By Rajkumar Richard
The question, “Would there be less evil in a world without Satan?” could be relevant, for if the answer to this question is a yes, then we could plausibly ask, “Why did God create angels, i.e., Satan if evil in this world would be lesser without Satan?”
Within this context, if God had not created Satan, evil would have been less, and our world would have been a good world. However, since God created Satan, could we then infer that God erred in HIS decision to create Satan?
The entailment to this thought process could potentially debunk Historic Christianity. God (as a maximally great being) cannot err. If God erred in creating Satan, HE cannot be God. Hence God’s existence could be disputed. The infallibility of the Bible that reveals God to mankind could also be thus disputed. We could go on and on.
Let us discuss this theme by considering the following aspects albeit from a biblical standpoint.
The Source of Sin
Sin is an evil action or motive that opposes and assaults God. Sin replaces God with something or someone in God’s rightful place of supremacy. Sin entails evil.
Understanding the source of sin is vital to understanding the theme we are discussing now. If Satan is the source of sin and evil, one could argue that God should not have created Satan to keep the world free of sin and evil.
The “Animal Nature” of man is the source of sin, claimed British Philosopher and Theologian Frederick R. Tennant. Under this notion, humans possess natural animalistic impulses as a means to human survival that have intensified through natural selection based on their evolution from less highly developed forms. Other theologians have posited other sources of sin. However, each of these views has been found to be largely inadequate.[1]
The Bible teaches differently. Sin is not caused by God (James 1:13), but man is responsible for his sins (James 1: 14-15).
Man possesses certain innate desires. He could either satisfy those desires in moderation or sin by abusing those desires to either hurt himself or the others.
His ‘desire to enjoy’ could result in an enjoyment of eating in moderation or a sin by being a glutton, whereby he injures himself. His ‘desire to obtain’ could be satisfied either by legitimately acquiring material possessions or he could sin by exploiting and stealing from others. His ‘desire to achieve’ could be satisfied either through legitimate achievement or he could sin and achieve at the expense of others.
Man could satisfy these desires in a godly manner by dwelling within the divinely imposed constraints. But man sins when he fails to accept the divine limits to these desires and makes these desires as ends in themselves, which are the cravings of a sinful man (1 John 2: 16).
While desires are natural, there could be external inducements (Satanic or human) that motivate a man to sin. Whatever be the case, man is wholly responsible for his sins. Sin is the choice of the person who commits it.
Function of Satan in Sin
Satan is a demon (cf. Luke 10: 17-20). He is the tempter and deceiver. Satan opposes God and the work of Christ by tempting and deceiving humans. Satan tempted Adam & Eve, Jesus, Judas, etc. (cf. Acts 5:3, 1 Corinthians 7:5, 2 Corinthians 2: 11, Ephesians 6: 11, 2 Timothy 2: 26).
Sometimes we state that Satan is the source of sins. While making such statements, we use the word “source” informally. In this informal usage, “source” refers to an ‘originator’ or an ‘instigatory cause.’
If we claim that Satan is the source of all sins, i.e., if we use the word ‘source’ to mean, in an Aristotelian sense, the material cause (‘that out of which’) or the efficient cause (‘the primary source of…’), then we posit dualism. Dualism contradicts the Bible, for there are no two equally ultimate powers, one good, and the other evil.
God is the only ultimate power and God is good. God is not the source or the originator of sin or evil. Moreover, Satan was originally created good; hence Satan is not the source of sin and evil.
Potency of Freewill to Sin without Satan
If asked differently, the title question would be, “Would Adam & Eve have sinned without Satan?” Since man is responsible for his sins, the answer should be yes.
The premise on which this argument is also predicated on is the freewill-based rebellion of angels in the heavenly realm. (This premise presupposes the metaphysical similarity of the free will of angels and humans.)
The angels that rebelled against God did not have an external inducement (as Adam & Eve had Satan as an external inducer). There were only two entities during the angelic fall – God and Angels. (Even if mankind was created before the fall of Satan, man was totally incapable of influencing Satan’s fall.)
Since God can neither tempt nor cause evil, the angelic rebellion was an entailment of their free will. Therefore, it is quite reasonable to conclude that Adam & Eve had the potential to sin or would have sinned irrespective of the presence of Satan.
Satan merely accelerated the sin of Adam and Eve. Had Satan not existed, Adam and Eve would have sinned (or eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) sooner or later.
Conclusion
Satan is not the source of sin. Man’s free will is the source of sin. Man would have inevitably sinned regardless of Satan’s existence.
Would the quantum and the extent of sins be minimized if Satan was not created? Not necessarily so, for if Satan is to be considered as an accelerant of sin, then there is a possibility that the quantum and the extent of sins would be actualized at a later time. So the quantum and the extent of sins would have been the same with or without Satan, for the potency of man’s free will to sin is independent of Satan.
The other possibility is that the quantum and the extent of sins would be lesser without Satan. In which case, the question, “If evil in this world would be lesser without Satan, then why did God create Satan?” gains legitimacy.
If Satan is the sole cause of evil, then evil would have been absolutely eliminated, had Satan not been created. However, since Satan exists and that Satan is not the sole cause of evil, only God, in HIS omniscient wisdom would be able to determine the extent to which evil would be reduced had angels not been created.
But on the other hand, if the good that is to be actualized from the good angels in ministering to people is commensurately immeasurable, then God would be justified to create Satan even with the potential of evil.
Finally, natural evil, which is devoid of human willing and acting, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc. and suffering caused by a host of diseases such as cancer, cystic fibrosis, etc. exist independent of Satan and adds substantial numbers to the victims of evil. The pain and suffering caused by natural evil and diseases are innate in the creational design of this world and the human body.
The fact of the matter is that evil would not cease to exist if Satan were to be non-existent. Hence, numbers need not matter. When evil exists, the terms ‘lesser’ and ‘greater’ do not gain greater significance, for the world we live in would be evil even if only 1% of the total population (1 out of 10 people) are adversely affected by evil. Moreover, if only 1% of the total population is affected by evil, then there is a certain possibility for evil to increase.
Therefore, the question, “Would there be less evil in a world without Satan?” would neither debunk nor harm Historic Christianity.
Notes:
[1] Other theologians have posited various sources for sin. The “Anxiety of Finiteness” was proposed by Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971). The idea of “Existential Estrangement” was proposed by Paul Tillich (1886-1965), the “Economic Struggle” proposed by the Liberation Theology, and “Individualism and Competitiveness” as argued by Harrison Sacket Elliott (1882-1951).
Rajkumar Richard is passionate to strengthen the faith of fellow Christians, especially the young Christians. He has a Masters in Religion (Southern Evangelical Seminary, NC, USA) and Masters in Biology (School of Biological Sciences, Madurai Kamaraj University, India). He is a Christian blogger, itinerant speaker, social evangelist, and a mentor to young Christians.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2OKqCUp
Would A World Without Satan Lack Evil?
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Rajkumar Richard
The question, “Would there be less evil in a world without Satan?” could be relevant, for if the answer to this question is a yes, then we could plausibly ask, “Why did God create angels, i.e., Satan if evil in this world would be lesser without Satan?”
Within this context, if God had not created Satan, evil would have been less, and our world would have been a good world. However, since God created Satan, could we then infer that God erred in HIS decision to create Satan?
The entailment to this thought process could potentially debunk Historic Christianity. God (as a maximally great being) cannot err. If God erred in creating Satan, HE cannot be God. Hence God’s existence could be disputed. The infallibility of the Bible that reveals God to mankind could also be thus disputed. We could go on and on.
Let us discuss this theme by considering the following aspects albeit from a biblical standpoint.
The Source of Sin
Sin is an evil action or motive that opposes and assaults God. Sin replaces God with something or someone in God’s rightful place of supremacy. Sin entails evil.
Understanding the source of sin is vital to understanding the theme we are discussing now. If Satan is the source of sin and evil, one could argue that God should not have created Satan to keep the world free of sin and evil.
The “Animal Nature” of man is the source of sin, claimed British Philosopher and Theologian Frederick R. Tennant. Under this notion, humans possess natural animalistic impulses as a means to human survival that have intensified through natural selection based on their evolution from less highly developed forms. Other theologians have posited other sources of sin. However, each of these views has been found to be largely inadequate.[1]
The Bible teaches differently. Sin is not caused by God (James 1:13), but man is responsible for his sins (James 1: 14-15).
Man possesses certain innate desires. He could either satisfy those desires in moderation or sin by abusing those desires to either hurt himself or the others.
His ‘desire to enjoy’ could result in an enjoyment of eating in moderation or a sin by being a glutton, whereby he injures himself. His ‘desire to obtain’ could be satisfied either by legitimately acquiring material possessions or he could sin by exploiting and stealing from others. His ‘desire to achieve’ could be satisfied either through legitimate achievement or he could sin and achieve at the expense of others.
Man could satisfy these desires in a godly manner by dwelling within the divinely imposed constraints. But man sins when he fails to accept the divine limits to these desires and makes these desires as ends in themselves, which are the cravings of a sinful man (1 John 2: 16).
While desires are natural, there could be external inducements (Satanic or human) that motivate a man to sin. Whatever be the case, man is wholly responsible for his sins. Sin is the choice of the person who commits it.
Function of Satan in Sin
Satan is a demon (cf. Luke 10: 17-20). He is the tempter and deceiver. Satan opposes God and the work of Christ by tempting and deceiving humans. Satan tempted Adam & Eve, Jesus, Judas, etc. (cf. Acts 5:3, 1 Corinthians 7:5, 2 Corinthians 2: 11, Ephesians 6: 11, 2 Timothy 2: 26).
Sometimes we state that Satan is the source of sins. While making such statements, we use the word “source” informally. In this informal usage, “source” refers to an ‘originator’ or an ‘instigatory cause.’
If we claim that Satan is the source of all sins, i.e., if we use the word ‘source’ to mean, in an Aristotelian sense, the material cause (‘that out of which’) or the efficient cause (‘the primary source of…’), then we posit dualism. Dualism contradicts the Bible, for there are no two equally ultimate powers, one good, and the other evil.
God is the only ultimate power and God is good. God is not the source or the originator of sin or evil. Moreover, Satan was originally created good; hence Satan is not the source of sin and evil.
Potency of Freewill to Sin without Satan
If asked differently, the title question would be, “Would Adam & Eve have sinned without Satan?” Since man is responsible for his sins, the answer should be yes.
The premise on which this argument is also predicated on is the freewill-based rebellion of angels in the heavenly realm. (This premise presupposes the metaphysical similarity of the free will of angels and humans.)
The angels that rebelled against God did not have an external inducement (as Adam & Eve had Satan as an external inducer). There were only two entities during the angelic fall – God and Angels. (Even if mankind was created before the fall of Satan, man was totally incapable of influencing Satan’s fall.)
Since God can neither tempt nor cause evil, the angelic rebellion was an entailment of their free will. Therefore, it is quite reasonable to conclude that Adam & Eve had the potential to sin or would have sinned irrespective of the presence of Satan.
Satan merely accelerated the sin of Adam and Eve. Had Satan not existed, Adam and Eve would have sinned (or eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) sooner or later.
Conclusion
Satan is not the source of sin. Man’s free will is the source of sin. Man would have inevitably sinned regardless of Satan’s existence.
Would the quantum and the extent of sins be minimized if Satan was not created? Not necessarily so, for if Satan is to be considered as an accelerant of sin, then there is a possibility that the quantum and the extent of sins would be actualized at a later time. So the quantum and the extent of sins would have been the same with or without Satan, for the potency of man’s free will to sin is independent of Satan.
The other possibility is that the quantum and the extent of sins would be lesser without Satan. In which case, the question, “If evil in this world would be lesser without Satan, then why did God create Satan?” gains legitimacy.
If Satan is the sole cause of evil, then evil would have been absolutely eliminated, had Satan not been created. However, since Satan exists and that Satan is not the sole cause of evil, only God, in HIS omniscient wisdom would be able to determine the extent to which evil would be reduced had angels not been created.
But on the other hand, if the good that is to be actualized from the good angels in ministering to people is commensurately immeasurable, then God would be justified to create Satan even with the potential of evil.
Finally, natural evil, which is devoid of human willing and acting, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc. and suffering caused by a host of diseases such as cancer, cystic fibrosis, etc. exist independent of Satan and adds substantial numbers to the victims of evil. The pain and suffering caused by natural evil and diseases are innate in the creational design of this world and the human body.
The fact of the matter is that evil would not cease to exist if Satan were to be non-existent. Hence, numbers need not matter. When evil exists, the terms ‘lesser’ and ‘greater’ do not gain greater significance, for the world we live in would be evil even if only 1% of the total population (1 out of 10 people) are adversely affected by evil. Moreover, if only 1% of the total population is affected by evil, then there is a certain possibility for evil to increase.
Therefore, the question, “Would there be less evil in a world without Satan?” would neither debunk nor harm Historic Christianity.
Notes:
[1] Other theologians have posited various sources for sin. The “Anxiety of Finiteness” was proposed by Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971). The idea of “Existential Estrangement” was proposed by Paul Tillich (1886-1965), the “Economic Struggle” proposed by the Liberation Theology, and “Individualism and Competitiveness” as argued by Harrison Sacket Elliott (1882-1951).
Rajkumar Richard is passionate to strengthen the faith of fellow Christians, especially the young Christians. He has a Masters in Religion (Southern Evangelical Seminary, NC, USA) and Masters in Biology (School of Biological Sciences, Madurai Kamaraj University, India). He is a Christian blogger, itinerant speaker, social evangelist, and a mentor to young Christians.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2OKqCUp
Lógica 04: 10 reglas de inferencia lógica
EspañolRULES OF INFERENCE
Having seen the main points of argumentation and propositional logic , it is now time to see what gives formal validity to a good argument: the rules of inference.
1. Modus Ponens (MP)
If P implies Q, and P is true, then Q is true.
Logical form:
This rule allows us, from a conditional statement (P→Q), to conclude the truth of its consequent (Q) from the truth of its antecedent (P). Example :
2. Modus Tollens (MT)
If P implies Q, and Q is not true, then P is not true.
Logical form:
This rule allows us, from a conditional statement (P→Q), to infer the falsity of its antecedent (P) if its consequent (Q) is also false. Example:
An important feature of conditional propositions is this: The antecedent (the statement before “if”) sets up a sufficient condition for the consequent (the statement after “then”), while the consequent sets up a necessary condition for the antecedent. In other words, the truth of P is sufficient for the truth of Q , whereas P will never be true without Q . Take the example of the cake. That the cake is made with sugar is sufficient for the cake to be sweet. Likewise, if it turns out that the cake is not sweet, then it is impossible for the cake to be made with sugar.
Of course, not all arguments for modus tollens are so trivial. For example,
Someone might object that there is a possibility that there was an intruder that the security system did not detect; but that does not invalidate the argument, why? Very simply: the first premise is “If the security system detects an intruder.” The important issue is that whether the system detects or does not detect an intruder, it says nothing about the existence of the intruder.
Let’s look at one last example that might be more complicated:
It could clearly be the case that Reina did pass her exam with a high grade, but perhaps the teacher chose someone else because she was a relative. Does this invalidate the rule? Not at all. What happens is that in agreements like these, we tend to omit other factors that we take for granted will be fulfilled. In this case, one expects the teacher to be honest and to do his job. Now look at the same example but with that other condition added:
Another important point is that there are other ways of stating sufficient and necessary conditions besides the phrase “if…, then…”. Sometimes a necessary condition is stated by saying “only if.” For example, let’s say Reina’s teacher had said, “Secured position in the band only if she gets good grades on the exam.” Here getting good grades on the exam has been stated as a necessary condition , so this proposition would be our consequent (Q), not the antecedent in the conditional form (P). If this is the case, then the formulation, “If Reina passes her exam with good grades, then she will be in the band” is wrong, because that is not what the teacher said; he stated a necessary condition for the band position, not a sufficient one, so there may be other conditions that must be met to get the position, as we saw in our previous example where we included the teacher’s honesty. Taking the teacher’s statement as both a necessary and a nonsufficient condition, we can formulate the argument this way by modus tollens:
Always remember to keep this in mind to avoid misunderstandings.
3. Hypothetical Syllogism (SH)
If P implies Q, and Q implies R, then P implies R.
Logical form:
The rule of hypothetical syllogism allows us to establish that the truth of P implies the truth of R. Example:
4. Disjunctive Syllogism (DS)
Either P is true or Q is true; P is not true; therefore, Q is true. Likewise, whether P is true or Q is true; Q is not true; therefore, P is true.
Logical form:
This rule tells us that if a disjunction of two propositions is true, and one of the propositions is false, then the other proposition is true.
There are two types of logical disjunction:
Example of inclusive disjunction:
Both propositions in premise (1) could be true. Therefore, you cannot conclude that because one of the disjuncts is true, the other is false. Both could be true (note that in premise (1) you can change “or” to “and/or” without any problem). So the disjunctive syllogism allows you to conclude only that if one disjunct is false then the other disjunct is true.
Example of exclusive disjunction:
Note that in premise (1) you cannot change “or” to “and/or”, only in the case of exclusive disjunction can you infer the falsity of a disjunct from the truth of the other.
5. Constructive Dilemma (CD)
If P implies Q and R implies S , then if either P or R is true, it follows that either Q or S is true.
Logical form:
The constructive dilemma is the disjunctive version of modus ponens . Example:
6. Destructive Dilemma (DD)
If P implies Q, and R implies S, and either Q is false or S is false; then either P is false or R is false.
Logical form:
The destructive dilemma is the disjunctive version of modus tollens and states that if two conditionals are true, but one of their consequents is false, then one of their antecedents must be false. Example:
7. Conjunction (Conj.)
If P is true and Q is true, then the conjunction “P and Q” is also true.
Logical form:
Simple, if two propositions are true in isolation, then their conjunction is also true. Example:
8. Simplification (Simp.)
If the conjunction of P and Q is true, then P is true and Q is true.
Logical form:
For a set like P^Q to be true, both P and Q must be true. So simplification allows us to conclude from P^Q that P is true and that Q is true. Example:
9. Absorption (Ab.)
If P implies Q, then P implies P and Q.
Logical form:
By means of this rule P is “absorbed” by the term Q in the consequence. Example:
10. Addition (Ad)
If P is true, then its conjunction with any other statement will also be true.
Logical form:
Note that for a disjunction to be true, only one part of the disjunction has to be true. So, given any statement, it is possible to express it as a choice (disjunction) accompanied by any other statement. So if we know that P is already true, it follows that “P or Q” is also true no matter what Q is. Example:
Jairo Izquierdo Hernández is the founder of Christian Philosopher . He currently works as a Community Manager 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.
Juego de herramientas apologéticas
EspañolBy Bryan Auten
A frequently asked and important question in the Christian Apologetics Alliance is about how aspiring apologists should spend their time and develop their skills. In a recent thread, CAA members addressed this issue. Tim McGrew summarizes the main points of the discussion, and they are presented here as an Apologetics Toolkit post.
1) Online arguments are not a good training ground for someone who has no experience
Stay away from them altogether until you have studied them deeply, and even then, don’t dive into every argument headlong.
This is one of the hardest pieces of advice for most young people to accept, but it is one of the most important. I know what it feels like to want to save the world, to stand up to the intellectual bullies on Twitter or YouTube or some chat room. But if that is all you do, you will waste years in an intellectually empty extreme, the best you can be is a cartoon hero on a playground, and sometimes you will get a bloody nose and look like a complete fool. Take the long road. Start training now for the serious battles, and when they come, in God’s mercy, you will be ready for them.
2) Get a copy of Greg Koukl’s book Tactics and read it very carefully, preferably more than once.
It will give you the tools to have a conversation even when you don’t have all the answers, for those moments when conversation comes to you without looking for it. Learning to be polite in these types of conversations is a priceless gift.
3) Apologetics is only one dimension of the Christian life
Important lifelong habits like Bible reading and prayer won’t just happen by themselves; you have to develop them now. Finding a good church is vital. Studying beyond apologetics—history, literature, poetry, science, art, math, music—will broaden your understanding and make you a more cultured person, better able to meet other people where they care. It may also change your view of what counts as apologetics.
4) For the study of apologetics in particular, ask around for good resources and then work on mastering them at a steady pace.
There are fantastic resources already listed in this thread: videos, podcasts, blogs, and books. Figure out the best method for understanding the information (I prefer reading, a good friend of mine prefers podcasts and audio books) and focus on that method, but don’t neglect reading altogether, even if you’re an auditory type of person. Find a pace you can maintain, maybe half an hour a day, maybe an hour, and dedicate that block of time to studying.
5) Find a mentor
If you can find a mentor who can be seen as more than just an intellectual superior, someone who can bring you spiritual wisdom and godly counsel, as well as solid knowledge and extensive learning, your life will change almost inconceivably. There may not be anyone in your life right now who can fill that role. If that is the case, begin now to pray earnestly that God will bring you the right person.
Learn more about the Christian Apologetics Alliance here .
Translated by Jorge Gil Calderon
Edited by Jairo Izquierdo
Original Blog: http://bit.ly/2MeQbyq
¿Qué es apologética cristiana?
EspañolWhy would anyone want or should become a Christian? Why should anyone put their faith in Jesus – a man who lived over two thousand years ago? Certainly, there have been various answers to these questions throughout the history of Christianity. Christian apologetics is both the science and the art of answering these kinds of questions, using reason and evidence.
The word apologetics first appears in the New Testament in 1 Peter 3:15 where the apostle Peter is writing to the early Christians in Asia Minor (a Roman province) who were suffering persecution for their faith in Jesus. He writes, ‘But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to give a defense (apologia) to everyone who asks you to give a reason (logos) for the hope that is in you, but do this with gentleness and respect’ (NASB).
Within this verse we can see a synthesis of Christian apologetics . This can be summarized in two parts: a) reasons and objective evidence about the truth of Christianity (this corresponds to reality), and b) the communication of this truth to the world.
Objective evidence that Christianity is true
The first Christian believers were Jews and so, ironically, the first Christian apologists were also Jews. As a means of sharing their new faith in Christ with family and friends, who were also Jews, they appealed to the Old Testament and to the bodily resurrection of Jesus as the main reasons for their belief in Christ.
Today (in the 21st century), Christian apologists must contend with ideologies and philosophies such as naturalism, atheism, pantheism, and post-modernism. At CrossExamined.org we employ a classical apologetic approach to defending Christianity, which is summarized here.
Classical Apologetic Approach: (a simplified outline)
Once these truths have been established, they must be communicated in a way that can be understood by the audience.
The communication that Christianity is true (and therefore, should be believed)
The apostle Paul was also Jewish and he called his fellow Jews to believe in Christ, as well as the Gentiles (Romans and Greeks). When he visited Athens he debated with Epicurean and Stoic philosophers on Mars Hill, the philosophical center of Ancient Greece (Acts 17:16-34). While there, Paul quoted Greek philosophers such as Epimenides. In doing so, Paul was contextualizing the gospel in such a way that it could be understood by those listening. This is the second fundamental part of Christian apologetics – effective communication to a given audience.
In 1 Corinthians 9:20-23 (NASB), Paul writes:
To the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those under the law, as under the law (though I myself am not under the law), that I might win those under the law; to those not under the law, as not under the law (though I am not without the law of God, but under the law of Christ), that I might win those not under the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; to all men I have become all things, that by all means I might save some. And I do all things for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in it.
The gospel must be clearly communicated and understood in order to be believed. Each new generation of Christians must communicate and defend the gospel message in the social and cultural environment in which they find themselves. Culture will change over time, but the central message of the gospel never changes.
Christian apologetics seeks to connect with nonbelievers by presenting them with the reasons and evidence why Christianity is true, rational, and worthy of belief. Late twentieth-century Christian apologist Francis A. Schaeffer viewed apologetics as “pre-evangelism” – a way of preparing the mind and heart to receive the message of Christianity (the gospel). The connection between apologetics and evangelism can be summed up in the words of Oxford theologian Alister E. McGrath:
“…Christian apologetics represents a serious and sustained engagement with the ‘ultimate questions’ asked by a culture, people group, or individual, with the goal of demonstrating how the Christian faith is capable of providing meaningful answers to these questions. Where does God stand in regard to suffering in the world? Is faith in God reasonable? Apologetics paves the way for evangelism, just as John the Baptist prepared the way for Jesus of Nazareth…evangelism extends a personal invitation: ‘You are invited to the feast! Please come!’ Apologetics lays the necessary groundwork for the invitation, and evangelism extends it. Both are essential to the mission of the Church.” ( Mere Apologetics: How to Help Seekers & Skeptics Find Faith , pages 22–23)
If you would like to learn more about Christian apologetics for yourself or a small group, check out our resources at www.ImpactApologetics.com
A good place to start is the book ‘I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist’, and one of the first Christian apologetics curricula (great for churches, Christian schools, and small study groups). ‘I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist’.
We also have a free app for your smartphone. The app contains great resources on Christian apologetics (podcasts, blogs, and a quick question section). The CrossExamined.org app can be downloaded here .
Dr. Frank Turek (D.Min.) is an award-winning author and frequent college speaker who hosts a weekly television show on DirectTV and a radio program that airs on 186 stations nationwide. His books include I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist and Stealing from God: Why atheists need God to make their case.
A Call To An Intellectual Faith
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy J. Brian Huffling
I would venture that if you asked people what is meant by ‘faith,’ they would likely say “believing something in spite of the evidence or in the absence of evidence.” However, such has not historically been the view of faith.
Faith has traditionally been understood as trusting a reliable source. For example, while it is possible to prove through historical means that Jesus died, it is not possible to prove through merely historical means that his death atoned for our sins. The former is demonstrable through reason, the latter by faith. This is not meant to say that faith is irrational. On the contrary, when a source is demonstrated to be reliable, we can trust that source even when we cannot prove something through empirical investigation. Jesus and his apostles have been verified to be reliable sources. Their message has been confirmed with miracles, and Jesus’ claims to deity were likewise confirmed via miracles. Given such reliability, we can trust, i.e., have faith in, what they say.
This is in stark contrast to the blind faith that so many in our culture accuse Christians of having. I have been asked on more than one occasion how I can be a philosopher and also a Christian. The answer is simple: Christianity is philosophically rational.
The Problem
However, sometimes Christians don’t help matters. Sometimes people assert that faith is all it takes to be a Christian. In a sense there is a ring of truth to this; however, that is probably misleading. We have to have faith in the right object. Discerning what object should warrant our faith and belief requires reason. Faith alone is not enough, for one can have (blind) faith in anything. To have faith in the traditional sense requires one to have reasons, and thus to have a reasoned faith.
It is sad that some Christians actually believe (blindly) that we should not base our faith on reason, for such supposedly subordinates God’s Word to human reason. However, understanding (let alone believing) the Bible requires one to rationally understand what it says. We cannot even know what the Bible says without using reason.
Some Causes of the Problem
With such notions in mind, our culture has ridiculed Christians for being irrational. Historically this is false, for many of the best minds have been Christians. But there is a very real sense of anti-intellectualism in the church nowadays. This is particularly noticeable to new seminary graduates who are eager to take various positions in church ministry or academia. I cannot begin to count the number of graduates that I know who have been disillusioned by the church’s disinterest in being intellectually fit.
Another problem is pastors. I wish I had a dollar for every time some pastor called for the congregation not to clutter their Christian faith with reason. Sometimes this call is subtle and sometimes it is overt. Many churches I have visited, even lately, have an anti-intellectual air about them, stemming from the person behind the pulpit. Such leads to disastrous consequences.
This can be seen in the gross ignorance of average Christians who don’t know hardly anything about their faith. I have had countless people talk to me about their Christian “faith” who do not even know whether or not they are Protestant, even though they have identified with Christianity for years. The average churchgoer cannot even articulate, let alone defend, such primary doctrines as the Trinity or the Incarnation. Many who have grown up for decades in the Church know next to nothing about the Bible, where certain books are, or have any idea whatsoever about how to interpret or study it. Most Christians cannot have an intelligent conversation about God’s nature regarding whether they think he is temporal, changeable, etc., or that these issues are even debated. Rather than have solid studies on the Bible or theology, most are more interested in 12 step programs, like how to better their lives. Several years ago I made a list of the top 10 books in Christian bookstores. There was maybe one book on theology, several on health and prosperity, and others on fiction. Why is this?
I think at least one problem is pastors. They are not the only problem, but they are our leaders of spirituality, and they definitely share at least some of the blame. (I realize this is a generalization, but I have seen and heard more pastors show off their ignorance as well as a desire for others to do the same than I would like.) In my experience and in talking to others, it appears that one reason that pastors want to downplay reason and intellectual faith is because it is difficult. It actually requires a lot of studying and learning. It is much easier to attack reason as an instrument of paganism or the devil than it is to devote one’s life to the intellectual pursuit. However, pastors have a responsibility to lead their flock in worship and devotion to Christ. A consequence of pastors downplaying reason is apathy and ignorance on the part of the parishioners. The Bible tells us explicitly (and many times implicitly) to worship God with our minds (Matt 22:37).
It is worth noting that when reason is downplayed false teaching is much more likely to abound. Both Mormons and teachers of the Word-Faith Movement downplay the use of reason. What is left is an attempt to judge what is true based on feelings.
Of course, pastors are not the only problem. Each person is responsible for his own mind and faith. It is also true that a church can have a marvelous pastor with uninterested followers. Church and Christianity have been so divorced from intellectualism in many circles lately that people either don’t care to learn or don’t know how. So what is the solution?
Part of the Solution
The anti-intellectualism issue has many causes and requires various solutions. One solution is for parishioners and pastors to realize there is a great need for pastors and church leaders to be educated. Some pastors realize the need, but either can’t afford to do anything about it or do not have the support of the church. We must support our pastors in this area. We should not settle for anything less. Most people would not get their hair done by someone who didn’t have a license and training to do it, so why wouldn’t we want the leaders of our churches who are supposed to lead our families and us in our faith to have an education?
In turn, churches should have programs in place to teach their parishioners the basics of the faith. The average Christian isn’t expected to be a theologian, but he ought to at least understand the basics of the faith. A good way to do this is to have studies on the churches doctrinal statement (if they have one!).
Another part of the solution is to be educated ourselves. This does not necessitate formal training, but it we should take an interest in what we claim to be the most important area of our lives: our faith. This means going to church and Bible studies (taught by trained teachers), reading books, and making it a point to learn what our faith is all about. (See my Recommended Booklist.)
Having a rational faith also allows us to apply it to every area of our lives, such as politics, ethics, and entertainment. This is how we love and worship God with our minds. The difference between humans and other animals is the human mind and the ability to reason. This is how God made us different and more like him. We should, in fact, seek to worship and know him through this important aspect of our nature.
J. Brian Huffling, PH.D. have a BA in History from Lee University, an MA in (3 majors) Apologetics, Philosophy, and Biblical Studies from Southern Evangelical Seminary (SES), and a Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from SES. He is the Director of the Ph.D. Program and Associate Professor of Philosophy and Theology at SES. He also teaches courses for Apologia Online Academy. He has previously taught at The Art Institute of Charlotte. He has served in the Marines, Navy, and is currently a reserve chaplain in the Air Force at Maxwell Air Force Base. His hobbies include golf, backyard astronomy, martial arts, and guitar.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2LT9c9y
Pastors Get Scared Sharing Their Faith Too!
2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Ryan Leasure
We’ve all felt it. The sense of guilt overwhelmed us. The pastor brings his sermon to a close, but before he concludes, he gives the congregation one final exhortation. Go tell others about Jesus. He says if Jesus was willing to lay down his life for you, the least you can do is proclaim that message to others. Gulp. As you slouch farther down into your seat and wipe the sweat off your forehead, you wonder if you’re a pathetic Christian because you struggle to share your faith.
It’s not that you don’t want to either — you really do. But you’re scared. You’re scared of people will think you’re that weird Jesus person who’s out of touch with reality. You’re afraid the friendship will end or that you’ll make everything awkward. Have you ever felt this way? Have you ever started a conversation with good intentions to talk about Jesus only to back out later? If so, you’re not alone.
Pastors Get Scared Sharing Their Faith Too
I say you’re not alone because I’ve done the same. I’m a pastor. I have a seminary degree. I’ve studied the Bible a lot. Yet, at the same time, I get scared too. Do all my neighbors know about my Christian faith? Not even close. I’ve had intentions to share my faith, but my intentions often times fail to deliver the goods.
When I was younger, I owned a t-shirt and a hat that said “No Fear.” I wore them together so if anyone ever doubted my bravery after looking at my shirt, they could lift their eyes to my hat and have any lingering doubt removed. Wearing that slogan, however, only demonstrated my fear. It’s a lot like the kid who’s the first to say “Ewwww” when someone asks if they pick their boogers. The emphatic rejection often times reveals the opposite.
I’m fearful of how people will perceive me. And in my experience, just about everyone else is in the same boat. The Bible has a phrase for this — the fear of man.
Advice On Sharing Your Faith
While I struggle with the fear of man, God’s been kind to grow me in this area. I’m far from perfect, don’t get me wrong. Yet, sharing Jesus with non-Christians isn’t as daunting as it once was. And it doesn’t have to be a daunting task for you either if you abide by these principles.
Pray
Pray for your lost friends and neighbors consistently. Remember, God is the one who ultimately transforms people’s hearts and lives. Also, pray that God will give you a greater love for them because love compels us to share the Gospel more than anything else. And pray for boldness to share the Gospel despite the fear of rejection.
Personally, I find that when I pray for people to receive Christ, God gives me opportunities to share the Gospel with them in a natural way. Jesus says in Matthew 7 that when we ask God for good things — and evangelism opportunities are good — He will be faithful to give them to us.
Avoid Jesus-Juking
A Jesus-juke is when you try to smuggle Jesus into the conversation at any cost. For example, your non-Christian friend might say, “I’ve had a rough day.” To which you reply, “you know who had a rough day? Jesus, when he died on the cross for your sins.” If you want to make things awkward with your friend, Jesus-juking is the way to go.
As I think about evangelism, I think a lot of us feel as if we need to take this kind of approach. Sure, we won’t be as blatantly awkward, but we feel as if we need to look for any crack in the door in order to slip a Jesus foot through it. In my experience, forcing Jesus unnaturally never works.
Build Relationships
The days of door-to-door evangelism are long gone. Most people won’t even answer their door anymore, let alone talk with you for fifteen minutes on their front porch. We need a new strategy — one that will be effective. That strategy is cultivating relationships with non-Christians. Invite them into your home. Have dinner together. Have your kids play together at the park. Build a relationship with that person so that they know you care. And as you converse, ease into faith conversations.
As opposed to Jesus-juking, talk about Jesus at natural times. Perhaps they will bring up a difficult situation in their life. Express genuine compassion for them, and then ask them if they’ve ever wondered why this world is so broken? This could potentially lead to a conversation about Jesus dealing with our brokenness. You get the idea, but don’t feel as if you have to force Jesus into every conversation.
Be Ready To Give An Answer
One of the greatest fears we have when it comes to sharing our faith is that we’re afraid we’ll be asked hard questions we don’t know how to answer. For some, this might cause more fear than making things awkward. How do we fix this?
I would encourage you to know what you believe and why you believe it. This, of course, requires a bit of perspiration on your part because no one learns everything they need to know overnight. Read the Scriptures. Go through theology books. Think about the objections others have toward Christianity, and do your best to find the answers. You won’t ever know it all, but you can do your best. Peter says, “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (1 Pet. 3:15).
You’re Not Alone
If you struggle to share your faith, you’re not alone. You’re not a pathetic Christian either. We all struggle. Pastors struggle. We’re in this together. Yet, by God’s grace, you can grow in effectiveness, though you will need to be intentional in your efforts. No one ever becomes an effective witness by accident. Just like anything else in your life, if you wish to excel, you need to plan to excel. Think about something you are really good at. Now think about how that happened. Chances are, you put a lot of thought and energy into excelling in that area. I would urge you to do the same with evangelism.
You’ll mess up along the way. You’ll chicken out again. It’s ok. God is gracious. He’ll give you more opportunities.
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/2OBGzvR
Are Christians too judgmental? & Did Jesus promise us anything we ask in faith?
PodcastPodcast: Play in new window
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Email | TuneIn | RSS
At CrossExamined our goal is to try and answer your questions the best we can and this is exactly what Frank does in this podcast. He answers questions from YOU (our audience). In this episode he focuses on two very important questions:
• Are Christians too judgmental?
• Did Jesus promise us anything we ask in faith?
Don’t miss it and don’t forget to send your questions to Frank via Email!
How The Discovery Of The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation Falsified Atheism
2. Does God Exist?, AtheismBy Wintery Knight
Prior to certain scientific discoveries, most people thought that the universe had always been here, and no need to ask who or what may have caused it. But today, that’s all changed. Today, the standard model of the origin of the universe is that all the matter and energy in the universe came into being in an event scientists call “The Big Bang.” At the creation event, space and time themselves began to exist, and there is no material reality that preceded them.
So a couple of quotes to show that.
An initial cosmological singularity… forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity… On this view, the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe but also of spacetime itself.
Source: P. C. W. Davies, “Spacetime Singularities in Cosmology,” in The Study of Time III, ed. J. T. Fraser (Berlin: Springer Verlag).
And another quote:
[A]lmost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang.
Source: Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time, The Isaac Newton Institute Series of Lectures (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1996), p. 20.
So, there are several scientific discoveries that led scientists to accept the creation event, and one of the most interesting and famous is the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation.
Here’s the history of how that discovery happened, from the American Physical Society website:
Bell Labs radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were using a large horn antenna in 1964 and 1965 to map signals from the Milky Way when they serendipitously discovered the CMB. As written in the citation, “This unexpected discovery, offering strong evidence that the universe began with the Big Bang, ushered in experimental cosmology.” Penzias and Wilson shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1978 in honor of their findings.
The CMB is “noise” leftover from the creation of the Universe. The microwave radiation is only 3 degrees above Absolute Zero or -270 degrees C,1 and is uniformly perceptible from all directions. Its presence demonstrates that our universe began in an extremely hot and violent explosion, called the Big Bang, 13.7 billion years ago.
In 1960, Bell Labs built a 20-foot horn-shaped antenna in Holmdel, NJ to be used with an early satellite system called Echo. The intention was to collect and amplify radio signals to send them across long distances, but within a few years, another satellite was launched, and Echo became obsolete.2
With the antenna no longer tied to commercial applications, it was now free for research. Penzias and Wilson jumped at the chance to use it to analyze radio signals from the spaces between galaxies.3 But when they began to employ it, they encountered a persistent “noise” of microwaves that came from every direction. If they were to conduct experiments with the antenna, they would have to find a way to remove the static.
Penzias and Wilson tested everything they could think of to rule out the source of the radiation racket. They knew it wasn’t radiation from the Milky Way or extraterrestrial radio sources. They pointed the antenna towards New York City to rule out “urban interference,” and did an analysis to dismiss possible military testing from their list.4
Then they found droppings of pigeons nesting in the antenna. They cleaned out the mess and tried removing the birds and discouraging them from roosting, but they kept flying back. “To get rid of them, we finally found the most humane thing was to get a shotgun…and at the very close range [we] just killed them instantly. It’s not something I’m happy about, but that seemed like the only way out of our dilemma,” said Penzias.5 “And so the pigeons left with a smaller bang, but the noise remained, coming from every direction.”6
At the same time, the two astronomers learned that Princeton University physicist Robert Dicke had predicted that if the Big Bang had occurred, there would be low-level radiation found throughout the universe. Dicke was about to design an experiment to test this hypothesis when he was contacted by Penzias. Upon hearing of Penzias’ and Wilson’s discovery, Dicke turned to his laboratory colleagues and said: “well boys, we’ve been scooped.”7
Although both groups published their results in Astrophysical Journal Letters, only Penzias and Wilson received the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the CMB.
The horn antenna was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1990. Its significance in fostering a new appreciation for the field of cosmology and a better understanding of our origins can be summed up by the following: “Scientists have labeled the discovery [of the CMB] the greatest scientific discovery of the 20th century.”8
It’s the greatest scientific discovery of the 20th century.
In the New York Times, Arno Penzias commented on his discovery – the greatest discovery of the 20th century – so:
The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.
Just one problem with the greatest scientific discovery of the 20th century: atheists don’t accept it. Why not?
Here’s a statement from the Secular Humanist Manifesto, which explains what atheists believe about the universe:
Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
For a couple of examples of how atheistic scientists respond to the evidence for a cosmic beginning, you can check out this post, where we get responses from cosmologist Lawrence Krauss and physical chemist Peter Atkins.
You cannot have the creation of the universe be true, AND a self-existing, eternal universe ALSO be true. Someone has to be wrong. Either the science is wrong, or the atheist manifesto is wrong. I know where I stand.
Positive arguments for Christian theism
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2OyLGNv
Was Jesus’ Death and Resurrection Copied from Krishna?
4. Is the NT True?, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Mikel Del Rosario
Copied From Krishna?
What would you say if someone told you the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ death and resurrection were copied from earlier pagan stories? Over 100 years ago, a guy named Kersey Graves talked about Jesus and Krishna. He said Jesus wasn’t unique among religious figures. Fans of his work were convinced the Hindu figure Krishna wasn’t just a dying and rising god but a crucified savior, too.
Maybe you haven’t heard this exact challenge about Jesus and Krishna before. But the idea that Jesus’ story was ripped off older pagan myths comes up over and over again in conversations about world religious literature.
I teach a World Religion course at William Jessup University and recently got a chance to collaborate on this topic with my friend Daniel Lee, who is currently studying Christian Apologetics under another friend from my Biola days, Dr. Sean McDowell.
In this post, we’ll show you how comparing the story of Krishna with the biblical accounts of Jesus show that Jesus’ death and resurrection wasn’t copied from Hinduism. First, we’ll compare the story of Jesus’ death to the story of Krishna’s death. Was Jesus’ death copied from Krishna? Then, we’ll compare the idea of resurrection in each of these stories. Was Krishna really a crucified Savior?
Was Jesus’ death copied from Krishna?
Let’s compare Jesus and Krishna. In The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors, Graves wrote that Krishna was crucified between two thieves (p. 140). But no Hindu text says Krishna was crucified at all! Still, some wonder if there’s a parallel between the way Jesus and Krishna died. They’ve heard that long before Jesus’ death, there was an old Indian myth about the Hindu god Krishna being pierced and resurrected. Really?
It does sound curious when you put it that way. After all, Christians link Isaiah 53:5 to Jesus’ death by crucifixion: “But he was pierced for our transgressions…with his wounds we are healed” (Compare this with 1 Peter 2:24). But here’s the thing: All things can seem similar if you ignore the differences!
Read for yourself what the Indian epic-poem called the Mahabharata (Book 16: Mausala Parva) says about Krishna. He wasn’t crucified. Instead, he got shot in a hunting accident!
“The hunter, mistaking [Krishna]…for a deer, pierced him at the heel with a shaft and quickly came to that spot for capturing his prey. Coming up, Jara [the hunter] beheld a man dressed in yellow robes, rapt in Yoga and endued with many arms. Regarding himself an offender, and filled with fear, he touched the feet of [Krishna, who] comforted him and then ascended upwards…When he reached Heaven [he] met the deities…”
Yes, Krishna was pierced. But he was pierced by an arrow when he got shot in the foot! Krishna wasn’t crucified. And he certainly wasn’t crucified between two thieves!
So was Jesus’ death by crucifixion copied from Krishna? Nope. Turns out, there’s no crucifixion in the Krishna story at all. We just don’t see a meaningful parallel between Jesus and Krishna in this regard. What about Graves’ idea that Krishna was a resurrected savior?
Was Jesus’ resurrection copied from Krishna?
We could be wrong about this, but it’s not clear that Krishna actually died when Jara shot him in the foot. If he didn’t really die, he couldn’t have been raised from the dead. But let’s give Graves the benefit of the doubt and say Krishna died when he got shot in the foot and somehow came back to life right after getting shot.
There’s still no meaningful parallel with Jesus’ resurrection. According to the earliest Christian sources, Jesus was buried and his tomb was discovered empty by his women followers three days later. Over a period of 40 days, he convinced individuals and groups that God raised him from the dead before ascending to heaven. This is totally different from the Krishna story.
But more importantly, Christians link Jesus’ death and resurrection with the possibility of forgiveness of sin and eternal life. In contrast, no Hindu text links the Krishna scene to the possibility of human beings attaining forgiveness of sins or attaining eternal life. In what sense, then, was Krishna a savior?
So was Jesus’ resurrection copied from Krishna? No. It’s not clear that Krishna was resurrected in the myth and no Hindus link Krishna’s hunting accident with forgiveness of sins or eternal life.
Jesus and Krishna: No Meaningful Parallel
People who want to force a parallel say Jesus and Krishna were both pieced and raised from the dead. But again, almost anything can seem similar if you ignore the differences! The key point of the Gospel story is that God used Jesus’ resurrection to validate his divine claims. Further, the New Testament links Jesus’ death and resurrection to believers receiving forgiveness of sins and eternal life. Indeed, the Christian significance of this event has no meaningful parallel with the Hindu story of Krishna. As my friend Daniel concludes:
“These stories and implications are about as similar as an ant and an elephant.”
Interestingly, the earliest critics of Christianity never said Jesus’ story was ripped off from Hinduism. Right from the get-go, the Apostle Paul acknowledged that Gentiles found the idea of a crucified savior tough to accept (1 Corinthians 1:23), not like it was a common theme in pagan mythology. Even in the second century, the Greek Apologist Justin Martyr made a similar observation in Apology I: Skeptics said the idea of a crucified savior was absolutely crazy (13.4)!
Jesus’ Story Wasn’t Copied from Krishna
Bottom line: Was Krishna crucified? Nope. Not in any Hindu story anywhere. Was Krishna resurrected? Maybe. But despite what Graves insists, Krishna was not a pre-Christian example of a crucified savior. There’s no salvation, forgiveness of sins (or escape from karma for that matter) or hope of eternal life linked to it. Just comparing the stories of Jesus and Krishna shows Graves is wrong on this one. You can be confident that Jesus’ death and resurrection wasn’t copied from Krishna.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2NZfxNP
La mecánica cuántica y la mente
EspañolBy Steven Dunn
In this post, I want to focus on the phenomenon of consciousness with respect to quantum mechanics. More specifically, the latest 20th century perspectives on the role of the perceptive mind in quantum mechanics. As Varadaja V. Raman writes in his essay in The Journal of Cosmology (2009), “The disembodied soul goes elsewhere, perhaps to a space that transcends scope and moment. This view of the soul is satisfactory in explaining the phenomenon of dynamic life and nonliving death on a subjective level, but it does not constitute a scientific theory” [2] .
Varadaja Raman’s statement can be seen as an interesting pretext in connection with certain minor philosophical discussions of the physical universe; however, even though Raman here is discussing certain theories applied to the phenomenon of consciousness (e.g. quantum mechanical consciousness, evolution, neuroscience, etc.), Hans Reichenbach (1958) shows how philosophical problems can be brought into scientific interest by using the Euclidean geometrical system. An example:
Thus, as seen throughout your book, philosophy has a certain degree of relevance to questions about the physical universe [4] . As Bernard d’Espagnat (2006) once said: “The great philosophical puzzles lie at the core of present-day physics” [5] . However, the particular interest I have in that matter is how our own perceptual abilities and quantum mechanics have changed our understanding of materialist explanations “from the atom” to the mind having some role in the discussion (if not a fundamental role – the question of course, is “how fundamental?”).
First conscious
As far as the literature regarding this question of consciousness and quantum mechanics goes, a lot of philosophers and physicists over the past few months have really sparked quite an interest in me in asking about the most fundamental philosophical questions about the universe. For example, is the mind fundamental to the universe? Is there something more fundamental than space-time that could actually underlie it? Are there inherent anthropic properties within our universe that would challenge certain evolutionary cosmogonic models? These questions and more related to them are not particularly what I wish to address, but rather the role of the mind as it relates to quantum mechanics. Showing the relationship – or interest – between the two I think would constitute some pertinent criticism concerning materialist interpretations of consciousness.
For now, let us consider a problem relevant to our discussion to be the following: If quantum mechanics is universally correct (and we would like to think so), then we should be able to apply it to the entire universe in order to find its wave function [6] . In this way, we could see which events are probable and which are not. However, certain paradoxes seem to emerge (Linde, 2004) once we try to do so. For example, the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (or, the Shrodinger equation [7] for the wave function of the universe) has a function that does not depend on time – therefore, the evolution of the universe by appeal to its wave function would show that the universe does not change in time.
I was interested in Andrei Linde’s (2004) comment on this topic when he said that “we are not really asking why the universe as a whole is evolving. We are trying to understand our own experimental data. Therefore, a more precisely formulated question is why do we see the universe evolving in time in a certain way?” [8] Linde goes on to say:
This makes perfect sense with respect to earlier 20th-century commitments to a mechanistic understanding of the universe. As Henry P. Stapp (2009) acknowledged in his essay “Quantum Reality and Mind”: “The dynamical laws of classical physics are formulated entirely in terms of physically described variables: in terms of the quantities that Descartes identifies as elements of the “ res extensa.” Descartes psychologically and complementary describes the elements, things, of his res cogitans as being completely outside themselves: there is, in the causal dynamics of classical physics, no trace of their existence . ” [10]
Thus, our own mental realities have the ability to know about certain physically described properties, but have no way of affecting them in any way” – thus leaving man as an “independent observer”. However, “Quantum physics revealed an inevitable interaction between the observer and the observed in the microcosm. Thus, human consciousness entered the field of physics” [11] . Henry Stapp makes a remarkable comment regarding this shift in thinking:
Although it could certainly be expounded in other articles, I would personally favor Stapp’s position regarding a dualistic account of quantum mechanics (“von Neumann Dualistic Quantum Mechanics”), since in my opinion it has the best account of the ontological character of physical reality in quantum mechanics and the relevance of mental reality to the physical (idealistic theories in my opinion fall under the same fault line as Berkeley’s system, and materialistic theories are wanting, so dualism I think does the best).
What have we learned?
Materialism understood within the framework of physics fails once we understand the quantum association of the “observer.” Once we integrate certain Aristotelian terms regarding the ontological character of the physical reality of quantum mechanics (i.e., “potentia” and “actual”), we see that physical reality has the ontological character of potentia— “ As such, it is more mind than matter in character” [13] . Therefore, mental realities cannot be completely revoked under the umbrella of materialism in quantum mechanics.
Grades
[1] Werner Heisenberg, The Representation of Nature in Contemporary Physics . Daedalus, 87 (summer), 95-108.
[2] Varadaja V. Raman, Four Perspectives on Consciousness . Journal of Cosmology (2009, vol. 3) p. 558
[3] Hans Reichenbach, The Philosophy of Space and Time , trans. Maria Reichenbach and John Freud (Dover Books: 1958) pp. 1-2
[4] I would also look at Reichenbach’s chapter on “The Difference Between Space and Time” (p. 109) for more of what I want to say on this topic. For example, the first sentence reads: “The philosophy of science has examined problems of time much less than problems of space.” Further down he explains that while space might be associated with a geometric-Euclidean example, time cannot really be afforded the same courtesy (cf. contrasted from earlier discussions of space, Reichenbach writes that “it is impossible to distinguish between straightness and curvature” with respect to questions of time). Reichenbach there ends: “Thus time lacks, by its one-dimensionality, all the problems that have led to the philosophical analysis of problems of space” (p. 109).
[5] Bernard d’Espagnat, On Physics and Philosophy (Princeton University Press: 2006) p. 2
[6] In quantum mechanics, with a built-in principle known as the uncertainty principle, particles do not have “definitively” fixed positions or velocities, but rather states that can be represented by what is known as a wave function. According to Hawking (2001), “A wave function is a number at each point in space that gives the probability that the particle is located at that position” ( Universe in a Nutshell , p. 106).
[7] The Shrödinger equation (taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation ): This equation tells us the rate at which the wave function changes with time (see Hawking 2001, p. 107–110). Subhash Kak (2009) also makes the interesting statement that “although the evolution of the quantum state is deterministic (given by the Shrodinger equation) its observation results from a collapse of the state into one of its components, in a probabilistic manner.” (See Penrose 2009, pp. 4–5).
[8] Andrei Linde, quoted from The Mystery of Existence , ed. John Leslie and Robert Lawrence Kuhn (Wiley-Blackwell: 2013) p. 162
[9] Ibid.
[10] Henry P. Stapp, cited from Quantum Physics of Consciousness , ed. Roger Penrose (Cosmology Science Publishers: 2009) p. 17
[11] Varadaja Raman (2009), in Quantum Physics of Consciousness , p. 89-90 – emphasis mine.
[12] Henry Stapp (2009), p. 19
[13] Stapp (2009), p. 20
Translated by Jairo Izquierdo