PRELIMINARY REMARKS
Writing an article on the fine-tuning of the universe that is too short and simple runs the risk of being the target of doubts and objections, and a lengthy and technical exposition runs the risk of being difficult for the reader to understand or even boring due to the complexity of the content. That is why I am grateful to Professor Robin Collins for not only allowing me to translate much of his work, but also for providing me with the slides that he uses in his lectures on the fine-tuning of the universe, which is the visual material that I will use in this article.
WHAT IS FINE TUNING?
Before we make an argument about fine-tuning, the first thing to do is to know what fine-tuning is and whether there is such a thing for the universe. Well, by fine-tuning we mean the fact that the universe is extremely fine-tuned for the existence of what Professor Collins calls “embodied conscious agents,” which require stable and reproducible complexity. An analogy for the universe would be a biosphere. The biosphere has to be perfectly structured and fine-tuned to be self-sustaining (the right environment, energy consumption, etc.) so that human beings can exist in it. The universe is like that, that is how it must be structured in an extraordinary way.
Three kinds of Fine Tuning for life
The evidence for fine-tuning of the universe is of three kinds:
- The fine-tuning of the laws of nature.
- Fine-tuning of physical constants.
- The fine-tuning of the initial mass-energy distribution of the universe at the time of the Big Bang.
The Fine Tuning of the Laws of Nature
When we talk about the fine-tuning of the laws of nature we mean that the universe must have precisely the right set of laws in order for highly complex life to exist.
Examples:
- Existence of Gravity.
- Existence of the Electromagnetic Force.
- Existence of the Strong Nuclear Force.
- Existence of the Quantification Principle.
- Existence of the Pauli Exclusion Principle.
Let’s take the existence of gravity, without it you have no stars, you have no planets, and therefore you have no life! Or without the Electromagnetic Force you would have no atoms, so you would not get life either, then you have no chemical bond, and of course, you have no life either.
We can mention other examples, but this is enough to understand that the appropriate laws are necessary for life of great complexity to exist. If any of these laws were missing, such a type of life would be impossible.
Fine-tuning of physical constants
By physical constants, we mean the fundamental numbers that occur in the laws of physics, many of which must be fine-tuned to an extraordinary degree for life to occur.
For example, take the Gravitational Constant—designated by G—which determines the strength of gravity through Newton’s Law of Gravity:
Where F is the force between two masses, m 1 and m 2 , that are a distance r apart. If you increase or decrease G then the force of gravity will correspondingly increase or decrease. (The actual value of G is 6.67 x 10 -11 Nm 2 / kg 2 .)
Now, to get an idea of how finely tuned the force of gravity indicated by G is we must first look at the range of fundamental forces in nature:
Note that the Strong Nuclear Force is 10,000 sextillion [1] times the Force of Gravity. Too complicated? Well, let’s make this more digestible. Imagine you have a ruler big enough to stretch across the entire universe, now we’ll place the points where the Force of Gravity and the Strong Nuclear Force would be located. We’d get something like this:
Now, Professor Collins calculates that if you increase the Force of Gravity by one part in 1034 of the range of the fundamental forces (i.e. a billion-fold increase in strength), then even single-celled organisms would be crushed, and only planets smaller than about 31 metres in diameter could support life with our brain size. Such planets, of course, would not be able to support an ecosystem to sustain life for our level of intelligence.
We could continue giving examples of what would happen if you kept playing with the value of the Gravity Force, but I think this one is more than enough to understand what we are talking about.
So we can see that for life to occur, the Force of Gravity must fall within a very, very narrow range of values compared to the total range of the fundamental forces.
Let’s look at one more analogy. Imagine a radio dial large enough to span the entire universe. The station WKLF (K-Life) allows life. So:
Only by tuning into the right frequency (the first thousandth of an inch) of all those on the radio dial (more than 15 billion light years away) can you get a universe with life.
And so the same thing would happen if you were to play around with the values of the other constants, if they had slightly different values then complex material systems would not arise, so if you want life to exist then the constants of physics must fall within a very narrow range of values. This is widely acknowledged, the famous cosmologist, Stephen Hawking, says:
The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers [i.e. the constants of physics] seem to have been very finely tuned to make the development of life possible. [2]
Former director of Cambridge University Observatories, Dr Dennis Sciama, also states:
If you change the laws of nature a little bit, or you change the constants of nature a little bit… it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop. [3]
Fine-tuning the Initial Mass-Energy Distribution
What does the fine-tuning of the initial mass-energy distribution mean? Well, according to standard cosmology, the universe started with the Big Bang, about 13.7 billion years ago. All the matter was condensed into a region smaller than the size of a golf ball, then it exploded and expanded. And in order for that matter to get galaxies, and to get life, it had to have a very precise arrangement. Professor Collins gives us an analogy of this: If you look at a zygote with a powerful microscope, you would see that it is intricately structured. It wouldn’t look that way from the outside, you would just see it as a blob of protoplasm, but under the microscope, you would have an intricate structure of DNA and all the other kinds of organelles in cells to make up a human being. So, in the same way, the universe has to be in an extremely precise state, and those are the initial conditions, the fine-tuning of mass-energy to get galaxies, stars, and ultimately to get like us.
Now comes the important question, how precise must the initial mass-energy distribution be for life to exist? Well, Roger Penrose, one of the UK’s leading theoretical physicists and cosmologists answers this question in his book The Emperor’s New Mind :
(Phase space is a space of possibilities, with a standard probability measure that tells us how likely it is to be in that part of that possibility space.)
A figure so incredibly large that Penrose says:
We couldn’t even write the whole number in ordinary decimal notation: it would be a “1” followed by 10 123 “0”s. Even if we wrote a “0” for every proton and every neutron in the entire Universe—and added all the other particles as well—we would still be way short [4] .
Here is an analogy for the formidable precision of the Big Bang explosion according to Penrose’s calculations, which must be much greater than that needed to blow up a pile of rubble into a fully formed building filled with desks, tables, chairs and computers!
So we can conclude that the initial mass-energy distribution must fall within an excessively narrow range for complex life to occur.
Summary
We have seen that for complex life to exist in the universe, it has to be well structured as a biosphere, and that we have not just one piece of evidence for this, but many pieces of evidence that point to such fine-tuning, and these are the cases of the fine-tuning of the laws of physics, of the physical constants and of the initial distribution of mass and energy.
FORMULATING THE UNIVERSE FINE-TUNING ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
There are different ways to formulate an argument from fine-tuning, in this post I will focus only on the versions of William Lane Craig, Robin Collins, and Peter S. Williams.
William Lane Craig’s Fine-Tuning Argument
What is the reason for this fine-tuning? Well, there are three options that have been offered as the best explanation and with which we can formulate our first premise of the argument:
- The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to physical necessity, chance, or design.
Physical need
Let’s first consider the physical necessity alternative. This alternative tells us that the universe must be one that permits life – in other words, that the values and constants cannot be any other way. In this alternative, the existence of a universe that prohibits life is impossible . Of course, that is a mistake, since such a universe is not only possible , but much more probable than a universe that permits life! And the reason for this is because the constants and quantities are not determined by the laws of nature – they cannot be predicted on the basis of current physical theory. There is no reason or evidence to suggest that fine-tuning is necessary.
One could appeal to string theory, but this does not settle the matter at all. Stephen Hawking says:
Even if we understand the ultimate theory, it is not going to tell us much about how the universe began. It cannot predict the dimensions of spacetime, the symmetry group or Gauge group, or other parameters of the effective low-energy theory… It is not going to determine how this energy is partitioned between conventional matter, and a cosmological constant, or quintessence… So to return to the question… Does string theory predict the state of the universe? The answer is that it does not. It allows for a vast landscape of possible universes, in which we occupy an anthropically allowed location [5] .
And that vast landscape of possible universes that string theory allows for is about 100,500 different universes, all of them governed by the present laws of nature, so it does nothing to deliver the observed values of the constants and physical quantities in a necessary way.
Chance/brute fact hypothesis
Now let’s move on to our second alternative: Chance or brute fact.
One Universe Theory
This hypothesis comes in two forms, the first is with respect to the one universe theory, i.e. our universe is the only one in existence. Those who hold this alternative tell us that the fact that a life-supporting universe exists is just a chance occurrence that has and requires no explanation. In simpler words, our existence is just an “extraordinarily lucky accident.” Of course, this hypothesis is not accepted among most people because of its improbability. As Robin Collins exemplifies, it would be as improbable as believing that a painting of Abraham Lincoln’s face is the result of an extraordinarily lucky ink spill, because it is not only extraordinarily improbable, but it is highly significant, these two characteristics go together.
Professor Peter S. Williams puts it this way, we do not infer intelligent design just from high improbability, but from the combination of a “highly improbable” event with a “very special” pattern. He says:
A long string of random letters is complex (unlikely) but unspecified (does not fit any independently determined pattern). A short string of letters might be specified – such as the word “so” – but it would not be sufficiently complex to overcome chance’s ability to explain the event. Neither complexity without specificity nor specificity without complexity requires us to infer design. However, if you saw a Shakespeare play written on a Scrabble board, you would infer design. A play is both specific and sufficiently complex to merit an inference of design on the grounds that “in all cases where we know the causal origin of… specific complexity, experience has shown that intelligent design plays a causal role” [6] . So too with cosmic fine-tuning [7] .
Professor Williams gives us another analogy: Imagine you see someone enter a sequence of numbers into an ATM and then get their money back. What would you infer from this situation? Was the subject lucky or did they get their money by design? It is when a complex, contingent event matches a specific, independent pattern that we infer design.
Multiverse Theory
But maybe if you spilled ink enough times you would get Lincoln’s face, or if you put too many monkeys with too many typewriters, one of them might write a paragraph of Shakespeare’s play. This is what is known as the so-called “multiverse hypothesis,” according to which there are a huge number of universes with not only different initial conditions, but also with different values of the constants of physics, and even laws of nature. Therefore, simply by chance, some universe will have the “winning combination” for life and thus have an explanation for why a universe exists that allows life. The most common analogy proposed by the proponents of this hypothesis is that of the lottery, in the same way that you can draw many tickets with different combinations of numbers, only one of them has the “winning combination” and the person who gets that ticket will simply be the winner by luck, a mere matter of probability. This hypothesis is widely accepted and has quite prominent proponents, such as Professor Max Tegmark, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cosmologist, Sir Martin Rees, Astronomer to the Royal Family of Great Britain, Stephen Hawking, among many others.
Purely Metaphysical Version
The multiverse theory has two versions, the first of which is the Purely Metaphysical version , which tells us that all possible universes exist, all possible realities exist, so there is one reality where the Marvel universe really exists, another reality where the Lord of the Rings books are true, all those universes exist as a brute fact without any further explanation. This version, for obvious reasons, is not widely defended today.
Universe Generator Version
This hypothesis tells us that universes are generated by some physical process that Professor Collins calls a “Universe Generator.” Unlike the metaphysical version, the Universe Generator version is defended by many leaders in cosmology such as Andrei Linde of Stanford University and Britain’s Sir Martin Rees.
So you pick the ocean of your choice, then pour a lot of soap on it, so thousands of bubbles are formed, and these are the universes, of course, the ocean keeps expanding at a great rate so the bubbles never collide with each other.
We now turn to the answer that Robin Collins focuses on to rule out the Universe Generator hypothesis, which is this: The Universe Generator itself would have to be “well designed” to produce a single universe that would support life.
Professor Collins gives us the following analogy of the Universe Generator:
Much like the bread machine, it seems that the Universe Generator must have the right laws and have the right ingredients (initial conditions) to produce universes that support life.
Professor Collins tells us that if we examine the super-string inflationary multiverse carefully, it requires at least five special mechanisms/laws in order to produce at least one life-supporting universe. So he simply sends the design issue up one level. Collins concludes that at best, the Universe Generator hypothesis eliminates the quantitative case for design based on fine-tuning of constants, but it still requires precise laws and the right initial conditions in order to work. So after all, we can still ask the valid question: “Who or what ‘designed’ the Universe Generator?”
Design Hypothesis
Since we have ruled out physical necessity and chance from our basket of alternatives, we can now state the second premise of our argument:
- The fine-tuning of the universe is due neither to physical necessity nor to chance.
But if that is the case, then it inevitably follows that
- Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is due to design.
One would think that the “design” alternative is just an option offered by theists on a whim or because they simply “need to fill the gap” left by science, so it must necessarily be included in the list of explanations and not as a common sense interpretation. But that is not so, that fine-tuning is due to design is not only a claim made by theistic cosmologists, but by non-theists as well! Theoretical physicist and popular science writer Paul Davies states: “The impression of design is overwhelming” [8] and astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle, who was an atheist, once stated: “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has tinkered with physics… and that there are no blind forces of nature . ”
Robin Collins’ Fine-Tuning Argument
The main feature of this argument is that it does not say that the evidence for fine-tuning proves that the universe was designed, or even that the universe is likely to have been designed. Rather, the argument simply concludes that fine-tuning strongly supports theism over the atheistic one-universe hypothesis.
Our first premise of the argument can be stated as follows:
- The existence of fine-tuning is not improbable under theism.
As we have seen throughout the article, justifying this premise is easy and not at all controversial: since God is a good being and it is good that intelligent and conscious beings exist, it is neither surprising nor unlikely that God would create a world that can sustain intelligent life.
The following premise may be as follows:
- The existence of fine-tuning is highly unlikely under the atheistic single-universe hypothesis.
This premise encompasses the options presented in an atheistic worldview: chance/brute fact and physical necessity. The objections are the same as those we used above for Craig’s argument.
And the conclusion of the argument would be:
- From premises (1) and (2) and by inference from the overriding confirmation principle, it follows that the fine-tuning data provide strong evidence in favor of the design hypothesis over the atheistic single-universe hypothesis.
This is the way Collins presents his argument. The evidence for fine-tuning is a lot like fingerprints found on a gun: although they may provide strong evidence that the defendant committed the murder, one cannot, from the evidence, conclude that the defendant is guilty; one would also have to look at the counter-evidence offered. For example, ten reliable witnesses claimed to have seen the defendant in the park at the time of the shooting. In this case, the fingerprints would still count as significant evidence of guilt, but this evidence would be counterbalanced by the testimony of the witnesses. Similarly, the evidence for fine-tuning strongly supports theism over the atheistic one-universe hypothesis, although it does not by itself show that everything that is considered theism is the most plausible explanation of the world. Nevertheless, as we have seen so far, the evidence for fine-tuning provides a much stronger and more objective argument for theism than the strongest atheistic argument against theism.
Peter Williams’ Fine-Tuning Argument
The first premise of Williams’ argument [9] is as follows:
- If something exhibits specified complexity, then it is probably the product of design.
This premise appeals to our common sense of inferring design when we see a “highly improbable” event with a “very special” pattern. This is not a religious claim or a bias coming from the theist; as we have seen above, the design inference for cosmic fine-tuning arises naturally even among atheist physicists.
Our second premise is as follows:
- The fine-tuning of the universe exhibits specified complexity.
It is obvious that nothing more needs to be said to justify this premise than what has been presented for the previous arguments. It can therefore be concluded that:
- Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is probably the product of design.
GENERAL CONCLUSION
So at the end of the day we have a very strong case for the fine-tuning of the universe, and in turn at least three ways to make an argument for the existence of God.
I would like to end this article with a few words from King David:
The heavens declare the glory of God. The skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day by day he tells the world, night by night he makes it known. (Psalm 19:2)
Grades
[1] Translating the huge quantities from English to Spanish is complicated because it is also necessary to convert from the English system of measurement to the international one. For the conversion of the measurements my friend Chris A. Du-Pond helped me with this.
[2] Hawking, 1988, A Brief History of Time , p. 125.
[3] From the BBC special, “The Anthropic Principle.”
[4] Roger Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind , p. 310
[5] SW Hawking, “Cosmology from the Top Down” a paper presented at the Cosmic Inflation Conference at Davis, University of California, Davis, May 29, 2003.
[6] Stephen C. Meyer, ‘Teleological Evolution: The Difference it Doesn’t Make’, www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_teleologicalevolution.htm
[7] Peter S. Williams, “Five Arguments For Theism,” http://www.peterswilliams.com/2016/02/09/five-arguments-for-theism/#_edn8
[8] Paul Davies, The Cosmic Code, 1988, p. 203
[9] http://www.peterswilliams.com/2016/02/09/five-arguments-for-theism/ (Last visited October 17, 2018).
Jairo Izquierdo Hernandez is the founder of Christian Philosopher . He currently works as Social Media Director and author for the Christian organization Cross Examined . He is a member of the Christian Apologetics Alliance and a worship minister at the Christian Baptist Church Christ is the Answer in Puebla, Mexico.
Christians and Donald Trump
PodcastPodcast: Play in new window
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS
A controversial topic with a controversial author about a controversial figure. Frank interviews Dr. Michael Brown about his new book: Donald Trump is Not my Saviour.
As a Christian, how can you support a president whose present actions and personal history you utterly disagree with? Radio host, Biblical scholar, and social activist, Dr. Michael Brown, represented the collective fears of many evangelical Christians when it became clear that Donald J. Trump would emerge as the presidential candidate for the Republican Party.
Dr. Brown talks about this difficult topic with wisdom and clarity. You don’t want to miss this fascinating interview.
10 Signs the Christian Authors You’re Following are (Subtly) Teaching Unbiblical Ideas
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Natasha Crain
My friend, Alisa Childers, recently wrote a review of the bestselling book, Girl, Wash Your Face, by Rachel Hollis. It started a firestorm of online discussion about what makes someone a “Christian” author, what responsibility a self-identified Christian author has in promoting ideas consistent with biblical faith, and what harm there can be for Christians reading books that contain nonbiblical ideas.
I personally haven’t read the book, so I’m not going to comment on it specifically. But I will say I was extremely disappointed and saddened to see the kinds of comments supporters of the book wrote:
“It wasn’t meant to be a devotional.”
“She’s not teaching theology.”
“Our job is not to seek people out and hate them.”
“Stop competing! Just imagine what the non-Christians think about the McJudgies! We need to focus inward because the project within ourself is the most important work we will accomplish. Don’t use your blog to bring someone down.”
Unfortunately, such comments are representative of the lack of discernment common in the church today. If Alisa fairly characterized the claims of Hollis’s book, Hollis is promoting ideas that conflict with a biblical worldview. And when there is a concern that millions of women are consuming content from a Christian author that can lead them to embrace unbiblical ideas, we should be raising a warning flag and calling out for discernment in the body of Christ.
It’s not about being a “McJudgey.”
It’s about discerning biblical truth from non-truth…something the Bible consistently tells us to do.
While this post isn’t directly related to parenting (which I normally write about), it’s something that affects parenting. When parents readily incorporate popular but unbiblical ideas into their worldview, those ideas will affect how they raise their kids and the nature of the worldview they pass on.
The following are 10 signs that the Christian authors you’re following may be subtly teaching unbiblical ideas. I say “subtly” because I think most people would spot a problem immediately if a Christian said they didn’t believe in the Trinity. But it’s just as important to identify when less obvious warning signs—like the following—are present.
It’s become popular for writers to trumpet that they love Jesus but (fill in the blank). When you see a sentence start this way, be prepared for one of two things to follow.
First, it may be something that the author knows is contrary to what Jesus would have approved of. For example, if you Google “I love Jesus but,” you’ll find a whole industry of shirts, mugs, and other things that say “I love Jesus, but I like to cuss.” Is this really something that glorifies the God you say you love? If you have to use “but” as a contrasting word between loving Jesus and making a statement about what you do and/or say, it’s probably not something to be proud of. When authors do this to be more likable to their audience, it’s often a sign that other unbiblical ideas will follow.
Second, it may be something that isn’t in contrast to loving Jesus at all, but the author wants you to think they’re different than the negative stereotype of Christians. For example, they’ll say something like, “I love Jesus, but I’ll never claim I have all the answers”… implying, of course, that Christians normally claim they have all the answers. Non-believers may think Christians feel this way because Christians believe Christianity is a matter of objective truth, but that doesn’t mean Christians claim to have all answers or that acceptance of objective truth is problematic.
Unfortunately, the idea that Jesus somehow hates religion has become popular even amongst Christians who otherwise hold biblically solid beliefs. If Jesus truly hated religion, the popularity of this idea wouldn’t be an issue. The problem is that Jesus doesn’t hate religion. He hates false religion. Without writing an entire post on this (there’s a whole chapter in my next book about it), the bottom line is that there’s no need to separate Jesus from religion that is true. Christianity is simply the name for the religion whose set of beliefs center on who Jesus is and that calls us to know, worship, serve and obey Him. In other words, Christianity is a religion centered on a relationship.
When authors start writing negatively about “organized religion” in general, and place that in opposition to their own personal relationship with Jesus, it’s often because they are going to 1) challenge the idea of objective truth (thereby suggesting that uniform religious belief found in “organized religion” is bad) and/or 2) value their personal spiritual insights over God’s revelation to humankind through the Bible (personal experience becomes authority).
True religion glorifies God (James 1:27) and isn’t something Christians should denounce.
Authenticity simply means honesty. At first blush, it doesn’t sound like that has anything to do with the Bible, and, if anything, it seems like it should go hand-in-hand with the Bible. However, in practice, authors who emphasize how “messy” their lives are and how “authentic” they are going to be with you about that messiness often use the opportunity to normalize sin.
As with several of these points, this is not always the case. Some authors who speak in these terms use it as an opportunity to point back to God. But I’ve seen it go the other way more often than not, so it makes the list.
Another approach to “spirituality” that has become trendy is focusing more on raising questions about faith than sharing biblically sound answers. Authors who identify as progressive Christians sometimes go so far as to accuse other Christians of being afraid of questions and look skeptically upon anyone who attempts to answer the questions they raise.
Now, if you’ve read my blog for any amount of time (or my books, for that matter), you know that I’m all about raising tough faith questions with your kids…questions are extremely important. But questions also need to be addressed to the extent we can, given what the Bible tells us.
People who value questions more than answers are often uncomfortable with the idea of objective truth—that there is a truth independent of our personal experience. Everything Jesus taught assumed that there is truth independent of our personal experience and that He is that truth. If an author is uncomfortable with the idea of objective truth, they’re uncomfortable with Jesus.
One extremely popular author wrote on her Facebook page recently that she wanted to make it very clear where she stands on social issues. Getting “clear” on these things included making a completely uncontroversial statement for any Christian: she “cherishes the humanity of the LGBT community.”
All Christians should cherish the humanity of every community because we are all made in the image of God.
That’s never been a question.
But, of course, she said this implying that anyone who holds to a biblical view of marriage somehow does not cherish the humanity of the LGBT community. It’s a very misleading move to make a statement that no Christian should disagree with in order to suggest it’s something that those who take a different position than the author on a moral issue would disagree with.
Someone recently told me that people in his denomination don’t value apologetics (why there’s good reason to believe Christianity is true) because their apologetics are in their actions. This attitude, effectively, is what you see with many popular Christian authors today, even when they say nothing about apologetics specifically. For them, Christianity is all about what you do in the world; it’s no longer about believing in Jesus as Lord and coming to a saving knowledge of Him. This kind of Christianity is hardly different than secular humanism. It just comes with a fond but relatively mild appreciation for Jesus on top…like a candied cherry on a sundae of good works that can easily be removed.
The Bible is clear that belief matters…in an eternally significant way. For more on this, see my post, Is How We Live More Important Than What We Believe?
One bestselling Christian author shared the following quote on social media recently: “Faith is not a belief. Faith is what is left when your beliefs have all been blown to hell.” This, sadly, was met with thousands of likes, loves, and shares. It’s also a biblically inaccurate definition of faith.
The Bible does not present faith as blind belief or as believing in spite of evidence. The Bible repeatedly shows that faith is believing in what you have good reason to believe is true.
Biblical faith is not the broken pieces that remain when you’ve lost a bunch of other beliefs, as this quote suggests. Any time you see an author promoting an inaccurate idea of faith, it should be a warning flag. In this case, the author is well known for writing books about her struggles with the Bible. It’s not surprising at all that she would share such a quote.
If you frequently hear from an author that you need to be true to yourself, you can bet they’re on the shaky theological ground. As my 9-year-old daughter said when I asked if she thought people should be true to themselves, “You shouldn’t always be true to yourself, because if you want to be a murderer that would be really wrong.” #basiclogic
Simply put, this kind of “pull yourself up by the bootstraps” secular wisdom is just that…secular. It’s not very inspirational to be more true to yourself. As Christians, we should be inspired to be less like our sinful nature and more like Jesus.
For many people today, the ultimate sin is judging another. Jesus doesn’t tell us not to judge…He tells us not to hypocritically judge and to judge with right judgment (e.g., John 7:24). Friends, we have to be discerning! Discerning between truth and non-truth doesn’t mean you are spiritually condemning a person, as people so often believe. Only God knows the human heart, and we are surely not called to determine whether someone else is saved. But we sure can and should address what the Bible says about right belief and right action. If you’re following someone who says things like, “Don’t stick around if want to judge others!” “Our job isn’t to judge, it’s to love!” or “This is a judgment-free zone!” steer clear. It likely means something very different than you think.
When we follow the greatest commandment—to love God—it informs what it means to follow the second commandment—to love others. It’s not up to us to define the word. There are many authors (who identify themselves as Christians) today who champion unbiblical ideas of what it means to love others, and it’s rooted in ignorance of the commandment to first love God. I saw one such author this week say that Christians are unloving for being opposed to abortion, for example. But when we first love God and understand that we are made in His image and every human, therefore, has extraordinary value, we simply can’t conclude that loving others means allowing them to take the life of another human, no matter the circumstance.
Be vigilant. Test everything. And hold fast to what is good and true.
Natasha Crain runs her Christian apologetics blog for parents, ChristianMomThoughts.com. She obtained her MBA in Marketing and Statistics from UCLA and obtained a Christian apologetic certificate from the University of Biola. She currently resides in California with her husband Bryan along with her three young children.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2SiVcGq
“Don’t Mix Politics & Religion!”
Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Tim Stratton
Complaint:
Dear Tim,
I love you man, but I don’t want my politics and my religion mixed. I look up to you for religious context and commentary because you are an expert in the field. Not politics. That’s just your opinions, and I can get that from every Tom, Dick, and Harry… but not Tim.
– Sean
Tim’s Response:
Thank you for your kind words, Sean. However, in addition to your pleasantries are statements that I encourage you to consider more deeply.
It would be absurd not to have one’s worldview (religion) influence their politics. In fact, one’s worldview ought to do that much (not the other way around). That is to say, if one truly believes that God exists, created humanity on purpose and for a specific purpose and that Jesus revealed how we ought to live, then the laws of politicians will either approximate to the “law above the law” (ultimate reality) or not.
If God does not exist, then humanity was not created on purpose or for a specific purpose. Thus, we would be mere accidents if atheism is true. If humanity is nothing but accidents, then politics are objectively meaningless (along with everything else) as there would be no objective purpose of the existence of humanity (say goodbye to human rights). Thus, on atheism, it would not really be wrong (objectively speaking) if Obama, Trump, Hitler, or Stalin is calling the shots. It is merely one’s irrelevant subjective opinion.
If God exists and Christianity is true, however, then one’s subjective political opinions can be objectively right or objectively wrong.
Politics & Gospel
Additionally, when a Christian claims they do not want their “politics and religion mixed” that is a good indicator that they probably do not understand their own religion for at least two reasons: 1- Jesus got involved in politics. 2- We are commanded to love all people and to share the gospel with the world.
First, consider the fact that Jesus constantly interacted with the Pharisees in the New Testament. The Pharisees were the religious and political rulers of Israel. Matthew 23: 23-24 provides a good example:
23 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill, and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy, and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.”
Think about the “more important matters of the law” and modern-day America. Politicians today are more concerned about the consequences of using plastic drinking straws than placing restrictions on abortion (killing innocent human beings) and actually advocate for it in many cases. What do you think Jesus would say to these politicians? Based on His reaction to the political leaders of Israel, do you think Jesus would worry about hurting the feelings of modern-day politicians or those who vote for them? We must not disregard the “more important matters of the law.”
Second, if a Christian does not take politics seriously, then they probably do not take evangelism seriously. Frank Turek shows a satellite image of the Korean peninsula to make this point (See Why Christians Should Be Involved In Politics).
Notice the stark contrast between the north and south. South Korea is filled with light, activity, and productivity. According to Turek, “it is one of the most Christianized countries in the world.” North Korea, on the other hand, stands in polar contrast to their neighbors south of the border. North Korea is dark and seemingly “dead.” Turek accurately describes it as a big “concentration camp.” What is the difference between North and South Korea? One word: POLITICS!
Many South Koreans have heard the gospel of Jesus Christ because there is political freedom to share the gospel. The communistic government of North Korea, on the other hand, does not allow the gospel to be shared — it is a dictatorship. If you are a Christian, Sean, then you know that the gospel message is the most important information a person could ever have access to or possess. If you truly love all people — as Jesus commanded — then you must desire the people who have never heard the gospel to have access to this eternally vital information. Since politics is keeping millions of souls from hearing the gospel, if you truly love and care for all humans, then you should care about politics.
To not care about politics is to not care about people.
The Lesser of Two Evils
If you believe Christianity (your “religion”) is true, you must “mix” it with politics — at least if you are a consistent Christian and strive to love all people. After all, if Christianity corresponds to reality, then the politicians you support and vote for should strive to correspond to reality too. No politician will do this perfectly, but some political views approximate to reality more than others.
Unless Jesus Christ is running for office, all elections are a vote between the lesser of two evils. As Turek notes, if Billy Graham was running against Hitler, it would still be a vote between the lesser of two evils. Obviously, one who strives to be an objectively good person would do anything possible to keep Hitler and his politics out of office. That would include “mixing” politics with religion and sharing his or her views with as many voters as possible.
Bottom line: You kindly refer to me as an “expert” in my field (theology and metaphysics/ultimate reality). If that is true, then this expertise allows me to intelligently provide insight into things that fall under the umbrella of ultimate reality — like some political issues — as an expert too. That is to say, my political opinions are informed from my knowledge of reality. In fact, if one is trained how to think logically, then thinking logically applies to all aspects of life. This includes both religion and politics.
If one’s religion is true and their political view is also objectively good or right, then one’s religion and politics must be “mixed” . . . independent if they realize it or not.
Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),
Tim Stratton
Tim pursued his undergraduate studies at the University of Nebraska-Kearney (B.A. 1997) and after working in full-time ministry for several years went on to attain his graduate degree from Biola University (M.A. 2014). Tim was recently accepted at North-West University to pursue his Ph.D. in systematic theology with a focus on metaphysics.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2JgVEkf
Tus niños necesitan pensar críticamente sobre la resurrección… Porque los medios seculares no lo hacen
EspañolPor Natasha Crain
En una edición de la revista Scientific American presenta un artículo del ateo Michael Shermer titulado: “¿Qué se necesitaría para probar la resurrección?”. Está subtitulado audazmente, “Cómo pensar acerca de las afirmaciones, incluso de la resurrección”.
¡Guauu! Este artículo en una revista popular dice que nos va a enseñar cómo pensar acerca de la resurrección. No podía esperar para leerlo. Fue incluso peor de lo que pensé que sería.
Todos los años, durante la Semana Santa (la Pascua), las publicaciones seculares presentan artículos sobre la resurrección, y todos los años son valiosos.
En esta publicación, resaltaré dos formas claves en las que este artículo en particular enseña un pensamiento crítico malo y luego proporcionaré tres puntos para ayudar a tus hijos a pensar más lógicamente sobre el tema.
Por cierto, si tienes tiempo para las canastas de Pascua, la caza de huevos y decoración de huevos, tienes tiempo para tener estas conversaciones con tus hijos. De verdad, esto es importante.
Mal razonamiento 1: afirmaciones extraordinarias requieren evidencia extraordinaria
Shermer elabora su argumento contra la resurrección con un lema favorito de los escépticos: las afirmaciones extraordinarias requieren evidencia extraordinaria.
Si no has escuchado esto antes, es una frase de un escéptico como un intento de detener la conversación. Tiene la intención de hacer desaparecer cualquier supuesta evidencia de un milagro, haciéndola ver muy inadecuado como para demostrar que algo tan improbable como un milagro realmente ocurrió.
Esta idea de que las afirmaciones extraordinarias requieren evidencia extraordinaria, sin embargo, cae directamente en la categoría de cosas que suenan bien, pero que no resisten un control lógico.
Si bien se podría decir mucho aquí, el punto más importante es este: ¿por qué las afirmaciones extraordinarias requieren evidencia extraordinaria? Extremadamente improbable, cosas “extraordinarias” suceden todos los días, y la evidencia ordinaria a menudo es suficiente para demostrar que sucedió. Es extraordinariamente improbable, por ejemplo, que un ataque terrorista ocurra en un lugar específico en un momento específico. Pero cuando los investigadores evalúan la escena, buscan pruebas esencialmente comunes para determinar qué sucedió: imágenes de seguridad, armas en la escena y la palabra de los testigos presenciales.
“Las afirmaciones extraordinarias requieren evidencia extraordinaria” no es una prueba que aplicamos en cualquier otra área de la vida. Los escépticos la usan para establecer de manera subjetiva una barrera evidencial tan alta para los milagros, que ningún milagro podría ser creído.
Eso no es pensamiento crítico… es simplemente mantener la presuposición de que los milagros no ocurren.
Mal razonamiento 2: proponer explicaciones sin tener en cuenta la evidencia
Después de decir que las afirmaciones extraordinarias requieren evidencia extraordinaria, uno podría esperar que Shermer exponga la evidencia de la resurrección y demuestre cómo esa evidencia no cumple con su estándar (extraordinario). Él no lo hace.
Sin considerar ninguna evidencia de la resurrección, simplemente enumera las posibles razones por las cuales la Biblia incluso informaría tal cosa:
Tal vez los testigos presenciales fueron “supersticiosos o crédulos y vieron lo que querían ver”.
Tal vez informaron, “solo sintiendo a Jesús en ‘espíritu’ y durante las décadas su testimonio fue alterado para sugerir que vieron a Jesús en la carne”.
Tal vez los relatos de la resurrección “nunca aparecieron en los Evangelios originales y se agregaron más tarde”.
Cada una de estas hipótesis puede ser refutada enérgicamente, pero como quiero centrarme en el método de pensamiento propuesto por Shermer y no en sus hipótesis específicas, no entraré en eso ahora. En lugar de eso, simplemente quiero señalar que, en lugar de mirar datos históricos y considerar qué hipótesis explican mejor los hechos históricos, él no mira ninguna evidencia, enumera tres hipótesis de todos modos, luego concluye que cualquiera de estas es más probable que la resurrección … porque no implican milagros.
Entonces, para resumir, una revista popular e importante ha sugerido que la forma en la que deberíamos pensar sobre una afirmación como la resurrección es:
En otras palabras, nos acaban de enseñar que la manera de pensar acerca de los milagros es asumir que no son posibles. ¡Brillante!
Lo siento, revista Scientific American, pero no me impresiona.
Por favor, enseña a tus hijos a pensar de manera más crítica que esto
Padres, tenemos que hacerlo mejor que esto. Nuestros niños necesitan aprender a pensar más críticamente que el mundo que los rodea, porque se encontrarán con este tipo de pensamiento pobre en todas partes. Y te aseguro que no aprenderán esto en la Escuela Dominical, por lo que la responsabilidad recae en ti. Aquí hay un marco de “evaluación de un milagro” de 3 puntos que todos los niños deben entender. (Hablo sobre este tema en varios capítulos de Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side, [Mantener a tus hijos del lado de Dios], así que haré referencia a esos capítulos para cada punto si quieres leer más).
Shermer y muchos escépticos como él, simplemente presuponen que los milagros sobrenaturales no son posibles. Ellos efectivamente dicen, “los milagros no son posibles, entonces la resurrección no sucedió”.
La lógica circular no es buena lógica.
Aquí hay una mejor lógica para aprender: la posibilidad de milagros depende de si Dios existe o no.
Si Dios existe, los milagros sobrenaturales son posibles porque lo sobrenatural existe. Si Dios no existe, el mundo natural es todo lo que hay, y los milagros sobrenaturales son imposibles por definición.
A menos que simplemente esté desechando la posibilidad de milagros debido a su compromiso previo con el ateísmo, las afirmaciones de milagros se deben investigar una por una.
En el caso de la resurrección, hay cuatro hechos que están tan fuertemente confirmados históricamente que son ratificados por casi todos los estudiosos del tema, incluidos los escépticos. Los Dres. Gary Habermas y Michael Licona exponen esto en su libro, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (El caso de la resurrección de Jesús). Como se trata de una publicación de blog y no de un libro, solo explicaré brevemente cada hecho. Vea el libro de Habermas y Licona para una discusión exhaustiva, o para un resumen entonces el capítulo 21 en Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side, (Mantener a tus hijos del lado de Dios).
La crucifixión de Jesús es referenciada por varias fuentes históricas no cristianas, como Josefo, Tácito, Luciano de Samósata y el Talmud judío.
Habermas explica: “Existe un consenso virtual entre los estudiosos que estudian la resurrección de Jesús en el sentido de que, luego de la muerte de Jesús por crucifixión, sus discípulos realmente creyeron que se les apareció resucitado de entre los muertos. Esta conclusión ha sido analizada por datos que sugieren que 1) los mismos discípulos afirmaron que Jesús resucitado se les había aparecido, y 2) subsecuente a la muerte de Jesús por crucifixión, sus discípulos se transformaron radicalmente de personas temerosas y encogidas que lo negaron, y abandonaron en su arresto y ejecución, en proclamadores audaces del evangelio del Señor resucitado”.
Un escéptico puede afirmar que existen explicaciones naturales (a diferencia de las sobrenaturales) de lo que les sucedió a los discípulos, pero muy pocos niegan que los discípulos hayan experimentado algo que los llevó a enfrentar la muerte y la persecución de forma voluntaria.
Pablo persiguió seriamente a la iglesia primitiva (Hechos 8: 3; 1 Corintios 15: 9; Gálatas 1:13; Filipenses 3: 6). Pero todo cambió cuando tuvo una experiencia con quien reconoció como el Jesús resucitado (Hechos 9). Después de esa experiencia, se convirtió a la fe cristiana y predicó incansablemente la resurrección de Jesús, y finalmente fue martirizado por sus afirmaciones.
Santiago no creía en Jesús durante el ministerio de Jesús (Marcos 3: 21,31; 6: 3-4; Juan 7: 5). Sin embargo, 1 Corintios 15: 7 dice que Jesús se le apareció a Santiago, y después de esta supuesta resurrección, Santiago fue descrito como un líder de la iglesia (Hechos 15: 12-21; Gálatas 1:19). Él también fue martirizado por esta creencia, tal como lo registran los escritos históricos tanto cristianos como no cristianos (Hegesipo, Clemente de Alejandría y Josefo).
Una vez más, estos son los hechos en los que prácticamente todos los académicos están de acuerdo… hechos que requieren una explicación y hechos que ni siquiera fueron considerados por Shermer.
3. ¿Cuál es la mejor explicación para los hechos?
En el capítulo 22 de Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side, (Mantener a tus hijos del lado de Dios), presento siete teorías que las personas han ofrecido para explicar estos hechos:
Como muestro en el libro, ninguna de estas explicaciones se ajusta a todos los hechos históricos conocidos. Una resurrección sobrenatural, sin embargo, fácilmente explica por ellos.
Hay una sólida razón histórica para concluir que una resurrección sobrenatural es la mejor explicación de los hechos si no tienes un compromiso previo con el ateísmo.
Como concluye el teólogo Wolfhart Pannenberg, “La solidez histórica del testimonio cristiano [de la resurrección] plantea un desafío considerable a la concepción de la realidad que se da por sentado en la historia secular moderna. Hay razones buenas e incluso superiores para afirmar que la resurrección de Jesús fue un evento histórico y, en consecuencia, el Señor mismo es una realidad viva. Sin embargo, existe la innumerable experiencia repetida de que en el mundo los muertos no resucitan. Mientras este sea el caso, la afirmación cristiana de la resurrección de Jesús seguirá siendo un tema debatido, a pesar de todo argumento histórico sólido para su autenticidad”.
No espero que Scientific American llegue a la conclusión de que una resurrección sobrenatural se ajusta mejor a los hechos históricos porque es una publicación secular. Pero si les retaría para que en el futuro presenten un enfoque más razonable para abordar estos temas.
Dudo que eso ocurra.
Entretanto, si los padres cristianos pasaran el mismo tiempo hablando de estos temas con sus hijos como el que le dedican a buscar huevos de Pascua, no debe ser un asunto que nos preocupe.
¿Podemos hacer eso?
Natasha Crain administra su blog de apologética cristiana para padres, ChristianMomThoughts.com. Obtuvo su MBA en Marketing y Estadísticas en UCLA y consiguió un certificado de apologética cristiana de la Universidad de Biola. Actualmente reside en California con su esposo Bryan junto con sus tres pequeños hijos.
Blog Original: http://bit.ly/2CHSiFD
Traducido por Rudy Ordoñez Canelas
Editado por María Andreina Cerrada
Are you believing tradition or scripture?
PodcastPodcast: Play in new window
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS
An interview with the real Indiana Jones, Bob Cornuke about his new book titled “Tradition: Exploring the Roots of Church Traditions.”
Bob examines various man-made church traditions which have, far too often, strayed from clear Scriptural mandates. Don’t miss this controversial podcast episode. Is definitely one of those episodes worth listening more than once.
How To Be Civil With A Political Party That “Wants To Destroy You”
Legislating Morality, Culture & PoliticsBy Michael Sherrard
Hillary Clinton has thrown more fuel on an already raging fire. In a recent interview, she stated very plainly that until the left has power again, they cannot be civil. If not for the fact that this advice will be followed by many to extreme ends, I’d just laugh at the extreme irony of saying “after I beat you up, I’ll be nice to you.”
Well, I think there is a better way, the way of Jesus Christ namely. It’s a way that involves loving your enemies, praying for those that persecute you, and making a reasonable case for your beliefs with gentleness and respect. For the level-headed Americans that remain, here are three ways you can still be civil in an age of incivility.
The profound lack of listening today is probably both the greatest source of frustration and anger and also the easiest problem to fix. Just shut up. Seriously, learn to shut up. You don’t always have to run your mouth. Instead, listen to your opponent. Listen without the goal of correction. Listen with the goal of understanding. Who knows, maybe you’ll learn something. You’ve been wrong before. Perhaps you are wrong now. What have you got to lose? At the very least, after you have truly listened to your opponent, you will understand better how to proceed in persuading them that their position is flawed in some way. But truth be told, the greatest thing that comes from listening isn’t convincing, it’s compassion. It is easy to hate ideas. It is not as easy to hate an individual. And when you listen and listen well, you are able to hear the person along with their position. This leads to unity and productive conversations. I know it’s a novel idea, but you should give listening a try.
Everybody today is an expert. That is of course sarcasm. The truth is that everybody thinks they are an expert. However, very few can actually explain their beliefs if it requires more than 144 characters or a picture. Personal beliefs today have a profound lack of depth that stems from a deterioration of critical thinking. Beliefs are formed from a pop culture more than reasoned thinking and meaningful reflection, and many accept simply what feels good rather trying to discern what is good. The solution is knowledge. A fundamental component of civil discourse is accurate knowledge of both your position and your opponents. If you cannot explain why your position is true, you are not allowed to talk about it. And I’ll take it a step further. If you do not know why your opponent thinks their position is the correct one, you are not allowed to attack it. I know this is a novel idea, but if you don’t have anything good to say because you don’t know what the heck you are talking about, you ought not say anything at all.
Find a way to love your political opponent. They are in your neighborhood, workplace, school, and church. Now, don’t misunderstand my point here. I think listening to your opponent and learning more about the relevant issues of our time is an act of love. If you do just the above two points, you will have given a great gift to this world. But let’s go a bit further. Go out of your way this week to be kind and serve those that disagree with you. Instead of spending all your mental energy plotting how to belittle your enemy with a clever meme, think instead how you can build them up. They are struggling with life just like you are. Their finances are in trouble. They are suffering broken relationships in their family. They have just received news that their child has cancer. But, hey, feel free to attack their character because they disagree with you on a political issue. Kick them while they are down. Or, be humble and serve them. I’ll let you choose.
This is a time for us all to follow the example of Jesus who did not count equality with God a thing to be exploited but humbled himself by taking the form of a servant. And as a servant, He died on the cross in order to purchase our redemption. Let us all live in this manner, a manner worthy of the gospel, and let us all be civil even to those not worthy of it.
Michael C. Sherrard is a pastor, a writer, and a speaker. Booking info and such can be found at michaelcsherrard.com.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2OvQdDX
Did the Apostles Really Die as Martyrs?
4. Is the NT True?, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Mikel Del Rosario
Evidence That Demands a Verdict
Growing up, I had a lot of questions about the faith. So I went looking for answers.
One of the first apologetics books I discovered on my dad’s shelf was Josh McDowell’s classic work, Evidence that Demands a Verdict. My dad even arranged for me to meet Josh while I was transitioning to high school. But neither one of us knew I’d eventually meet his son, Sean, during our college days at Biola University.
Today, I’m helping get the word out about the newly expanded and updated Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell. I’m especially excited about the new additions to Josh’s classic work.
My Favorite Addition
Probably my favorite addition is an excellent chapter on the martyrdom of the apostles (Chapter 13), summarizing key findings from Sean’s doctoral dissertation at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. His academic work, The Fate of the Apostles, assessed numerous claims and traditions about the martyrdom of the apostles and I’m happy to see his findings presented for a popular audience here.
The martyrdom of the apostles has been an overlooked, but important area in apologetics. Especially since many apologists, myself included, often make a case for the historicity of the resurrection using an argument based on the disciples’ belief that they saw the risen Jesus. Even I say things like, “The disciples wouldn’t die for a lie” and “Liars make poor martyrs.”
The Martyrdom of the Apostles
But how do we know that certain disciples really died as martyrs? What’s the evidence show? In this post, I’ll share Sean’s answers for four questions I asked him about the whole idea of martyrdom and the apostles:
Before I get to the questions, listen to Sean explain why this chapter is his favorite addition to Evidence that Demands a Verdict as well:
Question 1: What makes the apostles different from modern martyrs?
Sean McDowell:
The apostles were eyewitnesses of the risen Jesus…they all suffered and were willing to die for [their belief].
Question 2: What is a martyr?
Sean McDowell:
Question 3: Was the Apostle Peter really martyred by being crucified upside down?
Sean McDowell:
Question 4: Was the Apostle Paul really martyred by being beheaded?
Sean McDowell:
The Evidential Value of the Fate of the Apostles
Skeptics often say, “People die for religious ideas or political causes today. Just because you die for a belief, that doesn’t make it true.” I agree. But what it does mean is that you at least think your beliefs are actually true. As the McDowells observe on page 367:
It’s a strongly evidenced historical fact that Jesus’ disciples had real experiences they believed were experiences of the risen Jesus. And they didn’t die for something that somebody told them second or third-hand. They died for their personal testimony that they personally saw the risen Jesus. And they were the only ones to know if they really saw Jesus alive or not!
While there’s no conclusive historical evidence on the details of how exactly Paul or Peter died for their independent testimonies about seeing the risen Jesus, we can be confident that they died as martyrs. Their martyrdom should at least give a person pause and open the door to a fresh conversation on the reasons for the Christian belief in Jesus’ bodily resurrection.
THE TABLE PODCAST
In this episode, Mikel Del Rosario and Dr. Sean McDowell discuss the fate of the Apostles, focusing on the historical evidence of their martyrdom.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2NKMX2u
Where the Evidence Led Me
2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Terrell Clemmons
A Review of Heretic: One Scientist’s Journey from Darwin to Design, by Matti Leisola & Jonathan
As a student beginning his scientific studies in 1966, Finnish biochemist Matti Leisola used to laugh at Christians who “placed God in the gaps of scientific knowledge,” as the criticism often went. As he saw it, those people lacked the patience and level-headedness that he possessed.
After hearing Francis Schaeffer speak in 1972, though, he realized his concept of truth was naïve. He bought several of Schaeffer’s books and began to study philosophy, a subject he had previously considered of little value. At some point, he realized the god-of-the-gaps criticism cut both ways since a functional atheist could also insert a pat explanation into any knowledge gap. He also came to see another problem that the god-of-the-gaps criticism obscured: materialists seemed to think the proverbial knowledge gap was ever-shrinking, but in practice, the more scientists learned about the natural world, the more they found new and unexpected mysteries opening up. More important, the materialist argument for allowing only material explanations simply presupposed that only material causes exist. What if that presupposition was wrong?
By the mid-1970s, his doubts had become a conviction. “Scientists have no materialist explanation for the origin and complexity of life,” he wrote. “The confident bluffing of the dogmatic materialists notwithstanding, they weren’t even close.” Experimental science, he concluded, seems to point in a different direction.
A quintessential scientist’s memoir, Heretic: One Scientist’s Journey from Darwin to Design contains Leisola’s reflections on both developments in science (including biology, paleontology, genetics, information theory, and ID) and his “long and painstaking” voyage from the naturalistic evolutionary faith to dissent from Darwin. Heretic also details some of the evasions, hatred, suspicions, contempt, fears, power games, and persecutions that unfortunately mark the life of an open Darwin skeptic. And remarkably, it manages to do so with a subtle wit both sharp enough to poke fun at the contortions of materialism and shrewd enough to note the gravely consequential nature of what’s at stake.
Various chapters focus on experiences in academia (“I long ago had come to see that those bent on intimidation think nothing of shutting down debates and marginalizing scientists while paying lip service to the value of academic freedom”); encounters with publishers and broadcaster bias (“unconscious religiosity is all too common in the science community, and the broadcast media ensure that it’s presented as scientific fact day after day”); and “rationalists” behaving irrationally (“Bullies for Darwin; Actually, Several Bullies for Darwin”).
One especially compelling chapter is “The Church Evolves,” which deals with not only the Finnish Lutheran Church’s abject capitulation to Darwinism but also its active opposition to material that challenges Darwin. Even as literature critical of Darwin was forbidden on pain of punishment within Finland’s Soviet bloc neighbors, inside free Finland, church leaders were willfully suppressing the same information. This chapter speaks of trends to which Christians in America should pay attention.
“Criticism of evolutionary theory is a stressful hobby,” observed one reporter about Leisola. “On the other hand,” Leisola responded, “life as a dissenter is rich and exciting.” For the uncertain, he offers a modest invitation:
Take at least that first step on the journey that I began so many decades ago as a young, slightly arrogant scientist committed to modern evolutionary theory. That first step is a modest one, a step through the door of a paradigm and onto an open path whose end point I was unsure of. The first step was the decision simply to follow the evidence wherever it led.
Science- and truth-lovers might also find a delightful first step in Heretic.
—For more about Matti Leisola, see Minority Reporter: A Finnish Bioengineer Touches the Third Rail by Denyse O’Leary.
Terrell Clemmons is a freelance writer and blogger on apologetics and matters of faith.
This article was originally published at salvomag.com: http://bit.ly/2Ads4sY
Los argumentos a partir del Ajuste Fino del universo
EspañolPRELIMINARY REMARKS
Writing an article on the fine-tuning of the universe that is too short and simple runs the risk of being the target of doubts and objections, and a lengthy and technical exposition runs the risk of being difficult for the reader to understand or even boring due to the complexity of the content. That is why I am grateful to Professor Robin Collins for not only allowing me to translate much of his work, but also for providing me with the slides that he uses in his lectures on the fine-tuning of the universe, which is the visual material that I will use in this article.
WHAT IS FINE TUNING?
Before we make an argument about fine-tuning, the first thing to do is to know what fine-tuning is and whether there is such a thing for the universe. Well, by fine-tuning we mean the fact that the universe is extremely fine-tuned for the existence of what Professor Collins calls “embodied conscious agents,” which require stable and reproducible complexity. An analogy for the universe would be a biosphere. The biosphere has to be perfectly structured and fine-tuned to be self-sustaining (the right environment, energy consumption, etc.) so that human beings can exist in it. The universe is like that, that is how it must be structured in an extraordinary way.
Three kinds of Fine Tuning for life
The evidence for fine-tuning of the universe is of three kinds:
The Fine Tuning of the Laws of Nature
When we talk about the fine-tuning of the laws of nature we mean that the universe must have precisely the right set of laws in order for highly complex life to exist.
Examples:
Let’s take the existence of gravity, without it you have no stars, you have no planets, and therefore you have no life! Or without the Electromagnetic Force you would have no atoms, so you would not get life either, then you have no chemical bond, and of course, you have no life either.
We can mention other examples, but this is enough to understand that the appropriate laws are necessary for life of great complexity to exist. If any of these laws were missing, such a type of life would be impossible.
Fine-tuning of physical constants
By physical constants, we mean the fundamental numbers that occur in the laws of physics, many of which must be fine-tuned to an extraordinary degree for life to occur.
For example, take the Gravitational Constant—designated by G—which determines the strength of gravity through Newton’s Law of Gravity:
Where F is the force between two masses, m 1 and m 2 , that are a distance r apart. If you increase or decrease G then the force of gravity will correspondingly increase or decrease. (The actual value of G is 6.67 x 10 -11 Nm 2 / kg 2 .)
Now, to get an idea of how finely tuned the force of gravity indicated by G is we must first look at the range of fundamental forces in nature:
Note that the Strong Nuclear Force is 10,000 sextillion [1] times the Force of Gravity. Too complicated? Well, let’s make this more digestible. Imagine you have a ruler big enough to stretch across the entire universe, now we’ll place the points where the Force of Gravity and the Strong Nuclear Force would be located. We’d get something like this:
Now, Professor Collins calculates that if you increase the Force of Gravity by one part in 1034 of the range of the fundamental forces (i.e. a billion-fold increase in strength), then even single-celled organisms would be crushed, and only planets smaller than about 31 metres in diameter could support life with our brain size. Such planets, of course, would not be able to support an ecosystem to sustain life for our level of intelligence.
We could continue giving examples of what would happen if you kept playing with the value of the Gravity Force, but I think this one is more than enough to understand what we are talking about.
So we can see that for life to occur, the Force of Gravity must fall within a very, very narrow range of values compared to the total range of the fundamental forces.
Let’s look at one more analogy. Imagine a radio dial large enough to span the entire universe. The station WKLF (K-Life) allows life. So:
Only by tuning into the right frequency (the first thousandth of an inch) of all those on the radio dial (more than 15 billion light years away) can you get a universe with life.
Former director of Cambridge University Observatories, Dr Dennis Sciama, also states:
Fine-tuning the Initial Mass-Energy Distribution
What does the fine-tuning of the initial mass-energy distribution mean? Well, according to standard cosmology, the universe started with the Big Bang, about 13.7 billion years ago. All the matter was condensed into a region smaller than the size of a golf ball, then it exploded and expanded. And in order for that matter to get galaxies, and to get life, it had to have a very precise arrangement. Professor Collins gives us an analogy of this: If you look at a zygote with a powerful microscope, you would see that it is intricately structured. It wouldn’t look that way from the outside, you would just see it as a blob of protoplasm, but under the microscope, you would have an intricate structure of DNA and all the other kinds of organelles in cells to make up a human being. So, in the same way, the universe has to be in an extremely precise state, and those are the initial conditions, the fine-tuning of mass-energy to get galaxies, stars, and ultimately to get like us.
Now comes the important question, how precise must the initial mass-energy distribution be for life to exist? Well, Roger Penrose, one of the UK’s leading theoretical physicists and cosmologists answers this question in his book The Emperor’s New Mind :
(Phase space is a space of possibilities, with a standard probability measure that tells us how likely it is to be in that part of that possibility space.)
A figure so incredibly large that Penrose says:
Here is an analogy for the formidable precision of the Big Bang explosion according to Penrose’s calculations, which must be much greater than that needed to blow up a pile of rubble into a fully formed building filled with desks, tables, chairs and computers!
So we can conclude that the initial mass-energy distribution must fall within an excessively narrow range for complex life to occur.
Summary
We have seen that for complex life to exist in the universe, it has to be well structured as a biosphere, and that we have not just one piece of evidence for this, but many pieces of evidence that point to such fine-tuning, and these are the cases of the fine-tuning of the laws of physics, of the physical constants and of the initial distribution of mass and energy.
FORMULATING THE UNIVERSE FINE-TUNING ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
There are different ways to formulate an argument from fine-tuning, in this post I will focus only on the versions of William Lane Craig, Robin Collins, and Peter S. Williams.
William Lane Craig’s Fine-Tuning Argument
What is the reason for this fine-tuning? Well, there are three options that have been offered as the best explanation and with which we can formulate our first premise of the argument:
Physical need
Let’s first consider the physical necessity alternative. This alternative tells us that the universe must be one that permits life – in other words, that the values and constants cannot be any other way. In this alternative, the existence of a universe that prohibits life is impossible . Of course, that is a mistake, since such a universe is not only possible , but much more probable than a universe that permits life! And the reason for this is because the constants and quantities are not determined by the laws of nature – they cannot be predicted on the basis of current physical theory. There is no reason or evidence to suggest that fine-tuning is necessary.
One could appeal to string theory, but this does not settle the matter at all. Stephen Hawking says:
And that vast landscape of possible universes that string theory allows for is about 100,500 different universes, all of them governed by the present laws of nature, so it does nothing to deliver the observed values of the constants and physical quantities in a necessary way.
Chance/brute fact hypothesis
Now let’s move on to our second alternative: Chance or brute fact.
One Universe Theory
This hypothesis comes in two forms, the first is with respect to the one universe theory, i.e. our universe is the only one in existence. Those who hold this alternative tell us that the fact that a life-supporting universe exists is just a chance occurrence that has and requires no explanation. In simpler words, our existence is just an “extraordinarily lucky accident.” Of course, this hypothesis is not accepted among most people because of its improbability. As Robin Collins exemplifies, it would be as improbable as believing that a painting of Abraham Lincoln’s face is the result of an extraordinarily lucky ink spill, because it is not only extraordinarily improbable, but it is highly significant, these two characteristics go together.
Professor Peter S. Williams puts it this way, we do not infer intelligent design just from high improbability, but from the combination of a “highly improbable” event with a “very special” pattern. He says:
Professor Williams gives us another analogy: Imagine you see someone enter a sequence of numbers into an ATM and then get their money back. What would you infer from this situation? Was the subject lucky or did they get their money by design? It is when a complex, contingent event matches a specific, independent pattern that we infer design.
Multiverse Theory
But maybe if you spilled ink enough times you would get Lincoln’s face, or if you put too many monkeys with too many typewriters, one of them might write a paragraph of Shakespeare’s play. This is what is known as the so-called “multiverse hypothesis,” according to which there are a huge number of universes with not only different initial conditions, but also with different values of the constants of physics, and even laws of nature. Therefore, simply by chance, some universe will have the “winning combination” for life and thus have an explanation for why a universe exists that allows life. The most common analogy proposed by the proponents of this hypothesis is that of the lottery, in the same way that you can draw many tickets with different combinations of numbers, only one of them has the “winning combination” and the person who gets that ticket will simply be the winner by luck, a mere matter of probability. This hypothesis is widely accepted and has quite prominent proponents, such as Professor Max Tegmark, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cosmologist, Sir Martin Rees, Astronomer to the Royal Family of Great Britain, Stephen Hawking, among many others.
Purely Metaphysical Version
The multiverse theory has two versions, the first of which is the Purely Metaphysical version , which tells us that all possible universes exist, all possible realities exist, so there is one reality where the Marvel universe really exists, another reality where the Lord of the Rings books are true, all those universes exist as a brute fact without any further explanation. This version, for obvious reasons, is not widely defended today.
Universe Generator Version
This hypothesis tells us that universes are generated by some physical process that Professor Collins calls a “Universe Generator.” Unlike the metaphysical version, the Universe Generator version is defended by many leaders in cosmology such as Andrei Linde of Stanford University and Britain’s Sir Martin Rees.
So you pick the ocean of your choice, then pour a lot of soap on it, so thousands of bubbles are formed, and these are the universes, of course, the ocean keeps expanding at a great rate so the bubbles never collide with each other.
We now turn to the answer that Robin Collins focuses on to rule out the Universe Generator hypothesis, which is this: The Universe Generator itself would have to be “well designed” to produce a single universe that would support life.
Professor Collins gives us the following analogy of the Universe Generator:
Much like the bread machine, it seems that the Universe Generator must have the right laws and have the right ingredients (initial conditions) to produce universes that support life.
Professor Collins tells us that if we examine the super-string inflationary multiverse carefully, it requires at least five special mechanisms/laws in order to produce at least one life-supporting universe. So he simply sends the design issue up one level. Collins concludes that at best, the Universe Generator hypothesis eliminates the quantitative case for design based on fine-tuning of constants, but it still requires precise laws and the right initial conditions in order to work. So after all, we can still ask the valid question: “Who or what ‘designed’ the Universe Generator?”
Design Hypothesis
Since we have ruled out physical necessity and chance from our basket of alternatives, we can now state the second premise of our argument:
But if that is the case, then it inevitably follows that
One would think that the “design” alternative is just an option offered by theists on a whim or because they simply “need to fill the gap” left by science, so it must necessarily be included in the list of explanations and not as a common sense interpretation. But that is not so, that fine-tuning is due to design is not only a claim made by theistic cosmologists, but by non-theists as well! Theoretical physicist and popular science writer Paul Davies states: “The impression of design is overwhelming” [8] and astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle, who was an atheist, once stated: “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has tinkered with physics… and that there are no blind forces of nature . ”
Robin Collins’ Fine-Tuning Argument
The main feature of this argument is that it does not say that the evidence for fine-tuning proves that the universe was designed, or even that the universe is likely to have been designed. Rather, the argument simply concludes that fine-tuning strongly supports theism over the atheistic one-universe hypothesis.
Our first premise of the argument can be stated as follows:
As we have seen throughout the article, justifying this premise is easy and not at all controversial: since God is a good being and it is good that intelligent and conscious beings exist, it is neither surprising nor unlikely that God would create a world that can sustain intelligent life.
The following premise may be as follows:
This premise encompasses the options presented in an atheistic worldview: chance/brute fact and physical necessity. The objections are the same as those we used above for Craig’s argument.
And the conclusion of the argument would be:
This is the way Collins presents his argument. The evidence for fine-tuning is a lot like fingerprints found on a gun: although they may provide strong evidence that the defendant committed the murder, one cannot, from the evidence, conclude that the defendant is guilty; one would also have to look at the counter-evidence offered. For example, ten reliable witnesses claimed to have seen the defendant in the park at the time of the shooting. In this case, the fingerprints would still count as significant evidence of guilt, but this evidence would be counterbalanced by the testimony of the witnesses. Similarly, the evidence for fine-tuning strongly supports theism over the atheistic one-universe hypothesis, although it does not by itself show that everything that is considered theism is the most plausible explanation of the world. Nevertheless, as we have seen so far, the evidence for fine-tuning provides a much stronger and more objective argument for theism than the strongest atheistic argument against theism.
Peter Williams’ Fine-Tuning Argument
The first premise of Williams’ argument [9] is as follows:
This premise appeals to our common sense of inferring design when we see a “highly improbable” event with a “very special” pattern. This is not a religious claim or a bias coming from the theist; as we have seen above, the design inference for cosmic fine-tuning arises naturally even among atheist physicists.
Our second premise is as follows:
It is obvious that nothing more needs to be said to justify this premise than what has been presented for the previous arguments. It can therefore be concluded that:
GENERAL CONCLUSION
So at the end of the day we have a very strong case for the fine-tuning of the universe, and in turn at least three ways to make an argument for the existence of God.
I would like to end this article with a few words from King David:
The heavens declare the glory of God. The skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day by day he tells the world, night by night he makes it known. (Psalm 19:2)
Grades
[1] Translating the huge quantities from English to Spanish is complicated because it is also necessary to convert from the English system of measurement to the international one. For the conversion of the measurements my friend Chris A. Du-Pond helped me with this.
[2] Hawking, 1988, A Brief History of Time , p. 125.
[3] From the BBC special, “The Anthropic Principle.”
[4] Roger Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind , p. 310
[5] SW Hawking, “Cosmology from the Top Down” a paper presented at the Cosmic Inflation Conference at Davis, University of California, Davis, May 29, 2003.
[6] Stephen C. Meyer, ‘Teleological Evolution: The Difference it Doesn’t Make’, www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_teleologicalevolution.htm
[7] Peter S. Williams, “Five Arguments For Theism,” http://www.peterswilliams.com/2016/02/09/five-arguments-for-theism/#_edn8
[8] Paul Davies, The Cosmic Code, 1988, p. 203
[9] http://www.peterswilliams.com/2016/02/09/five-arguments-for-theism/ (Last visited October 17, 2018).
Jairo Izquierdo Hernandez is the founder of Christian Philosopher . He currently works as Social Media Director and author for the Christian organization Cross Examined . He is a member of the Christian Apologetics Alliance and a worship minister at the Christian Baptist Church Christ is the Answer in Puebla, Mexico.
A Deeper Understanding Of Christ’s Love Through Suffering
2. Does God Exist?, Atheism, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Luke Nix
Introduction
How can you helplessly watch as a child dies from agonizing cancer? Doesn’t the love you feel tell you that that suffering is evil and a God who is all loving and all powerful would rescue that child? How can God be all loving and all powerful if He allows such a child to suffer and die?
This is a challenge that is often raised by atheists to reject the God of the Bible. But today, I am not going to answer the atheist who raises the challenge as an armchair hypothetical that they have never experienced; instead I want to speak to the person who either has experienced this tragedy or is in the middle of it, and it causes them to be skeptical of the goodness and even existence of God.
This Is What Love Feels Like
But could God have a purpose for the pain that you feel? Before I get to that, please watch this tribute to those who have cared for a loved one at the end of their life: This Is What Love Feels Like, by dc Talk, inspired by Toby McKeehan‘s experience:
Knowing Love Through Suffering
Jesus knew the suffering that would take Him to His physical limits, yet He persisted and conquered: This was His love for you as He suffering the torture of crucifixion. If you have been taken to your limits through the suffering of a loved one, you know this love.
Without the suffering of a loved one, we would not know this love for someone else that takes us to our limits (and live to tell of it), what love truly feels like. Without the suffering of a loved one, we would not have the privilege of getting a trace of understanding of the depth of Christ’s love for us that took Him to the end of His physical limits. Caring for a spouse, parent, or child as they leave this world has to be one of the most painful experiences, and we do not escape it unchanged by the suffering it has caused. We are wounded, but we can use those wounds to heal. We can become the wounded healer (see my post “The Wounded Healer: Finding Ultimate Purpose In Your Suffering” for more on this concept). And just as we are alive today to be wounded healers, Jesus conquered death through His bodily resurrection to be the Ultimate Wounded Healer that we point to.
While it is a privilege to experience what this kind of love feels like (though it comes at a great cost, just like it did for Christ), our experience only scratches the surface of the love that Christ has. And our experience is only one person (or maybe a few people in extremely tragic situations) at a time. But Jesus’ love, as He suffered death, was not just for you or just for a few people, it was for every person (John 3:16).
Conclusion
We must not forget that our suffering in this life will come to an end. It is finite, and this finite suffering is not worth comparing to the infinite glory that will one day be revealed in us (Romans 8:18) and can be revealed in others to enjoy with us if we are willing to be used by God to be wounded healers. Do not be discouraged. Our perfect God has a purpose for your suffering. Without Him, your experience is a gratuitous pain with no purpose or meaning. But because God exists and Christ is resurrected from the dead, your experience is both purposeful and meaningful. Through your experience, God has blessed you with a deeper understanding of His love for you, and now He gives you the privilege to speak hope, life, love, meaning, and purpose to the brokenhearted suffering and struggling the same as you are.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2RFk6Ql