Rationality Rules’ argues that’s the case. Rather than examining miracles on a report-by-report basis, he opts to say that the case for miracles is doomed from the start. This reasoning follows the tradition of the famous 18th-century philosopher David Hume.
For those of you who aren’t into YouTube, Rationality Rules has had his channel since March of 2017. In that short time, he’s gained over 200k subscribers and has had nearly 15 million views.
There’s a cottage industry of channels similar to his and we shouldn’t underestimate their influence. These are sharp skeptics making entertaining and digestible videos packed with thought-provoking content. As believers, we’d be lazy not to respond to their arguments.
Here’s his video on miracles in full. Here I’ll focus on his main points:
Does the argument from miracles fail to support Theism?
Here’s Rationality Rules first objection to the argument from miracles:
While I appreciate the video game reference, this argument against miracles is hardly a “game over” for the Christian. Jesus’ resurrection absolutely supports theism and fits poorly in a naturalistic worldview. For starters, the gospels report that Jesus said that the resurrection would prove his message:
Secondly, the resurrection didn’t happen in a vacuum. Jesus’ preached the kingdom of God and called himself the Son of Man. The Jewish expectation at that time was the Messiah was coming and bringing his kingdom. That’s a historical fact.
The Roman historian Suetonius says this regarding the Jewish revolt against Rome “There had spread over the Orient an old and established belief, that it was fated at that time for men coming from Judea to rule the world.”
Tacitus also picks up on this prophetic expectation: “…in most, there was a firm persuasion, that in the ancient records of their priests was contained how at this very time the East was to grow powerful, and rules, coming from Judea, were to acquire universal empire…”
The 1st-century Jewish historian Josephus also mentions this hope: “But now, what did most elevate them in undertaking this war was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how “about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth.”
All three of these ancient historians applied these Jewish predictions to the Roman Emperor Vespasian, including even Josephus, oddly enough. He was, after all, a turncoat from the Jewish side to Rome.
So where did this expectation come from? If you read the prophecies from Daniel 2, 7, and 9, there was an understanding that there would be four great kingdoms before the kingdom of God would come.
Those kingdoms were believed to be Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. During the time of the Roman kingdom, the Son of Man would bring his kingdom and reign over the whole earth. (Daniel 7:13-14) The Messiah would come some 490 years after the rebuilding of Jerusalem, which had been destroyed by the Babylonian Empire.
You can also see this expectation in the New Testament writings. Even John the Baptist had to deny that he was the Christ. (John 1:20) Luke 3:15 says “Everyone was expecting the Messiah to come soon, and eager to know whether or not John was he.” (TLB)
This is also why Paul said things like: “At the right time, Christ died for the ungodly, or “…when the time had fully come, God sent his Son….” (Romans 5:6, Galatians 4:4) And the gospel writers have Jesus repeatedly referring to his appointed hour. (John 2:4, 7:30, 8:20, 12:23-24, Mark 14:41)
These prophecies are extremely fascinating and it would take another blog post to fully unpack their importance, but here’s the point: Jesus’ resurrection wasn’t some anomalous event devoid of spiritual significance. While it wasn’t the way many Jews expected the Messiah to come, the resurrection reportedly happened in an atmosphere charged historical and religious meaning.
Furthermore, his closest followers boldly proclaimed that God raised him. And they didn’t say the resurrection was the work of some generic god, but the God of Israel who performed this amazing sign. (Acts 2:22-24) Jesus’ disciples had the best vantage point to interpret the significance of this event. The one that was raised must have said that it was God who raised him. This is hardly some random miracle.
Let’s turn to Rationality Rule’s second objection:
Is the argument from miracles an argument from personal incredulity?
Rationality Rules is right about one thing: Nature does some weird things sometimes and we’re not justified in attributing miracles to every gap in our understanding. That would be an argument from ignorance.
But let’s think about it for a moment: When it comes to the resurrection of Jesus, will there ever be a time when scientists discover a law shows that dead people do not stay dead after three days?
Given everything we know, that seems just as likely as discovering new laws that overturn the law of gravity. While there is some personal incredulity that’s unwarranted — like why flightless animals can at times rain from the sky — some things stubbornly resist our current framework of science. This has caused us to revise our framework when needed, but why can’t there be a case that’s so obstinate that it would resist scientific explanation altogether?
If atheists want to say that that can never possibly happen, that would be an extreme example of begging the question.
This is why many skeptical New Testament scholars (like Gerd Lüdemann and Michael Goulder, for instance) opt to naturalistically explain the specific evidence we have for the resurrection.
In fact, many of Rationality Rules’ fellow skeptical YouTube colleagues would seem to rather put forward arguments against the existence of the historical Jesus altogether. They clearly understand the theistic implications of the resurrection!
The argument from miracles: Not Debunked
Jesus’ resurrection was either natural or supernatural. Based on what we scientifically know today, natural causes isn’t a live option.Therefore, given that Jesus claimed to be divine and those who saw him after his resurrection claimed God raised him, the supernatural explanation is the most plausible one. This is especially true when we consider how poorly naturalistic explanations fare in comparison.
This isn’t an argument from ignorance, it’s just abductive logic — inference to the best explanation. We use this type of reasoning all the time, especially in science, history and in cases of law.
So unless we beg the question against the existence of God, we can’t just rule out miracles from the get-go. Now, Rationality Rules could try and debunk the evidence for the resurrection, but if he does that, he repudiates his second argument against miracles.
But Rationality Rules has two more objections to the argument from miracles. In my next post, we’ll look at them and see if those arguments stick better than his first couple. So far, he’s not off to a promising start.
Erik Manning is a former atheist turned Christian after an experience with the Holy Spirit. He’s a freelance baseball writer and digital marketing specialist who is passionate about the intersection of evangelism and apologetics.
Unseen Realm Part 2
PodcastPodcast: Play in new window
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS
How many spiritual beings are there? How can we discern what comes from God and what comes from dark forces? How do we explain two Yahwehs in the Old Testament? Join Frank for Part 2 as he interviews Dr. Michael Heiser about his book Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible. (Listen to Part 1 first). Beware: your view of the Bible may be rocked as a result of this interview! Check out Dr. Heiser at www.DRMSH.com and on his Naked Bible podcast.
If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.
Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
Are Mormon doctrines supported by philosophy, science and history?
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Wintery Knight
This post presents evidence against Mormonism/LDS in three main areas. The first is in the area of science. The second is in the area of philosophy. And the third is in the area of history.
The scientific evidence
First, let’s take a look at what the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, believes about the origin of the universe:
A Mormon scholar named Blake Ostler summarizes the Mormon view in a Mormon theological journal:
So, Mormons believe in an eternally existing universe, such that matter was never created out of nothing, and will never be destroyed. But this is at odds with modern cosmology.
The Big Bang cosmology is the most widely accepted cosmology of the day. It denies the past eternality of the universe. This peer-reviewed paper in an astrophysics journal explains. (full text here)
Excerpt:
Christian cosmology requires such a creation out of nothing, but this is clearly incompatible with what Mormons believe about the universe. The claims about the universe made by the two religions are in disagreement, and we can test empirically to see who is right, using science.
Philosophical problems
Always Have a Reason contrasts two concepts of God in Mormonism: Monarch theism and Polytheism. It turns out that Mormonism is actually a polytheistic religion, like Hinduism. In Mormonism, humans can become God and then be God of their own planet. So there are many Gods in Mormonism, not just one.
Excerpt:
The idea of counting up to an actual infinite number of things by addition (it doesn’t matter what kind of thing it is) is problematic. See here.
More:
Now let’s see the historical evidence against Mormonism.
The historical evidence
J. Warner Wallace explains how the “Book of Abraham,” a part of the Mormon Scriptures, faces historical difficulties.
The Book of Abraham papyri are not as old as claimed:
The Book of Abraham papyri do not claim what Joseph Smith said:
So there is a clear difference hear between the Bible and Mormonism, when it comes to historical verification.
Further study
If you want a nice long PDF to print out and read at lunch (which is what I did with it), you can grab this PDF by Michael Licona, entitled “Behold, I Stand at the Door and Knock.“
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/324GEPv
Don’t Buy “The Science Guy”
Atheism, Philosophy of Science, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Bob Perry
Bill Nye, “The Science Guy” used to host an enjoyable and informative TV program for kids. In the last few years, however, Bill Nye has entered into a different realm. Apparently, he fancies himself an arbiter of all truth; the man who can quite literally save the world. But if you have any interest whatsoever in seeking that truth in a coherent, consistent, intelligent way, please watch this two-and-a-half-minute video. As you do, think about what he is saying. And don’t just focus on his defense of Evolution. Listen to his method of reasoning. It really is beyond me how someone who is considered a scientific sage could ever deliver such a rambling string of nonsense. But he doesn’t stop there. He goes on to admonish anyone who dares to disagree with him. And if you do, he wants you to shut up and leave the education of your children to real scientists… like him.
The Actual Bill Nye
There are a few facts you should know about Mr. Nye that are directly applicable to the content of this video. For starters, one would think that the media’s favorite “science guy” would be … Oh, I don’t know … an actual scientist. In fact, given the topic of this video, we might assume that our “science guy” would have some kind of background or advanced degree in the biological sciences. Bad assumption.
Bill Nye has nothing of the kind.
Mr. Nye’s education consists of a B. S. in Mechanical Engineering from Cornell University. While he was a student there, he took an astronomy class from Carl Sagan. Thus ends the list of Bill Nye’s scientific credentials.
After college, Nye was hired by the Boeing Aircraft Company in Seattle, Washington. There, he developed a hydraulic pressure resonance suppressor. But that wasn’t what gained him his notoriety. His real fame came after he won a Steve Martin look-alike contest and started doing stand-up comedy in Seattle nightclubs in 1978. Since then, he has received two Honorary Doctorate Degrees. But these weren’t awarded for scientific work. They were conferred on him for giving a couple of college commencement addresses after he became “Bill Nye, The Science Guy.”
You can’t make this stuff up.
Ridicule Is Not an Argument
I want to be fair here. Just because Bill Nye’s resumé as a “science guy” is lacking, it doesn’t mean we should dismiss him out of hand. We need to look at his arguments. But we also need to recognize the difference between an argument and an assertion. Anyone can make assertions. But no one should accept those assertions unless they are supported by evidence, logic, and sound reasoning. Mr. Nye gives none of these. He simply offers a diatribe that completely collapses when you take the time to think about what he’s saying. So, let’s look at Mr. Nye’s case.
What Does He Mean by ‘Evolution’?
The “science guy” starts off by lecturing us about how ridiculous it is to not believe in “evolution.” The problem is, he never defines what he means by the word. Does he mean that species change and adapt to the environment? If so, I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a single person who doesn’t believe that. But there are several other definitions of evolution. Which one must we accept?
Let’s assume that Mr. Nye subscribes to the most comprehensive definition of evolution. This is what I refer to as Big ‘E’ Evolution. It’s the idea that all life is the result of a purposeless, materialistic process that began by a random accident. That process can account for every imaginable life form, from the first self-replicating, single-celled organism to you and me.
Let’s break down his argument.
Truth Doesn’t Depend On Geography
First, he offers us this:
“Denial of evolution is unique to the United States … we are the world’s most advanced technological society … people move to the United States because of our general understanding of science.”
This first assertion is baseless and demonstrably false. I know of plenty of folks who live all over the world who do not accept ‘Evolution.’ They do so because they have not seen any credible evidence to support the most comprehensive view of evolution Mr. Nye subscribes to. But let’s say Mr. Nye is correct. Let’s pretend the only people who don’t believe in Evolution are Americans. What does this prove?
Nothing.
Where someone lives does not determine the truth content of what they believe. And the claim that people immigrate to the United States because of our general understanding of science is ridiculous on its face.
Denying Evolution Holds People Back?
But what of Bill Nye’s second assertion? Here, he claims that:
“When you have a portion of the population that doesn’t believe in Evolution, it holds everybody back.”
How, exactly, did Mr. Nye come to this conclusion? My undergraduate education is in Aerospace Engineering. I learned how to design airplanes and then how to fly them. I don’t accept Evolution. So how is it that I am “holding everybody back”?
To show the absurdity of it, let’s turn this one around. Suppose I claimed that those who do accept Evolution are holding everybody back. Would that be a valid argument against Evolution? Not in the least.
Misapplying Metaphors
So far, Mr. Nye’s comments have only demonstrated some flaws in basic logic. But then he takes things further and detonates a suicide vest on any trust we should have in him as a “scientist.”
“Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science … [Not believing in it] is analogous to doing geology and not believing in tectonic plates … you’re just not gonna get the right answer. Your whole world is just gonna be a mystery instead of an exciting place.”
Whatever one thinks of the concept of Evolution, there is one fact about it that we all agree on. Evolution is a process that explains the emergence and diversity of life on Earth. It is a noble attempt to explain how life emerged from the chemical elements that existed on the early Earth. It is a theory about how those chemicals combined and interacted with one another to produce complex biological systems that live and grow and reproduce.
The heart of Evolution is a process, not the parts that are used by the process.
So, let’s look at Mr. Nye’s comments in that light. He mentions tectonic plates. Tectonic plates are enormous slabs of rock in the Earth’s crust that slide and rub against one another to cause earthquakes. Geology is the study of the process that moves those plates around. So, Mr. Nye is confusing the plates with the process that moves them. He doesn’t seem to understand that he is equating completely non-analogous categories of things. Parts are physical things. But the processes that act on those things are something completely different. It seems to me a “science guy” would comprehend the difference.
A “Complicated” World
Building on his last point, Bill Nye begins his transition to questioning the character and motives of those who disagree with him;
“Once in a while, I get people who don’t really — who claim — they don’t believe in evolution. My response is, ‘Why not?’ Your world just becomes fantastically complicated when you don’t believe in evolution.”
Notice that Mr. Nye believes that no one could really disbelieve in Evolution. They only “claim” to do so. And he never offers any examples of the responses he receives to his “Why not?” question. Who is he asking? Why does he dismiss them? We can’t really know how to evaluate their answers unless we know the actual reasons they are giving. The fact that Mr. Nye doesn’t accept their responses is hardly a reason for us to reject them. After all, we’ve already demonstrated that his reasoning in support of Evolution is flawed.
But there’s another question. Why would someone’s rejection of Evolution make their world “fantastically more complicated”? Once again, the conclusion does not follow.
Using Young Earth Creationist Logic
Mr. Nye’s next point is pretty fantastic all by itself. And let me be clear. I am not taking a stand one way or the other about the age of the universe here. I am simply pointing out how Mr. Nye is using the same logic as a young earth creationist when he says this:
“Here are these ancient dinosaur bones … radioactivity … distant stars … the idea of deep time … billions of years … if you try to ignore that your worldview just becomes crazy.”
Here, Mr. Nye says that rejecting Evolution is the equivalent with believing in a young universe. Or, conversely, believing in an old universe means that you accept Evolution. But, once again, he is confusing categories.
Evolution is a theory about biology. The age of the universe comes from the study of cosmology. These are completely different areas of study! All one would have to do to show that Mr. Nye’s assertion is false is declare themselves to be either an “old universe, non-Evolutionist,” or a “young universe Evolutionist.” Voila!
This is the same false equivalence most young-Earth creationists use against those of us who believe the universe is old. I wonder how Mr. Nye would react if someone pointed out to him that his thinking is exactly like the young-Earth creationists he abhors.
Questioning Your Parenting
Finally, Bill Nye makes it personal. He wants you to know that if you disagree with him, your status as a parent is in question:
“I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world that is completely inconsistent with the universe, that’s fine … but don’t make your kids do it … because we need them … we need engineers who can build things and solve problems …”
Once again, Mr. Nye demonstrates his failure to understand basic logic when he ties belief in Evolution to our ability to produce “engineers who can build things and solve problems.”
It seems fairly obvious that one can be a perfectly competent airplane designer and not have any opinion about Evolution. In fact, a highly competent engineer can be completely ignorant about the concept of Evolution. Mr. Nye proved that himself when he designed a hydraulic pressure resonance suppressor for Boeing.
But beyond that, Mr. Nye has stepped out of a scientific critique (if you could consider him to have ever been inside one). In his arrogance, he assumes he has the right to tell you what you should be allowed to teach your children.
The Totalitarian Impulse
This is the totalitarian impulse. It’s a mindset that thinks some people can determine what other people should be allowed to think. Those of us who honor scientific objectivity, free thought, and academic tolerance need to recognize this kind of talk when we hear it. People who think like this are the most intolerant kinds of people in the world. They are destroying the concept of free thought in the academy. It is intellectual dishonesty writ large. And it can become dangerous for those who don’t think the “right way.”
Mr. Nye insists that you need to believe in Evolution. If you don’t, you must be overcome because our society needs “… scientifically literate voters and taxpayers.”
Be careful what you wish for, Mr. Nye. If scientific literacy suddenly became a prerequisite for voting, it looks to me like a certain “science guy” would have to stay home on election day.
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/30bWkij