Introduction
Today I am excited to bring you a review of a book that I have been anticipating for a little over a year and a half. In January 2017 particle physicist and University of Oklahoma professor, Dr. Michael G. Strauss (check out his blog and YouTube channel) and I were talking, and he informed me that he had been working on a book about science and faith for a while. He gave me an overview of the content and even let me in on a sneak peek of the book. After reading through what was already “on paper,” I was incredibly excited to see it published. Dr. Strauss’ goal with “The Creator Revealed: A Physicist Examines the Big Bang, and the Bible” was to provide the scientific, theological, and biblical evidence for the big bang in a non-technical and more conversational tone.
The book is relatively short (126 pages, not counting the appendices) compared to other works on this topic, and the seventeen chapters are bite-sized. This review will be my usual chapter-by-chapter summary followed by my thoughts (as if the first line above didn’t give you an indication). Before we get to the review, check out this interview with Dr. Strauss about science and faith and his experience with scientists and students:
Now, on to the book review…
Chapter 1: An Important Question
Strauss begins his book with a discussion of the importance, for the Christian, of seriously and critically investigating the beginning of the universe. He explains that since God created the universe, it accurately reveals His character and His glory (Psalms 19:1). An investigation of the universe will present evidence for its Creator and the proper worldview. Those who are presented with this evidence should follow it where it leads. If evidence for God is presented by the creation, then it follows that the investigator should believe that God exists.
The reigning model among scientists is the general big bang model. Many scientists claim to hold to this model due to the evidence that the creation has presented to them for its truth. Strauss explains that if some form of the big bang model does accurately explain the beginning of the universe, it has great implications for the discussion of God’s existence, His character, and whether someone should follow Christ. Thus it is imperative that the Christian approach this topic with an open and evangelistic mindset that is committed to not only the inerrant truth and authority of God’s Word but also the truth revealed by God’s actions (His creation). With this, Strauss transitions into a description of the general big bang model and some of the evidence that convinced even atheistic scientists that it accurately describes the beginning of our universe.
Part 1: The Big Bang Reveals God’s Character
Chapter 2: The Big Bang
While many Christians have heard of the big bang model for the creation of the universe, there are some dire misconceptions of it that prevent an accurate assessment of the scientific and biblical evidence for it. Strauss begins by correcting these misconceptions, including the ideas that the big bang was an explosion of preexisting matter and that it was an explosion at all. He explains that the big bang merely posits that the universe began from literally “no thing” some time ago in the finite past.
Strauss uses an analogy to the game of Mouse Trap to explain how we can reasonably conclude how the universe formed. Beginning with the proper setup of the elaborate trap and knowing how the laws of physics operate, without ever turning the crank, we can still accurately imagine how the process will unfold to finally trap the mice. Likewise, we can begin with the most fundamental particles of the universe and the laws of physics and use computers to “imagine” how the process will unfold to create a universe. As these computer simulations go through the process, we see that they generate what we observe in the universe today, thus it is reasonable to believe that the big bang model that they simulate accurately represents the beginning conditions of our universe and the elapse of time since that beginning.
Chapter 3: How Do You Know?
Many Christians raise many challenges to the idea of the big bang that question the certainty of the conclusion and that conclusion’s compatibility with the Bible. Strauss will address the biblical challenges later, but in this chapter, he addresses the strength of the observational and theoretical case. He begins by explaining how we can know the events of the past even though no person was “there” to observe them (a common objection). For instance, observing the presence of a snakeskin on the ground is evidence that a snake had shed its skin, even though no one was present to witness this past event. Just as if a snake shed its skin in the past, we would expect to find a snakeskin, if the big bang happened, we would expect to find certain features as we observe the universe.
Before getting into the observations and to keep things interesting, Strauss notes that at the time the evidence for the big bang starting coming in, scientists were perfectly satisfied with the current beginningless model of the universe at the time because it did not require any kind of Creator at all. However, when the evidence for a beginning of the universe started being discovered, it caused a huge philosophical uproar in the scientific community. Strauss describes the observations of the expansion of the universe, the radiation present throughout the universe, and the relative abundances of the elements. All the observations pointed strongly enough to the universe having a beginning. However, on top of that, theoretical physicists over the last century (including Einstein and Hawking) have done work that has been found accurate in their precise predictions of observations, and others have done work that solidifies the necessity of a beginning based upon both observation and theory. The beginning of the universe has been (reluctantly) accepted due to the certainty level demanded by the evidence even in the context of a philosophical presupposition against God’s existence.
Chapter 4: The Transcendent Creator
But the big bang does not stop at merely providing evidence for the universe having a beginning. The big bang provides evidence of the identity of the Cause of the universe. Strauss explains that as will any good crime mystery story, the perpetrator leaves behind clues as to his or her identity that allows the investigator to accurately identify them. According to Romans 1:20, these clues are not only there but were intentionally left there and are clearly seen by those who investigate the universe. So, even if scientists are philosophically committed against the identity of the Cause of the universe, they will still clearly see clues that point to the attributes (thus the identity) of the Creator. Strauss emphasizes that this is exactly what is happening with the big bang.
The first attribute of the Creator that Strauss shows is demanded of a big bang universe (thus evidenced in our universe) is the transcendence of its cause. If the big bang was the beginning of all energy, space and time, then the cause of the big bang has to exist outside this universe. Strauss explains that this is significant to identifying the Creator because only the Bible explicitly identifies the Creator as acting prior to the beginning of (thus being outside or transcending) the universe. This means that the Creator is not made of anything physical (matter or energy) and is something completely different: spirit, according to John 4:24.
Chapter 5: Design in the Universe
To identify further characteristics of the Cause of the universe, it is important to examine the fine-tuning of various features of the universe for life. Of the hundreds of characteristics that would be examined, Strauss has chosen to describe three to keep from getting too technical and losing the reader. Strauss takes a look at the amount of matter in the universe, the strength of the strong nuclear force, and the formation of carbon. All of these, if their numbers were slightly different, one direction or the other, from what they are, the universe would be not only be devoid of life but would be hostile to life. The fact that these values could have been different, yet are not, indicates that the Cause of the universe intended for the universe to be an eventual home for life.
Chapter 6: A Plan for Humans
Building upon the finely tuned features described in the previous chapter, Strauss explains that Romans 1:20’s claim that God’s “attributes are clearly seen” is being demonstrated in the scientific literature. Strauss cites the works of several skeptical scientists who explicitly state that the design characteristics of the universe, that have been discovered as a product of modern big bang cosmology, point exclusively to the cause having the intention, forethought, and ultimately a purpose for the universe. Some scientists believe this so strongly, yet they want to deny God as the Creator, that they believe that man (as an intelligent designer with purpose) will eventually be able to reach back in time to create the universe themselves. Even though they refuse to acknowledge God as Creator, His attributes are clearly seen and recognized by these skeptical scientists. This recognition of the intentionality and purpose of the Creator is exactly what the Christian should expect from the correct theory of the universe’s beginning. Big bang cosmology is directly producing the results the Christian expects- that the universe speaks powerfully that it was created intentionally for humanity.
Chapter 7: The Garden of Eden
Continuing on the topic of design for humanity, Strauss zooms in from the level of the universe as a whole to our galaxy, solar system, and planet. He explains how the type, size, and age of the Milky Way Galaxy must be just right for advanced life to not only survive but be even possible. Zooming in closer, to our solar system, Strauss shows the specific characteristics of our sun are unique (and also finely tuned), and he discusses the importance of gaseous giant planets like Saturn and Jupiter for protecting life from cosmic debris. Finally, Strauss looks at some of the characteristics of our planet that make is uniquely suitable for advanced life. Again, in all of these investigations, we see that the creation reveals that is was created with intentionality and purpose.
Chapter 8: Characteristics of the Creator
Summing up the previous chapters, Strauss emphasizes that the Christian not only has the testimony of God’s creation that the big bang is an accurate description of the beginning of the universe, but the Christian also has the incredible alignment between the characteristics demanded of the cause of the big bang and the God of the Bible. These characteristics are not evident only to those who glance at the creation, but it is unmistakable to those who investigate it deeply. The Apostle Paul’s claims about the clarity of the revelation of the Creator through the creation Romans 1:20 is borne out with every new discovery that confirms that the universe had a beginning and was designed for the benefit of humanity.
Part 2: A Biblical Beginning
Chapter 9: Mistakes of the Past
For the Christian, nature is not the only source of truth from the Creator. The Bible is the Creator’s written source of truth. Since both sources are from the same Author, when we interpret them, our interpretations cannot be in conflict because the sources themselves are not in conflict. Strauss explains to the reader that the Church has made mistakes in the past regarding interpretation that still make nonbelievers suspicious of the Church today, so it is important that we do not repeat the same mistakes as we search for the proper interpretation of debateable biblical passages. The two interpretive guidelines to always remember are that the passages are written from a particular perspective and that some passages do have multiple reasonable interpretations. While there is only one correct interpretation of these passages, honest disagreement on the correct interpretation can take place without questioning one’s commitment to the Bible as God’s inerrant and authoritative Word. These two guidelines are important in our humble pursuit of truth and will guide Strauss’ investigation of the creation passages and their possible agreement with the big bang.
Chapter 10: Rules of the Game
Before beginning to investigate the creation passages of the Bible, Strauss takes the time to describe three rules of interpretation. He emphasizes that if this step is not done beforehand, then those involved could easily be using different rules of interpretation that will result in very little progress. The rules that he covers are not new and have been used since the beginning of the Church, but since they may not be explicit in the mind of the reader, it is important to lay them out.
Strauss emphasizes the that the goal of interpretation is to discover the meaning that the author of a particular passage intended to communicate to the audience. The first of the rules is to always consider the literary context- the surrounding passages, the book, and the Bible as a whole. Driven by a commitment to biblical inerrancy, this rule requires that no two interpretations of two passages may be in conflict with one another. The second is to understand figurative language and recognize when it may be in use. Forgetting such an important thing can result in all sorts of misunderstandings, even in everyday life. Finally, we must consider the cultural context in which the passage was communicated. Strauss concludes the chapter with an exercise of interpreting 1 Corinthians 11:4-6 using these principles to demonstrate how they are properly applied.
Chapter 11: The Days of Genesis
One of the big questions Christians have about big bang cosmology is whether or not it is compatible with sound exegesis (reading things out of Scripture rather than into Scripture). Essential to this question is the proper meaning of the word interpreted as “day” when used to describe the periods of time of God’s creation. Using the principles and guidelines described in the previous two chapters, Strauss takes the reader through interpreting this word. Of the uses of the word “day” in Genesis 1-2 that do not refer to the days of creation, there are seven instances, four of which are unique in their meanings. Some refer to less than twenty-four hours, and others refer to a lot longer. All of these definitions are considered to be literal interpretations. Because of these possibilities, it is reasonable to consider that the original author used the word literally and that he meant it as a longer period of time.
Many Christians, who strongly oppose even the possibility of this exegetical conclusion, often appeal to the immediate context to undermine this possibility. They propose that “day” in the presence of either a number or “evening and morning” necessitates that “day” is twenty-four. Strauss examines the wider context of Scripture to provide examples of the presence of both of these (one even believed to also be penned by Moses) that do not mean twenty-four hours. The presence of these examples in Scripture undermine the claim that their presence in Genesis 1 exegetically demands a twenty-four interpretation. Another attempt to undermine the long-period-of-time interpretation is God’s comparing the work week to the creation week in Exodus 20:9-11. Strauss points out that the same pattern is applied to a different period of time (years) just a few verses later, so if the application of the pattern necessitates that the compared period of time is twenty-four hours, then it requires that years are also twenty-four hours. But that conclusion is false, so it is also false that the application to the days of Genesis necessitates that they are twenty-four hours. Consequently, while the days of Genesis are periods of time, the Bible does not tell us exactly how long they are.
Strauss has, thus far, shown how big bang cosmology is compatible with an exegetical, historical and literal interpretation of Genesis; thus it is perfectly compatible with Scripture.
Chapter 12: As God Sees It
Even though the Bible does not tell us the details of how long the creation days were or when the universe was initially created, it does provide many incredible details that could have only been known by an eye-witness to the creation. Strauss takes this chapter to describe just a few. He begins his discussion of these details by reminding the reader that for proper exegesis (again, interpreting out of Scripture and not into Scripture) that all of Scripture is told from a perspective. We have to determine where exactly that perspective is in Genesis. Genesis 1:2 tells just precisely where the Spirit of God was, thus the perspective of the rest of the chapter- the surface of planet earth.
Strauss notes that a confirmation of this perspective is that the sun and moon are described as “the great lights,” yet we know that they are quite puny compared to other lights in the universe. The descriptor of “great” is only true if written from the perspective of the surface of the earth. Now, from this perspective, Genesis 1 describes the initial conditions of earth as formless, empty, dark, and watery. As scientists continue their investigation into the history of our planet and they develop and test theories of planetary formation, they are discovering that the descriptions of formless, empty, dark, and watery are a perfect match for the initial conditions of our planet. This could only have been known by the Creator since there were no human witnesses; this provides powerful confirmation that the Bible is truly inspired by the Creator of the universe.
Chapter 13: The Order of Creation
The other incredible details provided by Genesis 1 about the creation are present in the descriptions of God’s actions on those days. Using the perspective established from Genesis 1:2 and being mindful of the original Hebrew and the context of the passages, Strauss takes the reader through properly interpreting the passages and clearly states the claims of each of the days of creation. He then shows that each of the claimed events has been shown to be accurate by scientists in the appropriate fields. He also demonstrates how presumably problematic passages are resolved when the proper perspective is utilized, and the original Hebrew words are considered.
Not only is the content of Genesis 1 accurate, but the order is accurate as well. The Genesis 1 account of creation, when reading literally and from the correct perspective, provides accurate (though not comprehensive) historical record of the formation of our planet and life. Considering how many different claims are made throughout Genesis 1 about the history of earth that the author could easily have gotten wrong but didn’t, this evidence further solidifies the case that the Bible was inspired by the Creator of the universe. This comes as no surprise to the Christian, for this is exactly what is expect since the Bible and nature have the same source: God.
Chapter 14: Sin, Death, and the Future
One of the main concerns of Christians who reject big bang cosmology is that it requires that animals died before the fall of humanity. They believe that God created the world perfect with no pain, suffering or death, and Adam’s sin spoiled all that. If this belief is true, then any view that allows for animal death before the fall of Adam and Eve cannot be true. Strauss’ goal in this chapter is not a comprehensive examination of this view but rather a few surface observations that will cause the reader to consider that this is not the best way to interpret the Genesis text.
As with before Strauss takes the reader into the greater context of the whole Bible to help interpret. Staying within Genesis, though, he notes that “very good” is used instead of “perfect;” God increases Eve’s birthing pains, but does not create them; Adam knew what “death” was when God gave him the warning to not eat of the tree (indicating that he may already be familiar with death), and Adam did not physically die in the same twenty-four period that he first disobeyed God. The immediate context certainly does not require that the creation was without suffering and death before Adam’s sin. Additionally, when the context is expanded to the New Testament, the death referred to in the context of sin is almost always spiritual death. Meaning that the death that was a result of the fall of Adam and Eve did not affect non-spiritual beings (such as plants and animals). Plants and animals could have died (physical death) long before sin entered the world (consequence: spiritual death). Since the New Testament describes death that cannot be experienced by plants and animals (spiritual death), the kind of death that they do experience (physical death) is not a theological nor biblical problem for the Christian who affirms that it took place before sin entered the world to bring spiritual death to spiritual beings.
Part 3: Truth Changes Lives
Chapter 15: The Truth Shall Set You Free
Many Christians are so zealous for Christ that they offer stories and evidence that are simply not true. Strauss begins the final part of his book by giving an example of one such story that is often repeated as scientific evidence of the truth of the Bible but is not a true story in the least. He explains that Christians must be careful of repeating such false evidence because it reduces the credibility of the rest of our witness for the Gospel. Strauss explains that some Christians fall victim to false evidences because they are unconsciously fearful that further investigation will bring a crisis of faith. An example of this would be when Christians have been repeatedly told that big bang cosmology is an atheistic theory and they are hesitant to study and accept the evidence because it would mean that Christianity is false. Strauss reminds the reader that there is nothing to fear on such studies (whether it is the big bang or something else) because we serve the God of all truth. And no matter what we find to be true, it will always be compatible with Christianity. Investigating and accepting what is true gives the Christian true reasons that they can provide to the unsaved as evidence of the truth of Christianity.
Evangelism is not the only place where investigating and accepting the evidence no matter where it leads is a blessing to the Christian. Strauss relates a story of a friend who was an amateur astronomer who knew the evidence for the universe’s antiquity yet he was taught all his life that the Bible only allowed for the universe to be young. This friend experienced a cognitive dissonance that resulted in his worship of God with his mind and heart being stunted. However, when the biblical compatibility of an ancient universe was presented to him, he was able to reconcile the evidence for an ancient universe with the truth of God’s Word. The truth set his mind free and heart free to worship God like never before. Because we serve a God of truth, following the evidence where it leads is nothing to fear, and God will honor you with a closer relationship with Him and a more powerful witness to Jesus Christ.
Chapter 16: With All Your Mind
Many surveys and statistics show that people lose their childhood faith in the college years. Strauss attests to this in his experience as a college professor. He attributes much of it to a serious lack of the North American church’s willingness to love God with all our minds. Our children are often discouraged from asking tough questions (see the previous chapter). They do not usually get intellectual recognition of their tough questions until they are in an environment where skeptics are all too eager to provide answers. When provided with evidence that contradicts what they have been taught about the first chapters of Genesis, they often reason that God is untrustworthy in the rest of His revelation, including the Gospel. If the Christian student does retain some semblance of faith, it is usually compartmentalized, but that compartmentalization does not last long; God is usually abandoned.
Strauss explains that there is hope, though, through our setting the example and loving God with our minds. We must investigate and follow that evidence (again, see the previous chapter). He provides an example of the results of such an effort. One student went through the process described above all the way to the end of leaving the faith. However, when the truth of what Scripture actually does teach about origins was shown to be fully compatible with the evidence being offered as defeaters by the skeptics he spoke to, his faith was renewed. He realized that God, in fact, was truly trustworthy in what He revealed in Scripture. He followed the evidence and the logical path of trust from Genesis to Jesus. Jesus commands us to love God with all our minds (Mark 12:30), and when we do so, we can be the instrument that Christ uses to bring others back to Him.
Chapter 17: No God or Know God
In the concluding chapter, Strauss tells the story of an atheist who heard one of his talks covering the content of this book. While the atheist already understood and accepted the big bang as the beginning of the universe, he was never presented with evidence that it also powerfully supported the God of the Bible. After hearing Strauss speak of how the big bang was a theistic theory that was rejected for so long by scientists on that fact alone, he became interested and started investigating the claims of Jesus to be God. After completing his investigation he was convinced that the big bang, indeed, pointed to the God of the Bible as the Creator and that Jesus was who He claimed to be. This atheist surrendered his life to Jesus Christ, and Dr. Strauss has had the joy of watching him grow and become an enthusiastic ambassador of Christ. God spoke clearly to this atheist through His creation, and the Truth changed his life.
Reviewer’s Thoughts
As I mentioned in the introduction, when I read the sneak preview of the book, I was extremely excited and couldn’t wait for Dr. Strauss to get his book published. This is the most succinct yet non-technical book I have read about the implications of the big bang on Christianity. I love that Strauss presents the basic case for the big bang from both nature and the Bible side-by-side. I loved his focus on Romans 1:20 and his clarifying that the big bang is inherently a theistic theory (it is not an atheistic theory, as many Christians incorrectly believe), and that is what actually caused the majority of the scientific community to reject the clear evidence for so long. I particularly appreciate his dedication to biblical inerrancy as he presents a careful and exegetical case from Scripture. He addresses the most common challenges and questions from Christians to help remove any fear that they are compromising Scripture or God’s character at any point by following the evidence where it leads.
Strauss’ concise descriptions, use of analogies, stories from his life, and the sprinkling of jokes throughout makes a rather dry subject very enjoyable, understandable, and exciting. The length of each chapter and the book as a whole are perfect for those who are curious but do not have the time to devote to the more in-depth and technical works available (although it may spark an interest in pursuing a deeper investigation). With all of these characteristics and the fact that it covers an extremely important evangelistic tool, “The Creator Revealed” is a must-have book for every Christian who is passionate about the Great Commission. This book needs to be in every church library and on the bookshelf of every Christian parent and educator and pastor. Most every Christian knows someone who has dismissed Christ from their lives because they believe that the creation, via the big bang, eliminates the need for the Creator. God has placed you in their life to show them how they have unnecessarily rejected their Savior. Get this book, and prepare yourself to “give [them] a reason for the hope that you have” (1 Peter 3:15).
For more in-depth studies into the big bang and the Bible check out these great books:
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2wDvmCU
Christianity is not a sitting religion
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Michael Sherrard
Will you go? Will you do more than just learn? Will you act upon your desire to persuade others that Jesus is the messiah? You need to wrestle with this. You need to decide if you are going to be one that takes our Lord’s mercy and grace to others or be one that hoards it for yourself. I am going to plead here for an active style of evangelism. Christianity is a going religion, not a sitting one. We don’t wait for the world to come to us. We go.
We don’t rest upon the grace of Jesus and use it as a cushion for our pews. We don’t cherish the love of God wrapping ourselves in it while we look out our window and watch people freeze to death. We are not the ones who gather on Sunday to have our church leaders stick pacifiers in our mouth and rock us to sleep singing soft easy words into our ear.
Or are we?
It seems some troubling trends exist in the West and weak brand of Christianity has arisen. Is it merely enough to sing about the wonderful cross rather than pick it up? Is it right to jump from church to church seeking one to “feed you” as we neglect those truly hungry? The luxury of prosperity and freedom has made us soft and selfish, I think. We view our religion as an end to itself. Church programs seek to build more church programs as we hire more staff to support them. “Bring the world to us,” we think. And as churches grow in size, the Christian voice becomes fainter and fainter in the West. Our impact is greatly disproportionate to our size. It seems that our religion is for us and our good alone. The rest can go to hell.
But let this not be so any longer. Sin is ruining lives. It is causing much great pain. The world is seeking peace and rest, and they are not finding it. For true rest and peace come from Jesus and Him alone. It is only the forgiveness of sins that brings rest. We know this.
We have witnessed sin tear families apart. We have seen sin hurt our children. We have experienced the deceitful nature of sin. We all have at one time taken sin’s yoke thinking that it brings a light load filled with peace and joy. We all once learned from another master, one who is not gentle or humble and found his yoke very heavy. We have seen firsthand the folly of sin. We have run from Jesus thinking that we would find freedom. We took what we thought to be an easy road only to find that it was filled with step hills, and mud, and hidden roots, and slippery rocks, and a perilous cliff that beckoned us to our death.
Though we have witnessed sin’s power, many have become desensitized to sin’s ruination. Christians can get locked in their own subculture and forget the devastating nature of sin. Those that have faithfully abided in Christ and obeyed his teaching have been blessed and protected from much of the hurt that is out there. It is hard to remember the depth of pain from a previous life when filled with joy and peace. And this is good. I am glad that faithfully following Jesus results in a wellness. I am grateful for joy and peace in Christ and the freedom found therein. Further, I am glad knowing that my holiness protects my children from gratuitous pain. Surely it does not preclude all pain. But following the Lord avoids the worst kind of pain, pain brought forth by your own stupid, foolish sin. In my blessed state, I cannot forget the land from where I was delivered nor those that still remain.
I must go.
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/2xrrJAt
Lógica 06: utilizando las reglas de inferencia y equivalencia lógica
EspañolPara esta publicación, pondremos en práctica lo que hemos visto sobre argumentación y lógica proposicional.
Veamos un ejemplo sobre argumentación:
Lo que haremos es formalizar el argumento anterior y ver si realmente tiene una estructura lógica válida (no nos enfocaremos en el contenido; es decir, la veracidad de las premisas). Para ello primero debemos asignar variables a las proposiciones que se están utilizando en el argumento:
F = Dios conoce el futuro
D = Dios lo determina todo
A = Dios juega al azar
P = Dios es el autor del pecado
S = Dios es soberano
Es importante que tengas a la mano la simbología de la lógica proposicional para este ejercicio si es que todavía no te la has aprendido, ya que no explicaré qué significa cada símbolo, abreviación ni tampoco de qué va cada regla utilizada, sólo me dedicaré a explicar el procedimiento utilizado.
Ahora traduzcamos el argumento del lenguaje natural al formal:
¿Complicado? No te preocupes, ahora iremos paso a paso para que puedas entenderlo mejor.
En el artículo sobre lógica y argumentación, vimos que en el discurso se pueden encontrar varias proposiciones que sirven de premisas para varias conclusiones; este es uno de esos casos. En el argumento se establecen cuatro premisas. En el siguiente cuadro, a la derecha se presentan los enunciados y a la izquierda su respectiva forma lógica:
Observa que en la primera proposición se ha omitido el indicador de consecuente “entonces”, ya que no siempre es necesario utilizarlo para hablar sobre enunciados condicionales, muchas veces lo presuponemos. También observa que la cuarta proposición no hay un “y” que indica la conjunción, esto es porque el “pero” también sirve para indicar conjunción; a veces la coma y el punto y coma tienen la misma función, recuerda poner atención en estos detalles. Sigamos con la explicación:
Enumerar nuestras premisas y conclusiones del argumento es importante para indicar en qué premisa hemos aplicado una regla de inferencia. Cuando formalizan argumentos de esta manera, se recomienda colocar a la derecha de la premisa y entre paréntesis la regla de inferencia que se ha utilizado en su forma abreviada, por lo que en este caso, la premisa (5) se ha inferido de la premisa (4) por la regla de simplificación. Continuemos:
Para simplificar una proposición compleja (6), se aplica la regla por conmutación, dejando así la proposición que queremos utilizar (¬P) del lado izquierdo y deshacernos de aquella proposición que no queremos (S) en el lado derecho. Por supuesto, la conmutación se puede omitir porque se presupone fácil, pero en este caso quiero llevarlos paso a paso por cada regla utilizada sin omitir ninguna.
La proposición (8) es la conclusión de (2) y (7) por medio de la regla de modus tollens. Observa más claramente este movimiento:
¿Ves? Ahora, sigamos:
Hay que recordar que la regla de modus tollens es negar el consecuente, así que lo que ocurre en lenguaje formal es que la proposición que niega el consecuente siempre tiene que ser un negativo, por eso en el argumento enunciado de forma natural no hay ninguna proposición como “no es el caso que Dios no es soberano”; pero sí lo está en su forma lógica, (9), ¿por qué? Porque ocurre lo mismo que con la regla de conmutación, en el lenguaje natural también se suele omitir la regla de doble negación; pero no porque sea inútil o sea innecesaria; sino porque se presupone fácil. Recuerda la regla por modus tollens:
¿Así que, qué ocurre cuando tenemos un condicional cuyo consecuente es ya un negativo? Pues hay que negar esa proposición negativa:
Este es el razonamiento por el cual se procede en el lenguaje formal, aunque en el lenguaje natural nunca utilicemos una doble negación por simple economía; negamos una proposición negativa solo con usar su positivo o afirmativo (recuerda que la doble negación es una regla de equivalencia lógica). Veámoslo con el modus tollens de nuestro argumento presente:
Para concluir (10) usamos (5) en lugar de (9) en lenguaje natural, pero como dije anteriormente, no quiero omitir ningún paso en el lenguaje formal para que ustedes estén al tanto de todas las reglas que se tienen que utilizar para validar un argumento. Sigamos con los últimos pasos que quedan:
Ahora, observa que (1) tiene esta forma:
Como lo que queremos es demostrar que el antecedente es falso (Dios no preconoce el futuro), necesitamos negar el consecuente (Dios lo determina todo o juega al azar) por medio de modus tollens. Para ello necesitamos las negativas de ambas proposiciones, en este caso son (8) y (10), y dado que son conclusiones lógicamente válidas, podemos conjugarlas (11). Pero con la forma lógica de la conjunción no podemos utilizarla como premisa para realizar un modus tollens ya que son formas lógicas distintas:
Consecuente de (1): (D v A)
Conjunción: (¬D ^ ¬A)
Para poder negar el consecuente, requerimos de la forma lógica ¬ (D v A) y no (¬D ^ ¬A), ¿cómo la obtenemos? Muy fácil, por medio de una regla de reemplazo o equivalencia lógica, en este caso usamos las Leyes de Morgan, que nos dicen que la negación de una conjunción es la disyunción de las negaciones:
¬ (D v A) ↔ (¬D ^ ¬A)
La nueva forma lógica será nuestra premisa (12), por lo que ahora podemos realizar el modus tollens correspondiente:
Y por último, sólo nos resta aplicar la regla de doble negación sobre (13), que es la proposición no es el caso que Dios no preconoce el futuro (¬¬F) para para obtener su afirmativa, Dios preconoce el futuro (F).
Espero que con este ejemplo puedas ver la utilidad de conocer las reglas de inferencia y equivalencia lógica al momento de construir argumentos.
Bibliografía recomendada
Jairo Izquierdo es el fundador de Filósofo Cristiano. Es autor y director de Social Media para la organización cristiana Cross Examined. Es miembro en la Christian Apologetics Alliance, estudia filosofía y es ministro de alabanza en la iglesia cristiana bautista Cristo es la Respuesta en Puebla, México.
When Is It Time To Leave Gentleness And Respect Behind?
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Michael Sherrard
I am sickened by Planned Parenthood. They are exploiting women for profit all in the name of equality and empowerment. Selling the body parts of aborted fetus’ should disgust all and bring to mind horrific images of some futuristic dystopia. If you’ve not seen the undercover footage, stop what you are doing and watch it here.
So when does the horror and calamity from ignorant practices require us to take the gloves off? I ask this in apparent contradiction as I am the author of Relational Apologetics: Defending the Christian Faith with Holiness, Respect, and Truth. One might assume my answer. But I think there is a time when gentleness is not an option and respect should not be given. Let me explain.
When one that I love is drowning, gentleness is not my concern. I will use whatever force I need to pull them from the raging waters. When one that I love does something evil, I give no respect to their actions or the thinking that caused them. I will expose them for what they are, and sometimes only harsh language can convey the tragedy and folly of wickedness.
It’s obvious that force and strong language can be used for good and respect for evil actions is not necessary. But it is too easy to miss apply these principles. So let me set a couple of ground rules.
Premeditated violence is not the way of the follower of Jesus. We are not to create a holy army and wage a literal war for we do not merely fight against flesh and blood. A war fought against such would not bring the change we desire. We fight ideas. The battleground is the mind. Guns and swords aren’t much use there. What is useful are stories and art and logic. We must wage a war of ideas and capture our cultures imagination. And in this, we must be aggressive.
Using words to make people feel inferior to us is not the way of the Christian either. We are not to beat people into submission with language. But we can use words to shame people for holding utterly stupid ideas. This is a delicate art. One that must be undergirded by love. In the same way, I make my precious daughter feel silly for being childishly selfish, so too can we use things like sarcasm and mockery to expose ridiculous thinking. When love is felt, words attack ideas and not people. If the church is going to use harsh words, its love must be felt.
When something we love is dangerously close to disaster, our presence must be felt. As a body, we must unite and spur one another onto good works grounded in the love of Christ. We cannot now retreat in the name of turning the other cheek. Nor can we storm the gates with hate in our hearts. Wisdom and humility must be our generals, and our Lord must be our Lord. It is easy now to respond to the current cultural crisis for our name’s sake, our own well being. But let us gladly lay down our lives for the good of this world and the glory of God. Let us seek the renewal of our culture. And let us use the tactics that are necessary but also worthy of our calling.
Michael C. Sherrard is a pastor, the director of Ratio Christi College Prep, and the author of Relational Apologetics. Booking info and such can be found at michaelcsherrard.com.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2OaoQv2
Did Jesus Even Claim to Be God?
Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy J. Brian Huffling
I sat down with some Jehovah’s Witnesses who were visiting with me. The elder who was leading our study stated that Jesus never claimed to be God. Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that Jesus is a created being. Liberal “Christians” argue that Jesus never claimed to be God. Many other groups say the same. If such is the case, then Christians have some explaining to do as they teach that Jesus is God. But did he ever claim this title for himself? Let’s look at what he actually said.
I am going to argue that, yes, Jesus, in fact, did claim to be God. This can be seen by the fact that he claimed to be identical with God in various ways.
Jesus Claimed to Be Identical with God
Jesus made statements about himself that were expressly made of Yahweh in the Old Testament. Let’s look at the OT claims and then Jesus’ claims.
“I AM”
One of the clearest passages of Jesus claiming to be God is his claiming to be Yahweh as being the great I AM of Exodus 3:14.
OT Claim: “God said to Moses, ‘I am who I am.’” The designation “I am” was solely reserved for Yahweh and was recognizes by the Jews as such. (Exodus 3:14)
Jesus Claim: “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.‘ 59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple” (John 8:58-58). Clearly, the Jews understood Jesus to be making himself equal with God. That’s why they wanted to kill him.
First and the Last
OT Claim: “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last; besides me, there is no god.’” (Isaiah 44:6)
Jesus’ Claim: “When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, ‘Fear not, I am the first and the last, 18 and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.’” (Note for Jehovah’s Witnesses: This can’t be Jehovah since for them Jehovah never died.)
Having the Glory of God
Jesus claimed to have the glory that only God had.
OT Claim: “I am the Lord; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols.”
Jesus’ Claim: “And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.”
His Acceptance of Worship
The OT and NT also forbade the worship of any other being, idol or otherwise (Exodus 20:1-4; Deut. 5:6-9; Acts 14:15; Rev. 22:8-9). However, Jesus accepted worship on several occasions and never reprimanded anyone else for it (Matt. 14:33; Matt. 20:28; John 9:38; John 20:28). In this last example, Thomas explicitly calls Jesus God and Jesus didn’t correct him.
He Claimed to Have Authority and Equality with God
Throughout Matthew 5 Jesus claims his words have the same authority as God. Repeatedly he says regarding the OT, “You have heard it said, but I say to you . . .” (See 5:22, 28, 32)
In the baptismal formula he gave at the Great Commission, he claimed equality with the Father and Spirit: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matt. 28:18-20)
He claimed to be able to forgive sins, which only God could do: “And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, ‘Son, your sins are forgiven.’ 6 Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, 7 ‘Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?’” (Mark 2:5-7)
Perhaps the clearest passage is John 10:30-33: Jesus claimed to be one with the Father. “I and the Father are one.” 31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” 33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”
Objections to Jesus Being God
Objection: Some will object that Jesus can’t be God. God, they say, is infinite and unlimited; however, Jesus claimed to be limited in various ways. For example, in Matthew 24:36 Jesus said, referring to his second coming, “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.”
Response: We have to understand that Jesus did in fact claim (and prove) to be God. The traditional Christian teaching is that Jesus had two natures even though he was just one person. One nature was his divine nature that he shares with the Father and Spirit. The other is his human nature. Sometimes he refers to his divine nature, such as having glory with God, being the first and the last, etc. However, sometimes he refers to his human nature. When we ask questions about his ability to do something or know something we have to be clear as to whether we are talking about his divine or human nature. In this verse, Jesus is referring to his limited human nature. This does not deny his divine nature.
Objection: Jesus also said “The Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28)
Response: The same basic answer is used here. The Father is greater in office while not being greater in nature, that is, in Jesus’ divine nature. Of course, the Father is greater than Jesus’ human nature. An illustration may make this clearer. The President of the United States is greater than me. However, he is only greater in office. We are both of the same nature.
Objection: in Matthew 19:17 we read: “And behold, a man came up to him, saying, ‘Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?’ 17 And he said to him, ‘Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good.’” In other words, only God is good, so why are you calling me good?
Response: Notice there is no explicit denial of his deity. He is likely saying, “Do you realize that in calling me good you are calling me God?” However, even if this is not what he is saying, there is no explicit denial of being God, and we have already seen several (select) examples of him claiming to be God.
Conclusion
Above are a few of the many passages where Jesus claims to be equal with God in various ways. The notion that he didn’t claim to be God is simply false. He was also understood to be God by his followers and the Church. Objections to this idea fail when properly examined. Jesus, in fact, claimed to be God.
*I am indebted as a student of Dr. Norman L. Geisler for the above connections and general thought. See for example his Christian Apologetics.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2QiYEzE
The UnAborted Truth
PodcastPodcast: Play in new window
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Email | TuneIn | RSS
Frank interviews one of the most controversial and brilliant defenders of freedom of speech and the right to life, Dr. Mike S. Adams. This fearless UNCW professor defends truth amidst tons of opposition wherever he goes. Make sure you listen to this podcast. In this interview they touch in Mike’s background story and then they dive into the terrible truth of what’s happening on college campuses all around the country, they also talk about how some universities are suppressing the truth about valid research against transgenderism and other related issues.
Why The Apocrypha Isn’t In The Bible
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Ryan Leasure
I’ve had more than a few conversations about the Apocrypha. From my experience, this group of a dozen Jewish books written between the Old and New Testaments (400 BC-AD 50) perplexes most Christians. A couple of reasons exist for this confusion. First, most have never read these books. That is, nobody knows what they say. And second, Catholics include these books in their Bible. Why would they include them in their Bible while Protestants do not?
Because much confusion exists around the Apocrypha, let me give four reasons why I believe the Apocrypha shouldn’t be included in our Bible.
1. THE APOCRYPHA ITSELF INDICATES IT’S NOT SCRIPTURE
The authors of the Apocrypha acknowledge that they aren’t prophets and don’t speak with divine authority like the Old Testament authors. The author of 1 Maccabees writes:
So there was great distress in Israel, the worst since the time when prophets ceased to appear among them (1 Macc. 9:27).
Prophets only existed in their ancient memories. This text, written around 100 BC, refers back to a time when the prophets were in their midst. The logical conclusion is that no prophet existed at this time who could speak from God. First Maccabees 14:41 also says as much:
The Jews and their priests have resolved that Simon should be their leader and high priest forever until a trustworthy prophet should arise.
Again, none of the Jews knew of a prophet who was speaking from God during the time of these events.
Additionally, these books contain theological and historical errors. For example, the Book of Wisdom indicates that God created the world out of preexisting matter (11:17) which contradicts the rest of Scripture’s teaching that God created the world out of nothing. Moreover, the book of Judith incorrectly states Nebuchadnezzar was king of Assyria, when in fact, he was the king of Babylon (1:5).
It’s hard to imagine how the Spirit could inspire documents containing both theological and historical error. When you couple the errors with the authors’ acknowledgment that no prophets existed during this time, we have good reasons to reject the Apocrypha as sacred Scripture.
2. JEWS HAVE NEVER ACCEPTED THE APOCRYPHA AS SCRIPTURE
The Jews don’t believe the Apocrypha belongs in their Bible, and they never have. Josephus, the greatest Jewish historian of the first century, explained:
It is true, our history has been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but has not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers.1
Josephus’ quote is especially helpful here. He indicates that ever since the reign of Artaxerxes (465-424 BC), the Jewish writings (the Apocrypha) have “not been esteemed of the like authority with the former (the Old Testament) by our forefathers.” In other words, the Jewish consensus was that while these writings might contain some helpful history and content, they don’t belong in the same category as the Old Testament texts.
Rabbinic literature during the first couple of centuries also affirms this distinction. The Babylonian Talmud reports:
After the latter prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi had died, the Holy Spirit departed from Israel.2
Based on this text, the Jews recognized that the Spirit stopped speaking through the prophets after Malachi died. Thus, the Apocryphal documents, which were written after Malachi, are not Spirit-inspired Scripture.
In fact, no early or recent Jewish canon includes the Apocrypha. That the Jews reject these Jewish documents as Scripture is a strong indication that they don’t belong in our Bible.
3. THE NEW TESTAMENT DOESN’T REFER TO THE APOCRYPHA AS SCRIPTURE
When reading the New Testament, you will find hundreds of quotations from the Old Testament. According to one count, Jesus and his apostles quote various portions of the Old Testament as Scripture 295 times.3 Not once, however, do they quote a text from the Apocrypha.
The absence of references to the Apocrypha speaks volumes. After all, if these books were from God, why wouldn’t Jesus or his apostles quote from them? They don’t, because they believed the Old Testament canon was closed, and it didn’t include the Apocrypha.
We see a couple hints of this in the New Testament. Jesus indicates in Luke 24:44 that the Jewish Scripture include, “The Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.” In other words, Jesus breaks down the Jewish canon into three sections — the law, the prophets, and the writings (the Psalms represented the writings). Notice he doesn’t mention the Apocrypha.
Jesus gives another indication of a closed Jewish canon in Luke 11:51. When talking to the Jewish leaders, Jesus says the Jews will be held accountable for all the martyrs from Abel to Zechariah. At first glance, it might appear that Jesus is making an alphabetical list, but that’s not what he’s doing. Remember, his alphabet was different from ours. Instead, Jesus makes a chronological list. Abel was the first martyr in Genesis (the first book), and Zechariah was the last martyr in Chronicles (the last book in the Jewish Bible). Note, the Jewish Bible contains all the same books as our present Old Testament, but their ordering of the books is different.
Again, the New Testament provides strong evidence that the Apocrypha doesn’t belong in our Bible.
4. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DIDN’T DECLARE THE APOCRYPHA WAS SCRIPTURE UNTIL THE REFORMATION
The Roman Catholic Church officially declared that the Apocrypha was canonical at the Council of Trent in 1546. One must ask though if these books were authoritative, why wait over fifteen hundred years to declare their authority? It seems that Rome declared their canonical status as a direct response to the teachings of Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformers who rejected these books and their teachings.
Perhaps the biggest reason these books were even up for discussion is because St. Jerome hesitantly included them in the Latin Vulgate Bible in AD 404. Because this was the official Bible of the Western Church for over a thousand years, it’s not hard to imagine how Christians began to think the Apocrypha was also Scripture.
While Jerome included these books in his Vulgate, he specifically differentiated them from the rest of the Bible. He indicated that these books were “not for the establishing of the authority of the doctrines of the church.”4 That is to say, Jerome recognized that these books didn’t carry the same authority as Scripture. Only Scripture establishes Christian doctrine. The Apocrypha doesn’t have authority to do that.
Knowing the origins of their inclusion in the Latin Vulgate and the late declaration of their canonical status is yet another reason to reject these books as Scripture.
NOT SCRIPTURE
Based on these four reasons, we can say with confidence that the Apocrypha doesn’t belong in our Bible. This doesn’t mean, however, that it’s completely useless. The Maccabees, for example, give us some useful history and tell us why Jews celebrate Hanukkah. Some of the books, like Tobit and Susanna, contain entertaining stories. Protestants even sing — albeit unknowingly — Christmas songs based on Apocryphal texts (It Came Upon a Midnight Clear). In other words, the Apocrypha is interesting and contains some historical details. In the end, however, it’s not Scripture and doesn’t belong in the Bible.
Ryan Leasure holds an M.A. from Furman University and an M.Div. from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He currently serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2QjIwOo
Cdc Reports: Std Rates Hit All-Time High For The Fourth Straight Year
Legislating Morality, Culture & PoliticsBy Wintery Knight
Preliminary CDC numbers for STDs in 2017
I’ve been blogging about skyrocketing rates of sexually-transmitted-diseases for the last few years, and particularly how it impacts high-risk groups, e.g., men who have sex with men. The attitude that the culture is taking towards this is to not make any moral judgments, but someone is going to have to pay for all the health care that is required to “fix” this problem.
Fox News reports on the latest numbers:
The CDC gives us the numbers well enough, but like all government agencies, their attitude is not to tell the selfish adults to behave morally. They blame “stigma and discrimination” for the rise in STDs, and recommend more government as the solution. I.e., they think that people who disapprove of sex outside of marriage are to blame for the skyrocketing rates of STDs. If we all stopped making the irresponsible, reckless people feel bad with our ignorant moral judgments, then the STD problem would immediately be solved.
Anyway, here is an article that talks about untreatable strains of gonorrhea in particular:
Now, I know it’s tempting (for some people who like tolerance) to say that we should let people do whatever they want to do, and not judge them. After all, we can just take some money from the wealthy in order to solve these problems without making anyone feel bad. I hear this a lot from the “don’t judge” crowd. But this time, it looks like no amount of money is going to solve this problem, and maybe the judgers were right to warn.
Syphilis is also a problem in certain high-risk groups:
HIV is also a problem for this same group:
We do have certain segments of the population who think that normal sexuality means having sex with dozens, hundreds and even thousands of partners. Just on the grounds of “they’re hot.” And naturally, these people are at higher risk for STDs.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2wZZkSJ
Irresistible: Reclaiming the New that Jesus Unleashed
PodcastPodcast: Play in new window
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Email | TuneIn | RSS
Once upon a time there was a version of our faith that was practically . . . irresistible. But that was then. Today we preach, teach, write, and communicate as if nothing has changed. As if “The Bible says it,” still settles it.
It’s time to hit pause on much of what we’re doing and consider the faith modeled by our first-century brothers and sisters who had no official Bible, no status, and humanly speaking, little chance of survival.
What did they know that we don’t?
What made their faith so compelling, so defensible, so irresistible?
Buckle up . . . you’re about to find out!
Frank interviews Andy Stanly about his new book Irresistible. Here’s what Frank had to say about the book:
““Warning: This book will set you and your ministry back—back to the first century and the approach to advancing the gospel modeled by Jesus and the apostles. Andy reminds us that the resurrection was at the center of the first-century apologetic. Then he challenges twenty-first century believers to reclaim it as the center of ours as well. I agree with Andy—this approach changed the world once. I’m convinced it could do so again. Read and apply now!”—Frank Turek
Worldviews Shaping Culture: Can You Name America’s Top 3?
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Mikel del Rosario
You’ve got a worldview. Everyone does.
What’s a worldview? It’s everything you believe about what’s real and what really matters in life. Ronald Nash defines it like this in his book, Worldviews In Conflict:
A worldview is a set of presuppositions (or assumptions) which we hold (either consciously or subconsciously) about the basic makeup of our world.
J.P. Moreland observed that there are three major worldviews dominating the debate in our culture today. Here’s a quick rundown of America’s top three:
This is the main version of something called ethical monotheism. This is the idea that God’s real; that God created us and gave us a real moral law. And all people everywhere are obligated to obey the moral law—whether they want to or not. Some things, like loving your parents, are really good. Other things, like hurting a little girl for no reason, are really wrong.
The next two represent the major movements of the opposite camp.
What’s this? Think X-Men. No matter how out there something might seem (like bending metal just by thinking about it), absolutely everything can be boiled down to physical processes (like a genetic mutation). This view says only the physical world is real. You’re pretty much just your brain. And everything you do is just the result of things like your genetics and how you were raised.
Another key idea: Science is the only way we know things. If you can’t measure something in a lab or use science to prove it, you can’t know it. So you can say you know Advil will help with your headache. But you can’t say you actually know God exists.
For this one, think Oprah. All truth and reality is relative to you or your community: “That’s true for you but not for me.” It’s supposed to be a feel-good, politically correct worldview where no one’s perspective is ever wrong about anything—especially when it comes to spiritual things (unless you happen to think Christianity is actually true).
Another key idea is words don’t really mean anything. You decide what words mean to you. For example, it doesn’t matter if this post is about worldviews. Maybe to you, this article means I’m giving away iPads to everyone who shares this post on Facebook! I’m not.
Really, I’m not.
These two worldviews agree you can’t know things about stuff you can’t see, touch, taste, hear or smell. This directly challenges historic Christianity which teaches that we can know the truth (John 8:32). J.P. Moreland says: “We are in a struggle for the hearts and minds of the American people against scientific naturalism and postmodern relativism…Our religion is a religion that is based on knowledge.”
So, there you have it. The top three worldviews shaping American culture: Christianity, Naturalism, and Postmodernism. Which one most shapes your views?
Mikel is a Ph.D. student in New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, Cultural Engagement Manager at the Hendricks Center, and Adjunct Professor of Apologetics and World Religion at William Jessup University.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2LW1rvx
Book Review: The Creator Revealed
2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Luke Nix
Introduction
Today I am excited to bring you a review of a book that I have been anticipating for a little over a year and a half. In January 2017 particle physicist and University of Oklahoma professor, Dr. Michael G. Strauss (check out his blog and YouTube channel) and I were talking, and he informed me that he had been working on a book about science and faith for a while. He gave me an overview of the content and even let me in on a sneak peek of the book. After reading through what was already “on paper,” I was incredibly excited to see it published. Dr. Strauss’ goal with “The Creator Revealed: A Physicist Examines the Big Bang, and the Bible” was to provide the scientific, theological, and biblical evidence for the big bang in a non-technical and more conversational tone.
The book is relatively short (126 pages, not counting the appendices) compared to other works on this topic, and the seventeen chapters are bite-sized. This review will be my usual chapter-by-chapter summary followed by my thoughts (as if the first line above didn’t give you an indication). Before we get to the review, check out this interview with Dr. Strauss about science and faith and his experience with scientists and students:
Now, on to the book review…
Chapter 1: An Important Question
Strauss begins his book with a discussion of the importance, for the Christian, of seriously and critically investigating the beginning of the universe. He explains that since God created the universe, it accurately reveals His character and His glory (Psalms 19:1). An investigation of the universe will present evidence for its Creator and the proper worldview. Those who are presented with this evidence should follow it where it leads. If evidence for God is presented by the creation, then it follows that the investigator should believe that God exists.
The reigning model among scientists is the general big bang model. Many scientists claim to hold to this model due to the evidence that the creation has presented to them for its truth. Strauss explains that if some form of the big bang model does accurately explain the beginning of the universe, it has great implications for the discussion of God’s existence, His character, and whether someone should follow Christ. Thus it is imperative that the Christian approach this topic with an open and evangelistic mindset that is committed to not only the inerrant truth and authority of God’s Word but also the truth revealed by God’s actions (His creation). With this, Strauss transitions into a description of the general big bang model and some of the evidence that convinced even atheistic scientists that it accurately describes the beginning of our universe.
Part 1: The Big Bang Reveals God’s Character
Chapter 2: The Big Bang
While many Christians have heard of the big bang model for the creation of the universe, there are some dire misconceptions of it that prevent an accurate assessment of the scientific and biblical evidence for it. Strauss begins by correcting these misconceptions, including the ideas that the big bang was an explosion of preexisting matter and that it was an explosion at all. He explains that the big bang merely posits that the universe began from literally “no thing” some time ago in the finite past.
Strauss uses an analogy to the game of Mouse Trap to explain how we can reasonably conclude how the universe formed. Beginning with the proper setup of the elaborate trap and knowing how the laws of physics operate, without ever turning the crank, we can still accurately imagine how the process will unfold to finally trap the mice. Likewise, we can begin with the most fundamental particles of the universe and the laws of physics and use computers to “imagine” how the process will unfold to create a universe. As these computer simulations go through the process, we see that they generate what we observe in the universe today, thus it is reasonable to believe that the big bang model that they simulate accurately represents the beginning conditions of our universe and the elapse of time since that beginning.
Chapter 3: How Do You Know?
Many Christians raise many challenges to the idea of the big bang that question the certainty of the conclusion and that conclusion’s compatibility with the Bible. Strauss will address the biblical challenges later, but in this chapter, he addresses the strength of the observational and theoretical case. He begins by explaining how we can know the events of the past even though no person was “there” to observe them (a common objection). For instance, observing the presence of a snakeskin on the ground is evidence that a snake had shed its skin, even though no one was present to witness this past event. Just as if a snake shed its skin in the past, we would expect to find a snakeskin, if the big bang happened, we would expect to find certain features as we observe the universe.
Before getting into the observations and to keep things interesting, Strauss notes that at the time the evidence for the big bang starting coming in, scientists were perfectly satisfied with the current beginningless model of the universe at the time because it did not require any kind of Creator at all. However, when the evidence for a beginning of the universe started being discovered, it caused a huge philosophical uproar in the scientific community. Strauss describes the observations of the expansion of the universe, the radiation present throughout the universe, and the relative abundances of the elements. All the observations pointed strongly enough to the universe having a beginning. However, on top of that, theoretical physicists over the last century (including Einstein and Hawking) have done work that has been found accurate in their precise predictions of observations, and others have done work that solidifies the necessity of a beginning based upon both observation and theory. The beginning of the universe has been (reluctantly) accepted due to the certainty level demanded by the evidence even in the context of a philosophical presupposition against God’s existence.
Chapter 4: The Transcendent Creator
But the big bang does not stop at merely providing evidence for the universe having a beginning. The big bang provides evidence of the identity of the Cause of the universe. Strauss explains that as will any good crime mystery story, the perpetrator leaves behind clues as to his or her identity that allows the investigator to accurately identify them. According to Romans 1:20, these clues are not only there but were intentionally left there and are clearly seen by those who investigate the universe. So, even if scientists are philosophically committed against the identity of the Cause of the universe, they will still clearly see clues that point to the attributes (thus the identity) of the Creator. Strauss emphasizes that this is exactly what is happening with the big bang.
The first attribute of the Creator that Strauss shows is demanded of a big bang universe (thus evidenced in our universe) is the transcendence of its cause. If the big bang was the beginning of all energy, space and time, then the cause of the big bang has to exist outside this universe. Strauss explains that this is significant to identifying the Creator because only the Bible explicitly identifies the Creator as acting prior to the beginning of (thus being outside or transcending) the universe. This means that the Creator is not made of anything physical (matter or energy) and is something completely different: spirit, according to John 4:24.
Chapter 5: Design in the Universe
To identify further characteristics of the Cause of the universe, it is important to examine the fine-tuning of various features of the universe for life. Of the hundreds of characteristics that would be examined, Strauss has chosen to describe three to keep from getting too technical and losing the reader. Strauss takes a look at the amount of matter in the universe, the strength of the strong nuclear force, and the formation of carbon. All of these, if their numbers were slightly different, one direction or the other, from what they are, the universe would be not only be devoid of life but would be hostile to life. The fact that these values could have been different, yet are not, indicates that the Cause of the universe intended for the universe to be an eventual home for life.
Chapter 6: A Plan for Humans
Building upon the finely tuned features described in the previous chapter, Strauss explains that Romans 1:20’s claim that God’s “attributes are clearly seen” is being demonstrated in the scientific literature. Strauss cites the works of several skeptical scientists who explicitly state that the design characteristics of the universe, that have been discovered as a product of modern big bang cosmology, point exclusively to the cause having the intention, forethought, and ultimately a purpose for the universe. Some scientists believe this so strongly, yet they want to deny God as the Creator, that they believe that man (as an intelligent designer with purpose) will eventually be able to reach back in time to create the universe themselves. Even though they refuse to acknowledge God as Creator, His attributes are clearly seen and recognized by these skeptical scientists. This recognition of the intentionality and purpose of the Creator is exactly what the Christian should expect from the correct theory of the universe’s beginning. Big bang cosmology is directly producing the results the Christian expects- that the universe speaks powerfully that it was created intentionally for humanity.
Chapter 7: The Garden of Eden
Continuing on the topic of design for humanity, Strauss zooms in from the level of the universe as a whole to our galaxy, solar system, and planet. He explains how the type, size, and age of the Milky Way Galaxy must be just right for advanced life to not only survive but be even possible. Zooming in closer, to our solar system, Strauss shows the specific characteristics of our sun are unique (and also finely tuned), and he discusses the importance of gaseous giant planets like Saturn and Jupiter for protecting life from cosmic debris. Finally, Strauss looks at some of the characteristics of our planet that make is uniquely suitable for advanced life. Again, in all of these investigations, we see that the creation reveals that is was created with intentionality and purpose.
Chapter 8: Characteristics of the Creator
Summing up the previous chapters, Strauss emphasizes that the Christian not only has the testimony of God’s creation that the big bang is an accurate description of the beginning of the universe, but the Christian also has the incredible alignment between the characteristics demanded of the cause of the big bang and the God of the Bible. These characteristics are not evident only to those who glance at the creation, but it is unmistakable to those who investigate it deeply. The Apostle Paul’s claims about the clarity of the revelation of the Creator through the creation Romans 1:20 is borne out with every new discovery that confirms that the universe had a beginning and was designed for the benefit of humanity.
Part 2: A Biblical Beginning
Chapter 9: Mistakes of the Past
For the Christian, nature is not the only source of truth from the Creator. The Bible is the Creator’s written source of truth. Since both sources are from the same Author, when we interpret them, our interpretations cannot be in conflict because the sources themselves are not in conflict. Strauss explains to the reader that the Church has made mistakes in the past regarding interpretation that still make nonbelievers suspicious of the Church today, so it is important that we do not repeat the same mistakes as we search for the proper interpretation of debateable biblical passages. The two interpretive guidelines to always remember are that the passages are written from a particular perspective and that some passages do have multiple reasonable interpretations. While there is only one correct interpretation of these passages, honest disagreement on the correct interpretation can take place without questioning one’s commitment to the Bible as God’s inerrant and authoritative Word. These two guidelines are important in our humble pursuit of truth and will guide Strauss’ investigation of the creation passages and their possible agreement with the big bang.
Chapter 10: Rules of the Game
Before beginning to investigate the creation passages of the Bible, Strauss takes the time to describe three rules of interpretation. He emphasizes that if this step is not done beforehand, then those involved could easily be using different rules of interpretation that will result in very little progress. The rules that he covers are not new and have been used since the beginning of the Church, but since they may not be explicit in the mind of the reader, it is important to lay them out.
Strauss emphasizes the that the goal of interpretation is to discover the meaning that the author of a particular passage intended to communicate to the audience. The first of the rules is to always consider the literary context- the surrounding passages, the book, and the Bible as a whole. Driven by a commitment to biblical inerrancy, this rule requires that no two interpretations of two passages may be in conflict with one another. The second is to understand figurative language and recognize when it may be in use. Forgetting such an important thing can result in all sorts of misunderstandings, even in everyday life. Finally, we must consider the cultural context in which the passage was communicated. Strauss concludes the chapter with an exercise of interpreting 1 Corinthians 11:4-6 using these principles to demonstrate how they are properly applied.
Chapter 11: The Days of Genesis
One of the big questions Christians have about big bang cosmology is whether or not it is compatible with sound exegesis (reading things out of Scripture rather than into Scripture). Essential to this question is the proper meaning of the word interpreted as “day” when used to describe the periods of time of God’s creation. Using the principles and guidelines described in the previous two chapters, Strauss takes the reader through interpreting this word. Of the uses of the word “day” in Genesis 1-2 that do not refer to the days of creation, there are seven instances, four of which are unique in their meanings. Some refer to less than twenty-four hours, and others refer to a lot longer. All of these definitions are considered to be literal interpretations. Because of these possibilities, it is reasonable to consider that the original author used the word literally and that he meant it as a longer period of time.
Many Christians, who strongly oppose even the possibility of this exegetical conclusion, often appeal to the immediate context to undermine this possibility. They propose that “day” in the presence of either a number or “evening and morning” necessitates that “day” is twenty-four. Strauss examines the wider context of Scripture to provide examples of the presence of both of these (one even believed to also be penned by Moses) that do not mean twenty-four hours. The presence of these examples in Scripture undermine the claim that their presence in Genesis 1 exegetically demands a twenty-four interpretation. Another attempt to undermine the long-period-of-time interpretation is God’s comparing the work week to the creation week in Exodus 20:9-11. Strauss points out that the same pattern is applied to a different period of time (years) just a few verses later, so if the application of the pattern necessitates that the compared period of time is twenty-four hours, then it requires that years are also twenty-four hours. But that conclusion is false, so it is also false that the application to the days of Genesis necessitates that they are twenty-four hours. Consequently, while the days of Genesis are periods of time, the Bible does not tell us exactly how long they are.
Strauss has, thus far, shown how big bang cosmology is compatible with an exegetical, historical and literal interpretation of Genesis; thus it is perfectly compatible with Scripture.
Chapter 12: As God Sees It
Even though the Bible does not tell us the details of how long the creation days were or when the universe was initially created, it does provide many incredible details that could have only been known by an eye-witness to the creation. Strauss takes this chapter to describe just a few. He begins his discussion of these details by reminding the reader that for proper exegesis (again, interpreting out of Scripture and not into Scripture) that all of Scripture is told from a perspective. We have to determine where exactly that perspective is in Genesis. Genesis 1:2 tells just precisely where the Spirit of God was, thus the perspective of the rest of the chapter- the surface of planet earth.
Strauss notes that a confirmation of this perspective is that the sun and moon are described as “the great lights,” yet we know that they are quite puny compared to other lights in the universe. The descriptor of “great” is only true if written from the perspective of the surface of the earth. Now, from this perspective, Genesis 1 describes the initial conditions of earth as formless, empty, dark, and watery. As scientists continue their investigation into the history of our planet and they develop and test theories of planetary formation, they are discovering that the descriptions of formless, empty, dark, and watery are a perfect match for the initial conditions of our planet. This could only have been known by the Creator since there were no human witnesses; this provides powerful confirmation that the Bible is truly inspired by the Creator of the universe.
Chapter 13: The Order of Creation
The other incredible details provided by Genesis 1 about the creation are present in the descriptions of God’s actions on those days. Using the perspective established from Genesis 1:2 and being mindful of the original Hebrew and the context of the passages, Strauss takes the reader through properly interpreting the passages and clearly states the claims of each of the days of creation. He then shows that each of the claimed events has been shown to be accurate by scientists in the appropriate fields. He also demonstrates how presumably problematic passages are resolved when the proper perspective is utilized, and the original Hebrew words are considered.
Not only is the content of Genesis 1 accurate, but the order is accurate as well. The Genesis 1 account of creation, when reading literally and from the correct perspective, provides accurate (though not comprehensive) historical record of the formation of our planet and life. Considering how many different claims are made throughout Genesis 1 about the history of earth that the author could easily have gotten wrong but didn’t, this evidence further solidifies the case that the Bible was inspired by the Creator of the universe. This comes as no surprise to the Christian, for this is exactly what is expect since the Bible and nature have the same source: God.
Chapter 14: Sin, Death, and the Future
One of the main concerns of Christians who reject big bang cosmology is that it requires that animals died before the fall of humanity. They believe that God created the world perfect with no pain, suffering or death, and Adam’s sin spoiled all that. If this belief is true, then any view that allows for animal death before the fall of Adam and Eve cannot be true. Strauss’ goal in this chapter is not a comprehensive examination of this view but rather a few surface observations that will cause the reader to consider that this is not the best way to interpret the Genesis text.
As with before Strauss takes the reader into the greater context of the whole Bible to help interpret. Staying within Genesis, though, he notes that “very good” is used instead of “perfect;” God increases Eve’s birthing pains, but does not create them; Adam knew what “death” was when God gave him the warning to not eat of the tree (indicating that he may already be familiar with death), and Adam did not physically die in the same twenty-four period that he first disobeyed God. The immediate context certainly does not require that the creation was without suffering and death before Adam’s sin. Additionally, when the context is expanded to the New Testament, the death referred to in the context of sin is almost always spiritual death. Meaning that the death that was a result of the fall of Adam and Eve did not affect non-spiritual beings (such as plants and animals). Plants and animals could have died (physical death) long before sin entered the world (consequence: spiritual death). Since the New Testament describes death that cannot be experienced by plants and animals (spiritual death), the kind of death that they do experience (physical death) is not a theological nor biblical problem for the Christian who affirms that it took place before sin entered the world to bring spiritual death to spiritual beings.
Part 3: Truth Changes Lives
Chapter 15: The Truth Shall Set You Free
Many Christians are so zealous for Christ that they offer stories and evidence that are simply not true. Strauss begins the final part of his book by giving an example of one such story that is often repeated as scientific evidence of the truth of the Bible but is not a true story in the least. He explains that Christians must be careful of repeating such false evidence because it reduces the credibility of the rest of our witness for the Gospel. Strauss explains that some Christians fall victim to false evidences because they are unconsciously fearful that further investigation will bring a crisis of faith. An example of this would be when Christians have been repeatedly told that big bang cosmology is an atheistic theory and they are hesitant to study and accept the evidence because it would mean that Christianity is false. Strauss reminds the reader that there is nothing to fear on such studies (whether it is the big bang or something else) because we serve the God of all truth. And no matter what we find to be true, it will always be compatible with Christianity. Investigating and accepting what is true gives the Christian true reasons that they can provide to the unsaved as evidence of the truth of Christianity.
Evangelism is not the only place where investigating and accepting the evidence no matter where it leads is a blessing to the Christian. Strauss relates a story of a friend who was an amateur astronomer who knew the evidence for the universe’s antiquity yet he was taught all his life that the Bible only allowed for the universe to be young. This friend experienced a cognitive dissonance that resulted in his worship of God with his mind and heart being stunted. However, when the biblical compatibility of an ancient universe was presented to him, he was able to reconcile the evidence for an ancient universe with the truth of God’s Word. The truth set his mind free and heart free to worship God like never before. Because we serve a God of truth, following the evidence where it leads is nothing to fear, and God will honor you with a closer relationship with Him and a more powerful witness to Jesus Christ.
Chapter 16: With All Your Mind
Many surveys and statistics show that people lose their childhood faith in the college years. Strauss attests to this in his experience as a college professor. He attributes much of it to a serious lack of the North American church’s willingness to love God with all our minds. Our children are often discouraged from asking tough questions (see the previous chapter). They do not usually get intellectual recognition of their tough questions until they are in an environment where skeptics are all too eager to provide answers. When provided with evidence that contradicts what they have been taught about the first chapters of Genesis, they often reason that God is untrustworthy in the rest of His revelation, including the Gospel. If the Christian student does retain some semblance of faith, it is usually compartmentalized, but that compartmentalization does not last long; God is usually abandoned.
Strauss explains that there is hope, though, through our setting the example and loving God with our minds. We must investigate and follow that evidence (again, see the previous chapter). He provides an example of the results of such an effort. One student went through the process described above all the way to the end of leaving the faith. However, when the truth of what Scripture actually does teach about origins was shown to be fully compatible with the evidence being offered as defeaters by the skeptics he spoke to, his faith was renewed. He realized that God, in fact, was truly trustworthy in what He revealed in Scripture. He followed the evidence and the logical path of trust from Genesis to Jesus. Jesus commands us to love God with all our minds (Mark 12:30), and when we do so, we can be the instrument that Christ uses to bring others back to Him.
Chapter 17: No God or Know God
In the concluding chapter, Strauss tells the story of an atheist who heard one of his talks covering the content of this book. While the atheist already understood and accepted the big bang as the beginning of the universe, he was never presented with evidence that it also powerfully supported the God of the Bible. After hearing Strauss speak of how the big bang was a theistic theory that was rejected for so long by scientists on that fact alone, he became interested and started investigating the claims of Jesus to be God. After completing his investigation he was convinced that the big bang, indeed, pointed to the God of the Bible as the Creator and that Jesus was who He claimed to be. This atheist surrendered his life to Jesus Christ, and Dr. Strauss has had the joy of watching him grow and become an enthusiastic ambassador of Christ. God spoke clearly to this atheist through His creation, and the Truth changed his life.
Reviewer’s Thoughts
As I mentioned in the introduction, when I read the sneak preview of the book, I was extremely excited and couldn’t wait for Dr. Strauss to get his book published. This is the most succinct yet non-technical book I have read about the implications of the big bang on Christianity. I love that Strauss presents the basic case for the big bang from both nature and the Bible side-by-side. I loved his focus on Romans 1:20 and his clarifying that the big bang is inherently a theistic theory (it is not an atheistic theory, as many Christians incorrectly believe), and that is what actually caused the majority of the scientific community to reject the clear evidence for so long. I particularly appreciate his dedication to biblical inerrancy as he presents a careful and exegetical case from Scripture. He addresses the most common challenges and questions from Christians to help remove any fear that they are compromising Scripture or God’s character at any point by following the evidence where it leads.
Strauss’ concise descriptions, use of analogies, stories from his life, and the sprinkling of jokes throughout makes a rather dry subject very enjoyable, understandable, and exciting. The length of each chapter and the book as a whole are perfect for those who are curious but do not have the time to devote to the more in-depth and technical works available (although it may spark an interest in pursuing a deeper investigation). With all of these characteristics and the fact that it covers an extremely important evangelistic tool, “The Creator Revealed” is a must-have book for every Christian who is passionate about the Great Commission. This book needs to be in every church library and on the bookshelf of every Christian parent and educator and pastor. Most every Christian knows someone who has dismissed Christ from their lives because they believe that the creation, via the big bang, eliminates the need for the Creator. God has placed you in their life to show them how they have unnecessarily rejected their Savior. Get this book, and prepare yourself to “give [them] a reason for the hope that you have” (1 Peter 3:15).
For more in-depth studies into the big bang and the Bible check out these great books:
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2wDvmCU