By Evan Minton
In any debate or argument, it’s very important that you understand the terminology that your opponent is using and that your opponent understands the terminology that you’re using. If you don’t define your terms, you’ll just end up talking past each other and you’ll end up attacking straw men. As the philosopher, Voltaire put it: “Define your terms or we shall be like two ships passing in the night.”[1]
Often, you’ll hear atheists and anti-theists say things like “Christians don’t believe in science” or “Christians are anti-science!” or “You can believe in God or you can believe in science, but not both.” or “You can believe in The Bible or you can believe in science, but not both.” Atheists claim to be the champions of science and they deride Christians and Christianity for being opponents to science. But, in order to respond to the secularist’s claims, one has to ask a very important question: “What do you mean by that?” It’s one of the questions of The Colombo Tactic, a debate tactic talked about in Greg Koukl’s Tactics: A Game Plan For Discussing Your Christian Convictions.
What do you mean by that? What do you mean by “science”? What definition are you ascribing to that term? Because how the secularist is defining “science” will determine whether or not I agree with his claims. In my experience debating atheists on the internet and in real life, I have found that “science” can mean many different things to many different people, and when they claim “Christianity and science don’t mix” or “God and Science don’t go together” or “You can believe in The Bible or believe in science, but not both”, while all of the atheists are using the same words and are phrasing their arguments the same way, they don’t actually all mean to convey the same message.
It is the object of this blog post to look at the various definitions of “science” and talk about whether or not Christianity (and Christians by extension) are truly “Anti-Science”.
Definition 1: Science = Science Is The Only Way To Know Truth.
Some people confuse “science” with a philosophy called “scientism.” Scientism asserts that the only way to know what is true and what is not is through the scientific method. If you haven’t reached a conclusion through the scientific method, the conclusion can only be believed on blind faith or superstition. Scientism means that it can’t be known through science, it simply cannot be known.
If this is the definition of “science” that the skeptic says is incompatible with Christianity, then I would agree. Scientism and Christianity do not go hand in hand, for Christianity asserts that there are various roads to discovering the truth. For example, Romans 8:16 says that the way in which we know we are children of God is through the inner witness of The Holy Spirit. Hebrews 11:1 says “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance of things we do not see.”[2] We can know that we’re truly born again by The Holy Spirit witnessing to our hearts, telling us so. We can have confidence that God will always keep His promises by having faith in Him. Faith in Him is the evidence of what we do not see. What do we not see? His promises being fulfilled. We will see them in the future (e.g our entrance into Heaven because we placed our faith in Christ, Jesus’ return), but we don’t see them now. We trust that God will do what He says. Neither of these avenues to knowledge are through scientific means. The first is through spiritual, the second is through faith. One cannot be a Christian and believe that science is the only way to know truth.
On theological grounds, we must reject scientism. Since some atheists take scientism to be the same as science, they see a rejection of scientism as a rejection of science.
Of course, I would reject scientism even if I were not a Christian or even a theist at all. Why? Because the philosophy of scientism is logically self-refuting. A self-refuting claim is one that is refuted merely by asserting it. Such as examples would be “I can’t speak a word in English” spoken in English, or “My parents had no kids that lived” or “Everything I say is a lie”. If someone said to you “My parents had no kids that lived”, you would say “Well, that can’t be true. At least if they’re really your parents, since you’re alive.” If someone said “Everything I say is a lie”, you would know that if this statement is true, it’s false. If it’s true, at least one thing this person says is true, so not everything is a lie. But, if the statement is false, then it also isn’t true that everything he says is a lie since not everything he says is a lie. Either way, the statement cannot be affirmed without being undermined. If it’s true, it’s false, and if it’s false, it’s false.
Scientism is self-refuting in the same way. When someone says “Science is the only way to know truth”, I ask them “How did you come to that conclusion?” (another example of The Combo Tactic). How did you come to the conclusion that science is the only way to know truth? Did you come to that conclusion using the scientific method? How could the scientific method even be used to test that statement? What procedures would be involved in testing, scientifically, the claim “Truth can only be known through science”? The statement “Truth can only be known through science” is a philosophical statement, not a scientific one. It cannot be tested using the scientific method, and therefore, it collapses under its own criteria.
1: Truth can only be known through scientific testing.
2: Scientism cannot be known through scientific testing.
3: Therefore, scientism cannot be known.
For this reason alone, even atheists should reject scientism, at least if they want to remain logical. Are Christianity and Science opposites? Only if you’re using “science” as a synonym for “scientism”. But, by that definition, science and logic are opposites as well.
Definition 2: Science = An Old Earth and Darwinian Macro-Evolution
I’ve come to learn that one big reason Christians are labeled anti-science, why Christianity is seen as being undermined by science, and why belief in God and belief in science are seen as incompatible, is because many Christians reject the scientific consensus regarding the age of the universe and the validity of Darwinian macroevolution. Being anti-evolution is seen as being anti-science.
Now, first of all, there are many, many Christians who accept the various dating methods and agree that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and that the universe is around 14 billion years old.[3] There are also Christians who accept Darwin’s theory of large-scale evolution and believe that that was the process God used to bring about all of life.[4] Where I stand on this issue: I don’t know. I am definitely an old earther of some sorts.
So, even given this definition of “Science”, it would only follow that some Christians are anti-science, but certainly not all. On this definition of “science”, only a portion would be anti-science. This charge wouldn’t affect Francis Collins, Deborah Haarsma, N.T Wright, Peter Enns, or others. They would not be opposed to science under this definition of the word.
Would The Bible be opposed to science? Well, this would depend on whether concordism is true or whether accommodationism is true. Does The Bible actually intend to teach us how old the universe is and the precise method and order God brought everything into being? If The Bible’s goal isn’t to convey cosmology or biology to us, but instead used the scientific understanding of its initial recipients (ancient Jews) to get theological and moral truths across, then even if we find scientific nonsense in The Bible, that would be no grounds for disavowing biblical inerrancy or concluding that scripture isn’t inspired. So which is it, concordism or accomodationism? Richard Bushey wrote an article he wrote making the case that God never intended to teach His readers science: see “Why The Biblical Flat Earth Model Doesn’t Flatten Christianity”.
For further reading, see “Hermeneutics 101 – Part 3: Understanding The Cultural Context” and my blog post “Why Did God Write A Book?”
There are many interpretations of Genesis that are compatible with an old earth and even evolution. For a treatment of The Day-Age View, I recommend reading Hugh Ross’ “A Matter Of Days”, for The Functional Ontological Interpretation of Genesis, read John Walton’s books “The Lost World Of Genesis One” and “The Lost World Of Adam and Eve”. Deborah and Loren Haarsma’s book “Origins: Christian Perspectives On Creation, Evolution, And Intelligent Design” is also a source I’d recommend.
Is God incompatible with evolution? No. Christians have always held that God can work through natural processes as well as through miracles. If a man goes into surgery, and people pray that the surgery goes well and it does, they don’t say “Well, God didn’t do it. It was the surgeon and his skills”. They would say something like “God guided the surgeons’ hands so that they wouldn’t screw up” or, if one is a Molinist, “God placed just these surgeons in these circumstances knowing that they would perform the surgery successfully”. For some reason, a lot of Christians just don’t apply that same reasoning to evolution. Evolution no more replaces God as an explanation for the existence of the animal kingdom than a vacuum replaces a maid as the explanation for why the floor is clean. Evolution doesn’t replace God as an explanation for why life exists any more than an oven replaces a chef as the explanation for how dinner was cooked. Evolution doesn’t replace God as an explanation for life any more than a surgeon replaces Him as an explanation for why a surgery went well.
Is evolution incompatible with the epistemological justification of God’s existence? I don’t see why that would be so. Biological design arguments aren’t the only arguments for God’s existence, you know. There’s The Kalam Cosmological Argument, The Cosmic Fine-Tuning Argument, The Local Fine-Tuning Argument, The Moral Argument, The Ontological Argument, The Argument From Desire, The Argument From Science’s Doability, The Transcendental Argument, and there’s plenty of historical evidence indicating that Jesus of Nazareth died on the cross and rose from the dead (see here, here, and here). All of these arguments are, in my judgment, sound, and none of them depend on the truth or falsehood of Darwin’s theory. One can concede evolution and all of these arguments would still need dealing with.
I’d like to point out though, that just because one is opposed to a scientific theory, that doesn’t mean one is anti-science. That would be like saying that because a Christian disagrees with a particular interpretation of a passage of The Bible that he’s therefore “Anti-Bible”.
Definition 3: Science as defined As Philosophical Naturalism.
If what one means by “science” is the philosophical worldview called Naturalism (i.e nothing exists but the natural, physical world), then Christianity is definitely incompatible and opposed to “science”. There’s no such thing as a naturalistic Christianity. Naturalism rules out anything supernatural, by definition. It doesn’t allow for God, angels, or demons, and since it doesn’t allow for God, it doesn’t allow for miracles, and since it doesn’t allow for miracles, it doesn’t allow for a bodily resurrection.
Christians, Christianity, The Bible, God, all of these are anti-science if science is used as a synonym for atheism.
Definition 4 and 5: Science = (A) Knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. (B) Such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena: natural science.
This is one of the definitions that Merriam-Webster’s dictionary gives. It defines science as “such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena :natural science”[5] Definitely not opposed to this. I speak for myself and many others when I say that learning things about the universe is a good thing. I am very pro-science under this definition of the word, and many other Christians are as well. Some Christians are scientists themselves. In fact, historically, the scientists who made the most groundbreaking discoveries and ergo were remembered for generations held to the Christian worldview. Do names such as Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, Michael Faraday, Robert Boyle, and Johannes Kepler ring a bell? Modern day examples would include Francis Collins, who worked with the team that successfully mapped the human genome in its entirety. Under Marriam-Webster’s number 3, we can say that Christians are not anti-science. Christians have actually made great contributions to science.
I love learning science. I can’t get enough of it, to be honest with you. I initially dove into scientific research as part of my apologetics training (i.e to learn how to defend the Cosmological and Fine-Tuning Arguments), but as I learned more and more, I actually became interested in learning science for the sake of science itself. In fact, if I hope to some day buy all the seasons of How The Universe Works and Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s show Cosmos: A Space-Time Oddysee on DVD. I greatly enjoyed those programs.
I find the information in scientific books, journals, and TV programs fascinating. Not only that, but I consider it a form of worship. Jesus said to love God with all of our minds (Matthew 22:37). To learn how creation ticks is one way to pay this intellectual homage Jesus was talking about. When I hear scientists on TV talk about what goes on inside of a star, I cannot help but think “What an awesome God I serve! He made that!”. When I hear of astronomers describe the conditions on Saturn’s moon Titan, even if I never open my mouth, I at least inwardly praise God for making such a fascinating system. Even with evolution, If I fall off this fence I’ve been sitting on, I would say alongside Charles Kingsley, an Anglican Priest, and a friend of Darwin: “We knew of old that God was so wise that He could make all things; but behold, God is so much wiser than that, that He can make all things make themselves.”[6] I believe God loves science, and I believe it makes Him happy the more we learn about this big, beautiful world He created. When the Higgs-Bozon (a.k.a The God Particle) was discovered, I saw a meme that was captioned “‘Hey scientists, thanks for finding my particle’ – God” and although it was intended to be humorous, I personally think it reflected the truth. When Higgs first predicted that such a particle existed, I can imagine the Father turning to The Son and saying giddily “This particle We created, they’re close to finding out about it!” I like to think of it as like a father giving his children a large jig-saw puzzle, then he sits back and watches in gladness as His children piece together more and more, getting a fuller picture the more pieces they successfully fit together.
When I use the word science, I never use definitions 1-3. I always use 4 and 5: “(A) Knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. (B) Such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena: natural science.” Christians, Christianity, The Bible, God, none of these are incompatible or opposed to science by these meanings of the word. And if you’ll click the link in Footnote number 5, I think you’ll find the Christian worldview isn’t incompatible with any of the other 3 definitions Marriam-Webster gives either. It is certainly incompatible with some of the definitions secularists often ascribe to it.
Conclusion
“Christians are opposed to science!”, “God and Science and mutually exclusive”, “You can believe The Bible or science, but not both.”. To my Christian readers, when you hear these statements, you need to first understand what they mean by the word “science”. Do they mean “Scientism”? Do they mean acceptance of an old earth and evolution? Do they mean it as a synonym for atheism? Or do they use it to mean an investigation into how the universe works? Depending on what they mean by it will determine what kind of response you should give. Not getting a definition out of them will likely result in you and the atheist talking past each other. Does he mean the same thing as you do when he says the word “science”? Find out. Ask the question “What do you mean by science?”
Footnotes
[1] Or at least he’s been attributed as saying this. It is uncertain whether he ever did.
[2] I don’t believe that Hebrews 11:1 is teaching blind faith. Fideists will use the verse this way, but I really don’t think that’s what the verse is actually saying. For one thing, the context of this verse includes examples of people who had very strong evidence for God’s existence (e.g Abraham, Moses) and praises them for their great faith. Hebrews 11 is a sort of “Faith Hall Of Fame”. Faith is a synonym for trust. To have faith in God means to have trust in God. You can trust in God while having evidence for His existence. Inversely, you can have evidence for God’s existence and not trust Him at all (cf. James 2:19).
[3] Most of the Christian Apologists I’ve learned from over the years are Old Earth Creationists, such as Lee Strobel, William Lane Craig, Hugh Ross, Frank Turek, Norman Geisler, J. Warner Wallace, Sean McDowell, and Neil Mammen. While they reject evolution, they do agree that the universe and Earth are billions of years old, and would agree that young earth creationism defies sound science. For those interested in this position, I suggest Reasons.org. Also, see my blog posts on this on the “The Creation Controversy” page.
[4] These Christians call themselves Evolutionary Creationists. For those interested in investigating this position, I suggest BioLogos.org.
[5] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science
[6] Charles Kingsley, The Natural Theology Of The Future, 1871
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2yXQsPo
Martin Luther: The Man Who Rediscovered God and Changed the World with Eric Metaxas
PodcastPodcast: Play in new window
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS
Frank interviews the acclaimed biographer of the bestselling Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy and Amazing Grace: William Wilberforce and the Heroic Campaign to End Slavery, Eric Metaxas about his new book on Martin Luther where he paints a startling portrait of the wild figure whose adamantine faith cracked the edifice of Western Christendom and dragged medieval Europe into the future.
Learn more about Eric Metaxas and his new book here: http://ericmetaxas.com/
Previews Episode w/ Eric titled “The Death of God Is Greatly Exaggerated: http://bit.ly/2zkQdi2
Got Karma? Misses and Misuses
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Marcia Montenegro
The Hindu word “karma” is used more and more often with a Western twist in meaning. Often people say it to mean “luck” (good or bad) or even as a gleeful expression of revenge. I myself once held a belief in karma when I was following Eastern and New Age beliefs and often thought of how someone who had wronged me would eventually suffer karma for what they had done.
Others try to justify the term karma, loosely or strictly, with the idea of consequences, as seen in Galatians 6:
“Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life” (Galatians 6:7, 8).
So, how to view “karma?” First, what is karma?
Karma and Reincarnation
Karma in Hinduism means “action,” and the law of karma refers to the consequences of action. However, although there is a karma relating to consequences of actions in the present life, the usual meaning has to do with the consequences of previous lives (reincarnation) and actions in this life that sow the seeds for consequences in future lives (if interested, see explanations on Christian site Karma2Grace and Hindu site Hinduwebsite.) Reincarnation is:
“Generally speaking, the belief that one lives many lives, returning after death to life in another body, time, and place. This belief is an essential part of Hinduism. One accumulates karma, which are the actions of a person in life, which will influence the person’s subsequent lives… In Hinduism, one can return as an animal or insect (called ‘transmigration’), but in Western views of reincarnation, one returns as a person.”[1]
Reincarnation, a doctrine of Eastern belief systems, is however opposed to Scripture:
“For it is appointed unto man to die once, and then the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27).
Penance, Forgiveness, and Karma
For the purposes of this article, the focus is on reincarnation as part of non-dual Hinduism, not dualistic Hinduism. Non-dual Hinduism is the view that there are no distinctions and all is ultimately one. This type of Hinduism is what has influenced the New Age Movement, and it is the primary Hindu spiritual influence in the West.
The consequences, in karma, are mechanical and ongoing; there is no forgiveness or way to avoid such consequences except, according to some teachings, through the specific actions of a guru or possibly by performing a ritual. Even then, while a temporary erasure has been done, karma continues and will continue in future lives.
Here is advice from a Hindu site on Prayaschitta, which is penance:
“In the broadest sense, the entire system of reincarnation is an elaborate form of penance, for we are born with the body, family, circumstances and even longevity and propensity toward disease brought about by our past actions. Prayaschitta is, however, an act of limited aim, intended only to mitigate or avoid altogether the karmaphala, “fruit of action,” of some action we have taken in this lifetime. Actions from our past lives are not considered within reach of ordinary prayaschitta. The karmas of past lives can only be assuaged or erased altogether by intense tapas or austerities under the guidance of a guru, or by the extraordinary grace of God. Manu Dharma Shastras 11.54 states, “Penances, therefore, must always be performed for the sake of purification, because those whose sins have not been expiated are born again with disgraceful marks.”[2]
Also, one must ask, on what values or standards is karma based? It is based on the values found in Hindu teachings, which are diverse and complex. Hinduism is not one monolithic religion but rather a network of wide and multifarious beliefs depending on from which particular texts, gurus, sects, schools of thought, or region of India they stem. Also, each Hindu can choose which deity they prefer as a main deity (the one god is believed to appear as numerous deities). In New Age beliefs, teachings on karma can vary according to the one teaching it.
The need for a sinless sacrifice of another to pay the penalty for sin is absent in Hinduism; if there is any penalty or consequence, it is paid by each person through karma. The only release is moksha — liberation from the cycle of death and rebirth – dependent on one’s actions and spiritual progress through many lives.
Sowing and Reaping in Galatians
What is the meaning and point of the Galatians verses about reaping what one sows?
“Every action produces an effect on the character of the actor corresponding as exactly to its motive as the fruit to the seed. If it springs from selfish desire, it stimulates the growth of evil lusts, and issues in a harvest of inward corruption. If, on the contrary, it be done in obedience to the spirit, it quickens spiritual growth, and issues eventually in a harvest of eternal life. The heart of man resembles a field in which he sows, by the mere exercise of his will, a future harvest of good or evil.”[3]
This passage in Galatians is written to Christians and is part of an exhortation as we see in the next two verses:
“Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary. So then, while we have an opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith” (Galatians 6: 9-10).
This has nothing to do with the popular notion of “what goes around comes around,” but rather that our deeds are either undertaken to gratify the flesh, that is, the fallen nature, and will end destructively, or they are done according to the power of the Holy Spirit and for God’s glory, leading to results that have eternal value in accordance with eternal life.
The contrast is between sowing to the flesh (fallen nature) and sowing to the Spirit, the flesh vs. the Holy Spirit being a common theme in Paul’s letters. “Flesh” here does not mean the body, as though the body is bad, nor is it about one’s spirit being good since it’s about the Holy Spirit. Nor is it denouncing pleasure. Rather, this is about living by the fallen nature, that is, the sinful nature, vs. living by the Holy Spirit. The results will be different depending on which way one chooses.
Karma and Christ
In Hinduism and Hindu-based New Age beliefs, the way out of karma and reincarnation must be through one’s deeds and realization of one’s true nature (which is allegedly divine), among other possible paths and complex teachings. This realization only comes after many lifetimes and is dependent on one’s own actions to reach moksha, liberation from the cycle of death and rebirth, both in Hinduism and in Buddhism.
In contrast, God tells the man that due to man’s separation from God due to sin and man’s inability to bridge that gap by his own deeds, Jesus came once for all to offer Himself on the cross to pay the penalty for sins. Through faith in Jesus, knowing that His payment makes the way to God possible, one has forgiveness of all sins and inherits eternal life.
God sent Jesus who willingly laid down His life on the cross to take the penalty for sins so that all who believe in Him have eternal life. Jesus died “once for all.” It was a final act that brings eternal results. Even if one were to hypothetically have thousands of reincarnated lives, he or she could never be good enough or do enough good things to earn salvation.
Christ and karma cannot co-exist. Karma would make Christ’s sacrifice of no import, and Christ nullifies karma.
Should Christians Use the Word Karma?
While it is certainly true that there are consequences for one’s actions and often one does “sow what one reaps” in this life, equating karma with the concepts found in Galatians of sowing and reaping, or elsewhere in Scripture, is invalid.
Moreover, using the word karma may give others the idea that the Christian agrees with the Hindu concept of karma or somehow endorses it. Using the word karma lightly may insult someone who believes in karma and thus alienates that person from hearing the truth. There is no good reason for Christians to use this word except as a platform to contrast it with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Disclaimer: The beliefs about karma and reincarnation are complex, and differ in many ways in the New Age from Hinduism. I realize what is written above are simplified explanations and I do not claim to be giving an all-encompassing summary.
Notes
[1] Christian Answers for the New Age, The Occult: Brief Explanations of Various Terms and Concepts, (accessed 10/13/2017)
[2] http://bit.ly/1Rd42Sr
[3] The Expositors Greek New Testament comments on verse 8; see this and other commentaries at The Expositors Greek New Testament
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2lnHvJE
“Christians Are Opposed To Science!” What Do You Mean By That?
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Evan Minton
In any debate or argument, it’s very important that you understand the terminology that your opponent is using and that your opponent understands the terminology that you’re using. If you don’t define your terms, you’ll just end up talking past each other and you’ll end up attacking straw men. As the philosopher, Voltaire put it: “Define your terms or we shall be like two ships passing in the night.”[1]
Often, you’ll hear atheists and anti-theists say things like “Christians don’t believe in science” or “Christians are anti-science!” or “You can believe in God or you can believe in science, but not both.” or “You can believe in The Bible or you can believe in science, but not both.” Atheists claim to be the champions of science and they deride Christians and Christianity for being opponents to science. But, in order to respond to the secularist’s claims, one has to ask a very important question: “What do you mean by that?” It’s one of the questions of The Colombo Tactic, a debate tactic talked about in Greg Koukl’s Tactics: A Game Plan For Discussing Your Christian Convictions.
What do you mean by that? What do you mean by “science”? What definition are you ascribing to that term? Because how the secularist is defining “science” will determine whether or not I agree with his claims. In my experience debating atheists on the internet and in real life, I have found that “science” can mean many different things to many different people, and when they claim “Christianity and science don’t mix” or “God and Science don’t go together” or “You can believe in The Bible or believe in science, but not both”, while all of the atheists are using the same words and are phrasing their arguments the same way, they don’t actually all mean to convey the same message.
It is the object of this blog post to look at the various definitions of “science” and talk about whether or not Christianity (and Christians by extension) are truly “Anti-Science”.
Definition 1: Science = Science Is The Only Way To Know Truth.
Some people confuse “science” with a philosophy called “scientism.” Scientism asserts that the only way to know what is true and what is not is through the scientific method. If you haven’t reached a conclusion through the scientific method, the conclusion can only be believed on blind faith or superstition. Scientism means that it can’t be known through science, it simply cannot be known.
If this is the definition of “science” that the skeptic says is incompatible with Christianity, then I would agree. Scientism and Christianity do not go hand in hand, for Christianity asserts that there are various roads to discovering the truth. For example, Romans 8:16 says that the way in which we know we are children of God is through the inner witness of The Holy Spirit. Hebrews 11:1 says “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance of things we do not see.”[2] We can know that we’re truly born again by The Holy Spirit witnessing to our hearts, telling us so. We can have confidence that God will always keep His promises by having faith in Him. Faith in Him is the evidence of what we do not see. What do we not see? His promises being fulfilled. We will see them in the future (e.g our entrance into Heaven because we placed our faith in Christ, Jesus’ return), but we don’t see them now. We trust that God will do what He says. Neither of these avenues to knowledge are through scientific means. The first is through spiritual, the second is through faith. One cannot be a Christian and believe that science is the only way to know truth.
On theological grounds, we must reject scientism. Since some atheists take scientism to be the same as science, they see a rejection of scientism as a rejection of science.
Of course, I would reject scientism even if I were not a Christian or even a theist at all. Why? Because the philosophy of scientism is logically self-refuting. A self-refuting claim is one that is refuted merely by asserting it. Such as examples would be “I can’t speak a word in English” spoken in English, or “My parents had no kids that lived” or “Everything I say is a lie”. If someone said to you “My parents had no kids that lived”, you would say “Well, that can’t be true. At least if they’re really your parents, since you’re alive.” If someone said “Everything I say is a lie”, you would know that if this statement is true, it’s false. If it’s true, at least one thing this person says is true, so not everything is a lie. But, if the statement is false, then it also isn’t true that everything he says is a lie since not everything he says is a lie. Either way, the statement cannot be affirmed without being undermined. If it’s true, it’s false, and if it’s false, it’s false.
Scientism is self-refuting in the same way. When someone says “Science is the only way to know truth”, I ask them “How did you come to that conclusion?” (another example of The Combo Tactic). How did you come to the conclusion that science is the only way to know truth? Did you come to that conclusion using the scientific method? How could the scientific method even be used to test that statement? What procedures would be involved in testing, scientifically, the claim “Truth can only be known through science”? The statement “Truth can only be known through science” is a philosophical statement, not a scientific one. It cannot be tested using the scientific method, and therefore, it collapses under its own criteria.
1: Truth can only be known through scientific testing.
2: Scientism cannot be known through scientific testing.
3: Therefore, scientism cannot be known.
For this reason alone, even atheists should reject scientism, at least if they want to remain logical. Are Christianity and Science opposites? Only if you’re using “science” as a synonym for “scientism”. But, by that definition, science and logic are opposites as well.
Definition 2: Science = An Old Earth and Darwinian Macro-Evolution
I’ve come to learn that one big reason Christians are labeled anti-science, why Christianity is seen as being undermined by science, and why belief in God and belief in science are seen as incompatible, is because many Christians reject the scientific consensus regarding the age of the universe and the validity of Darwinian macroevolution. Being anti-evolution is seen as being anti-science.
Now, first of all, there are many, many Christians who accept the various dating methods and agree that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and that the universe is around 14 billion years old.[3] There are also Christians who accept Darwin’s theory of large-scale evolution and believe that that was the process God used to bring about all of life.[4] Where I stand on this issue: I don’t know. I am definitely an old earther of some sorts.
So, even given this definition of “Science”, it would only follow that some Christians are anti-science, but certainly not all. On this definition of “science”, only a portion would be anti-science. This charge wouldn’t affect Francis Collins, Deborah Haarsma, N.T Wright, Peter Enns, or others. They would not be opposed to science under this definition of the word.
Would The Bible be opposed to science? Well, this would depend on whether concordism is true or whether accommodationism is true. Does The Bible actually intend to teach us how old the universe is and the precise method and order God brought everything into being? If The Bible’s goal isn’t to convey cosmology or biology to us, but instead used the scientific understanding of its initial recipients (ancient Jews) to get theological and moral truths across, then even if we find scientific nonsense in The Bible, that would be no grounds for disavowing biblical inerrancy or concluding that scripture isn’t inspired. So which is it, concordism or accomodationism? Richard Bushey wrote an article he wrote making the case that God never intended to teach His readers science: see “Why The Biblical Flat Earth Model Doesn’t Flatten Christianity”.
For further reading, see “Hermeneutics 101 – Part 3: Understanding The Cultural Context” and my blog post “Why Did God Write A Book?”
There are many interpretations of Genesis that are compatible with an old earth and even evolution. For a treatment of The Day-Age View, I recommend reading Hugh Ross’ “A Matter Of Days”, for The Functional Ontological Interpretation of Genesis, read John Walton’s books “The Lost World Of Genesis One” and “The Lost World Of Adam and Eve”. Deborah and Loren Haarsma’s book “Origins: Christian Perspectives On Creation, Evolution, And Intelligent Design” is also a source I’d recommend.
Is God incompatible with evolution? No. Christians have always held that God can work through natural processes as well as through miracles. If a man goes into surgery, and people pray that the surgery goes well and it does, they don’t say “Well, God didn’t do it. It was the surgeon and his skills”. They would say something like “God guided the surgeons’ hands so that they wouldn’t screw up” or, if one is a Molinist, “God placed just these surgeons in these circumstances knowing that they would perform the surgery successfully”. For some reason, a lot of Christians just don’t apply that same reasoning to evolution. Evolution no more replaces God as an explanation for the existence of the animal kingdom than a vacuum replaces a maid as the explanation for why the floor is clean. Evolution doesn’t replace God as an explanation for why life exists any more than an oven replaces a chef as the explanation for how dinner was cooked. Evolution doesn’t replace God as an explanation for life any more than a surgeon replaces Him as an explanation for why a surgery went well.
Is evolution incompatible with the epistemological justification of God’s existence? I don’t see why that would be so. Biological design arguments aren’t the only arguments for God’s existence, you know. There’s The Kalam Cosmological Argument, The Cosmic Fine-Tuning Argument, The Local Fine-Tuning Argument, The Moral Argument, The Ontological Argument, The Argument From Desire, The Argument From Science’s Doability, The Transcendental Argument, and there’s plenty of historical evidence indicating that Jesus of Nazareth died on the cross and rose from the dead (see here, here, and here). All of these arguments are, in my judgment, sound, and none of them depend on the truth or falsehood of Darwin’s theory. One can concede evolution and all of these arguments would still need dealing with.
I’d like to point out though, that just because one is opposed to a scientific theory, that doesn’t mean one is anti-science. That would be like saying that because a Christian disagrees with a particular interpretation of a passage of The Bible that he’s therefore “Anti-Bible”.
Definition 3: Science as defined As Philosophical Naturalism.
If what one means by “science” is the philosophical worldview called Naturalism (i.e nothing exists but the natural, physical world), then Christianity is definitely incompatible and opposed to “science”. There’s no such thing as a naturalistic Christianity. Naturalism rules out anything supernatural, by definition. It doesn’t allow for God, angels, or demons, and since it doesn’t allow for God, it doesn’t allow for miracles, and since it doesn’t allow for miracles, it doesn’t allow for a bodily resurrection.
Christians, Christianity, The Bible, God, all of these are anti-science if science is used as a synonym for atheism.
Definition 4 and 5: Science = (A) Knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. (B) Such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena: natural science.
This is one of the definitions that Merriam-Webster’s dictionary gives. It defines science as “such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena :natural science”[5] Definitely not opposed to this. I speak for myself and many others when I say that learning things about the universe is a good thing. I am very pro-science under this definition of the word, and many other Christians are as well. Some Christians are scientists themselves. In fact, historically, the scientists who made the most groundbreaking discoveries and ergo were remembered for generations held to the Christian worldview. Do names such as Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, Michael Faraday, Robert Boyle, and Johannes Kepler ring a bell? Modern day examples would include Francis Collins, who worked with the team that successfully mapped the human genome in its entirety. Under Marriam-Webster’s number 3, we can say that Christians are not anti-science. Christians have actually made great contributions to science.
I love learning science. I can’t get enough of it, to be honest with you. I initially dove into scientific research as part of my apologetics training (i.e to learn how to defend the Cosmological and Fine-Tuning Arguments), but as I learned more and more, I actually became interested in learning science for the sake of science itself. In fact, if I hope to some day buy all the seasons of How The Universe Works and Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s show Cosmos: A Space-Time Oddysee on DVD. I greatly enjoyed those programs.
I find the information in scientific books, journals, and TV programs fascinating. Not only that, but I consider it a form of worship. Jesus said to love God with all of our minds (Matthew 22:37). To learn how creation ticks is one way to pay this intellectual homage Jesus was talking about. When I hear scientists on TV talk about what goes on inside of a star, I cannot help but think “What an awesome God I serve! He made that!”. When I hear of astronomers describe the conditions on Saturn’s moon Titan, even if I never open my mouth, I at least inwardly praise God for making such a fascinating system. Even with evolution, If I fall off this fence I’ve been sitting on, I would say alongside Charles Kingsley, an Anglican Priest, and a friend of Darwin: “We knew of old that God was so wise that He could make all things; but behold, God is so much wiser than that, that He can make all things make themselves.”[6] I believe God loves science, and I believe it makes Him happy the more we learn about this big, beautiful world He created. When the Higgs-Bozon (a.k.a The God Particle) was discovered, I saw a meme that was captioned “‘Hey scientists, thanks for finding my particle’ – God” and although it was intended to be humorous, I personally think it reflected the truth. When Higgs first predicted that such a particle existed, I can imagine the Father turning to The Son and saying giddily “This particle We created, they’re close to finding out about it!” I like to think of it as like a father giving his children a large jig-saw puzzle, then he sits back and watches in gladness as His children piece together more and more, getting a fuller picture the more pieces they successfully fit together.
When I use the word science, I never use definitions 1-3. I always use 4 and 5: “(A) Knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. (B) Such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena: natural science.” Christians, Christianity, The Bible, God, none of these are incompatible or opposed to science by these meanings of the word. And if you’ll click the link in Footnote number 5, I think you’ll find the Christian worldview isn’t incompatible with any of the other 3 definitions Marriam-Webster gives either. It is certainly incompatible with some of the definitions secularists often ascribe to it.
Conclusion
“Christians are opposed to science!”, “God and Science and mutually exclusive”, “You can believe The Bible or science, but not both.”. To my Christian readers, when you hear these statements, you need to first understand what they mean by the word “science”. Do they mean “Scientism”? Do they mean acceptance of an old earth and evolution? Do they mean it as a synonym for atheism? Or do they use it to mean an investigation into how the universe works? Depending on what they mean by it will determine what kind of response you should give. Not getting a definition out of them will likely result in you and the atheist talking past each other. Does he mean the same thing as you do when he says the word “science”? Find out. Ask the question “What do you mean by science?”
Footnotes
[1] Or at least he’s been attributed as saying this. It is uncertain whether he ever did.
[2] I don’t believe that Hebrews 11:1 is teaching blind faith. Fideists will use the verse this way, but I really don’t think that’s what the verse is actually saying. For one thing, the context of this verse includes examples of people who had very strong evidence for God’s existence (e.g Abraham, Moses) and praises them for their great faith. Hebrews 11 is a sort of “Faith Hall Of Fame”. Faith is a synonym for trust. To have faith in God means to have trust in God. You can trust in God while having evidence for His existence. Inversely, you can have evidence for God’s existence and not trust Him at all (cf. James 2:19).
[3] Most of the Christian Apologists I’ve learned from over the years are Old Earth Creationists, such as Lee Strobel, William Lane Craig, Hugh Ross, Frank Turek, Norman Geisler, J. Warner Wallace, Sean McDowell, and Neil Mammen. While they reject evolution, they do agree that the universe and Earth are billions of years old, and would agree that young earth creationism defies sound science. For those interested in this position, I suggest Reasons.org. Also, see my blog posts on this on the “The Creation Controversy” page.
[4] These Christians call themselves Evolutionary Creationists. For those interested in investigating this position, I suggest BioLogos.org.
[5] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science
[6] Charles Kingsley, The Natural Theology Of The Future, 1871
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2yXQsPo
Is There Life Out There? (Interview with Jeff Zweerink)
CrossExaminedBetween novels, movies and television series, some of the most popular story lines involve extra-terrestrial beings living on exotic planets somewhere in the universe. The notion of alien life in the cosmos has captured our creative imagination and our scientific focus. If you’re like me, you’ve probably given the possibility of extra-terrestrial beings some serious thought. You may also have wondered if the existence of such beings would significantly impact the claims of Christianity. If aliens do live somewhere in the universe, would their existence disprove the Christian worldview? Well, Jeff Zweerink, an astrophysicist and Senior Research Scholar at Reasons to Believe, has written a new book that will inform and help Christians think clearly about the possibility of extra-terrestrial life. Is There Life Out There is a fascinating and informative book, so I asked Jeff to answer a few questions:
J. Warner:
Jeff, can you tell our audience a little bit about your professional background and your ministry experience?
Jeff:
From my earliest memories, I have loved understanding how things work. Growing up, I planned to follow in my dad’s footsteps and pursue a chemistry career. While I find chemistry fascinating, I loved my first physics class in high school. So, I went to Iowa State University and received a BS in physics with minors in astronomy and mathematics. In graduate school, my focus shifted slightly to high-energy astrophysics where I investigated objects that emit gamma rays with millions of times more energy than those that produced the Incredible Hulk. I now work for Reasons to Believe (RTB)—an organization seeking to bring the gospel to those people interested in science. A large part of my job at RTB entails speaking and writing about intriguing topics where science and theology overlap, like my most recent book Is There Life Out There?
J. Warner:
This is a very interesting topic, but not one I’ve seen addressed in many books. Can you tell me why you decided to write an entire book about it?
Jeff:
Two things conspired to bring this topic to my attention. First, astronomers started finding planets outside the solar system just over two decades ago. Since the initial discovery in 1992, they have found thousands of planets orbiting distant suns. These advances bring us closer (from a scientific perspective) to having actual data regarding how unique life on Earth is. Second, it seems like the topic of life in the universe fascinates lots of people. I noted a common theme in many of those discussions. Many Christians and non-Christians seem to think that the discovery of life “out there” would seriously undermine the truth of Christianity. To my knowledge, there are no books that describe the incredible advances in the search for planets beyond the solar system and how those discoveries impact the Christian faith.
J. Warner:
While this topic has been discussed philosophically (and theologically) by others, are there any new scientific discoveries in astrophysics that can help us determine if we are alone in the universe?
Jeff:
As mentioned earlier, the biggest scientific advance is the ability to detect planets around stars other than the Sun. Although scientists have developed models to try and determine how many planets might exist or what they might look like, I can tell you that observations of exoplanets will trump any conclusions based on the models. Unfortunately, given the current capabilities to find exoplanets, scientists really have no data that tells us anything significant about whether these planets could possibly host life. In fact, we cannot say whether any exoplanet has water on its surface at this point. However, I expect that technological advances over the next two to three decades will allow scientists to begin addressing the central question of whether life exists elsewhere in our universe—at least for some exoplanets. One particular signature that would be a strong indicator of life on a distant world would be the presence of abundant (something more than 1–2%) oxygen in the atmosphere.
J. Warner:
What impact does this question (and even more importantly, the answer to this question) have on the claims of Christianity and the truth of the Christian worldview?
Jeff:
As I alluded to in a previous question, many people seem to think that discovering life on another planet would mean that naturalism is correct and Christianity is wrong. One thing I found fascinating is that for centuries Christians have thought about the implications of intelligent life in the universe. As I investigated the truth claims of Christianity, I realized that the existence of life of any sort beyond the confines of Earth is a great theological question—without a definitive answer. At this time, I am convinced that any hypothetical discovery of life in the universe will still point to God’s creative work and ultimately help us understand God’s revelation better.
J. Warner:
As a Christian believer, how has the topic of your book challenged or strengthened your convictions? What are you hoping your book will do for those who read it?
Jeff:
I hope the Christian reading Is There Life Out There? will gain confidence in the truth and robustness of the Christian worldview. If so, this will lead to a wonder and awe of this incredible universe and an anticipation of what scientists will discover as they explore it. The beautiful thing about this topic is that so many people willingly discuss it. The knowledge gained from the book will equip the reader to engage in these conversations in a way that readily introduces the Gospel and helps them better see the glory of God’s revelation. I hope the skeptic will find an accurate account of the current state of scientific affairs and gain an appreciation for how Christianity does not hinder the advance of scientific discovery.
I bet you didn’t expect a book about alien life in the universe to actually increase your confidence in the Christian worldview, but that’s exactly what Is There Life Out There will do for you and anyone who reads it. I highly recommend this new book from Jeff Zweerink.
J. Warner Wallace is a Cold-Case Detective, Christian Case Maker, Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, and the author of Cold-Case Christianity, Cold-Case Christianity for Kids, God’s Crime Scene, God’s Crime Scene for Kids, and Forensic Faith.
Comment or Subscribe to J. Warner’s Daily Email
Dan Brown’s Origin: No God Required?
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Timothy Fox
“Where do we come from?” and “Where are we going?” These are the two big questions Dan Brown explores in his latest novel, Origin (Doubleday, 2017). (Minor spoilers ahead.) This is the fifth book in the series starring Harvard professor, Robert Langdon, the most famous being The Da Vinci Code. While many of them have explored religion – mostly Christianity – his later books feature science more prominently. A major theme in this book, however, is science versus religion. Can science explain away the superstitions of religion, or even take the place of religion in people’s lives? This is the hope of computer scientist, Edmond Kirsch.
Kirsch is a vocal, New Atheist-type who would make Richard Dawkins proud. He believes he has made a discovery that will rock the major religions, answering two major questions that humanity has always pondered: “Where do we come from?” and “Where are we going?” Without getting too spoilery, Kirsch “proves” that life arose naturally on Earth without any supernatural intervention. Thus, he has squeezed God out of an explanatory gap, making his existence that much less necessary.
But that got me thinking. Suppose God really was unnecessary for the origin of life. After “Where do we come from?”, are there any other questions that science must answer to eradicate the need for God? I thought of a few:
Why is the universe here?
After Kirsch’s presentation showed that the laws of physics alone are sufficient for creating life, Professor Langdon ponders: “If the laws of physics are so powerful that they can create life… who created the laws?!” (p. 420). This question is huge. It’s one thing to explain where life came from. But what about the universe itself? Why is there something rather than nothing?[1] If life naturally arose from the primordial ooze, where did the ooze come from?
How did consciousness arise?
So Kirsch proved that life can naturally arise from non-life. But at what point in the evolutionary process did life become conscious? How does the mind form from purely naturalistic processes? What are the components of consciousness? Honestly, I think this is a far bigger (and more interesting) problem than the origin of life.
Is morality real?
On the news following Kirsh’s presentation, a viewer response reads “RELIGION CANNOT CLAIM MORALITY AS ITS OWN… I AM A GOOD PERSON BECAUSE I AM A GOOD PERSON! GOD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!” (p. 418 – emphasis and CAPS original). But if God has nothing to do with morality, then how do we define good and evil? Is there a real and objective moral standard that is binding upon all people across all time or is it merely a social construct?
Did Jesus Christ rise from the dead?
This goes beyond basic theism into Christianity. If Jesus did rise from the dead, we get a two-for-one: Christianity is true, and, thus, God exists. To kill Christianity, you must simply disprove the resurrection of Jesus Christ. So if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then:
Yes, Origin is just a fictional work that cannot possibly explore every question regarding God’s existence. But still, above are just a few that need to be fully explained before we can proclaim “God is dead.” Even if a real-life Edmond Kirsch can someday prove that life originated naturally on Earth, the universe still requires a First Cause that is outside of time and space. I’m highly skeptical that consciousness can arise naturally from matter. A moral law requires a Moral Lawgiver. And if Jesus Christ rose from the dead, it vindicated all of his teachings, including the authority of the Bible, the message of his followers, and, of course, the existence of God.
I’m sorry, Edmond, but God’s death has been greatly exaggerated.
Notes
[1] This is briefly addressed by a quote from Stephen Hawking: “It is not necessary to invoke God to set the universe going. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing” (p. 418). But if the universe can spontaneously create itself, why not other things, like food in my refrigerator, money in my pocket, or hair on my head?
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2z3WpuH
What Christian Parents Should Learn from the Normalize Atheism Movement
Apologetics for ParentsBy Natasha Crain
I recently encountered a movement underway on social media called “Normalize Atheism.” According to the website of the same name, the movement started a couple of years ago, but it seems to have picked up more speed recently. The basic idea is that atheists post a picture of themselves on social media, using the hashtag #normalizeatheism, to demonstrate that atheists are just like everyone else.
Why is that necessary? The website explains:
Even in countries where church and state are kept separate and mainstream religious practice is fairly moderate, atheists are marginalized, stigmatized, or simply ignored. And that’s a problem. Because if we want our society to be just, pluralistic, and inclusive, there needs to be space not only for the many varieties of religious believers but also for those of us who don’t believe. This isn’t an easy problem to solve…it’s a very old problem. Solving it will require changing the way atheists are perceived by the societies in which we live. And the first step toward realizing that change is reminding everyone else that we’re here. It doesn’t demand any particular political affiliation, it doesn’t necessitate the acceptance of a specific ideology. All it requires is for all of us who are able to speak up and say, ‘I’m an atheist. And I think it’s time for us to #NormalizeAtheism.’”
Here are a few examples of what people are posting:
There is, of course, nothing wrong with such a movement. People (oftentimes Christians) do stereotype atheists in unfair ways, so I can appreciate why atheists would start something like this. The reason for this post is that I believe Christian parents should learn several important things from the movement, and I wanted to share those things with you today.
Depending on the survey you look at, and how atheism is defined, the percent of atheists in American is usually estimated to be under 10 percent. I’ve had parents ask me at speaking events why it’s so important to help our kids learn how to engage with the atheistic worldview when so few people are actually atheists. This question, however, misses the point: atheists may be a minority, but they are a vocal minority that your kids will hear from. There may be a lot more people who simply identity as “nothing in particular” on religious surveys, but they don’t organize campaigns called #NormalizeNothingInParticular. It’s not the numbers; it’s the influence that requires parents to thoughtfully engage with their kids on the atheist worldview today.
It may be tempting to think that atheist influence is only at some kind of organized political level, but that’s simply not the case. As the Normalize Atheism campaign readily demonstrates, atheists want a much more popular-level awareness. Reaching out through social media in this way is an excellent way to promote ideas to young people. Talking with your kids about the atheistic worldview isn’t a subject to have when they become teens. They should be well aware that some people don’t believe in God and why Christians have good reason to be confident God exists from the youngest ages.
The overriding message of the Normalize Atheism movement is that atheists are good people, just like everyone else. And if by good they mean they are people who can be nice, love others, be good citizens, and so on, they’re right! As Christians, we should never be teaching our kids that only those who love Jesus can match such a description. If we do, we’re seriously misleading them. Perhaps that sounds obvious, but I think the point has been lost on too many young people. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard teens comment that their atheist friends are “just as good of people” as their Christian friends—as if that has some implication for the truth of the Christianity. Here’s an atheist making the same claim herself:
Kids who haven’t been raised to think deeply about the nature of truth and worldviews are spiritually vulnerable to a likeability campaign like this. They can readily confuse their positive feelings for people with a fair evaluation of the truth of those people’s beliefs: “If all these atheists are such good people, why does Christianity matter?”
The answer is obvious for kids who have learned to think about these things: Truth is what corresponds to reality and has nothing to do with who’s nice and who’s not.
An atheist recently commented on a blog post I wrote: “You have no way of knowing what I believe without talking to me.” I will never forget that comment because it raises such an important point that kids need to understand:
There is often a difference between what an individual atheist believes and what is logically consistent with an atheistic worldview.
In other words, this person was absolutely right. I don’t have any idea what they believe despite the fact they identify as an atheist. This is the case with any person. For example, someone might identify as a Christian but have non-Christian beliefs that are logically inconsistent with a Christian worldview (for example, some Christians believe in reincarnation).
Another example is in the picture I posted above. This lady says she lives her life by doing what is right. But in an atheistic worldview, there can be no objective right or wrong because there is no moral authority; moral judgments can only be a matter of opinion. Looking at the social media discussions in the Normalize Atheism campaign, there are many people who make claims inconsistent with what an atheistic world actually requires. When kids are not well-trained to understand this, they can be persuaded by beliefs that are logically incoherent.
While the idea of Normalize Atheism sounds innocuous enough, don’t think for a moment that the only thing atheists want is to have people see them in a more positive light. Just as Christians want to share our beliefs with others, atheists want to share their beliefs as well.
They’ll let you know that atheism represents reason, logic, and science (implying theism doesn’t):
They’ll let you know that atheism represents free-thinking (implying theists are all mindlessly indoctrinated):
They’ll let you know that if you believe God speaks to you, you need to see a “shrink”:
They’ll let you know that God is an imaginary friend:
I could continue with examples all day, but you get the point. If you’re not prepared to talk with your kids about why there’s good reason to believe God exists and why the claims of all these skeptics are unfounded, your kids’ faith may well suffer. As atheism indeed is becoming more “normal,” we have a great responsibility as parents to have these discussions with our kids.
Notes
My new book, Talking with Your Kids about God, comes out in just 5 days and is a complete guide for parents to all of the points raised by skeptics in this post and so many more. It walks you step-by-step through conversations on the evidence for God’s existence, the ins and outs of claims about science and God, the logical implications of an atheistic versus theistic worldview, and much more. Click here for the full table of contents and order information!
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2h5ZPT7
Four Ways to Come Alongside Your Kids to Strengthen Their Faith
Apologetics for ParentsIf you’re paying attention to what’s happening in America today, you’re probably aware of the challenges facing young Christians in their teens and twenties. It’s a simple fact: most young Christians will walk away from the Church during (or before) their college years. Like other Christian parents, I’m animated to work as hard as I can to address this dilemma, for my own kids and for the next generation of believers. I’ve authored books, written blogs, recorded podcasts and videos in an attempt to help young people evaluate the evidence for Christianity. I also speak to local congregations. Following a recent church presentation, I was approached by a mother who was concerned for her high school children. We began discussing several ways parents can prepare their kids before sending them off to college. Here are four simple guiding strategies:
Learn Alongside Your Kids
What would you say if your son or daughter asked you the following question: “If God is all-powerful and all-loving, why is there so much evil in the world? Is God unable to stop it? Is He unwilling?” Or, how about this question: “If God is the creator of everything, who created God?” These are common questions asked by skeptics and believers alike. Are you ready to answer them in a meaningful, reasonable way? If not, don’t feel bad, most Christian parents feel under-equipped to answer difficult objections to Christianity.
Let that kind of anxiety motivate you to learn alongside your kids. You don’t have to be an expert to lead your kids to the truth. In fact, you only need to be a few steps ahead of them. Cold-Case Christianity for Kids and God’s Crime Scene for Kids were written for children, with their parents in mind. You can learn from these books as your kids examine the evidence for God’s existence and the truth of Christianity. If you want to learn more, the adult versions of these books parallel the kid’s books chapter by chapter. Investigate about the evidence for Christianity, learn how to make the case for what is true, and do it alongside your kids.
Share Alongside Your Kids
If you’re like me, your friends and family already know what your passionate about. Why? Because I bet you talk about it whenever you get the chance. All of us do this; our conversations at dinner, while driving in the car, or even while walking the dog, give away what really matters to us. If you’ve passionately adopted a reasoned, rational approach to your faith, odds are good you’ll start sharing this interest with your kids during these moments of conversation. You can’t force this; it just happens.
So, if you really want to help your kids develop a strong, confident faith, you can be intentional and create opportunities, especially as your kids approach their teen years. My friend, Natasha Crain, has written a number of books to help you engage your kids in conversations about God. They are fantastic. Be passionate, take advantage of opportunities and resources like these, and speak up. Talk with your kids about the stuff that matters most.
Place Others Alongside Your Kids
As parents, we need all the help we can get. I’m not suggesting you should relinquish your responsibility to prepare your kids, but I do recognize the value of relevant mentors in the lives of my children. Back when I was a youth pastor (and my kids were part of my ministry), I paired my sons with a young man, Tim, who I came to trust as a leader. He is nearly twenty years younger than I am, and he is much more culturally relevant. My sons love him and respect his musical ability and his athleticism. He shares my Christian worldview and my passion for case making, but is a much cooler version of me.
Over the years, Tim has often echoed my thoughts and beliefs, and there were times when my sons seemed to embrace these ideas more readily when they came from him, rather than me. Identify relevant mentors, introduce your kids to thoughtful role models, and do whatever it takes to keep them connected. Place reasonable, devoted believers alongside your kids.
Engage the Culture Alongside Your Kids
Most of us can remember a pivotal moment in our young lives as Christians; a moment when someone said something incredibly significant, or an occasion when we experienced something transformational. These moments often happen by accident, but they don’t have to. As parents, we can facilitate these kinds of moments and experiences for our kids. Sometimes it’s a missions trip. I’ve been taking “case making” missions trips for many years, and the kids who attend these excursions always describe them as transformational.
Summit Worldview Conference is also an important resource for parents. As a member of the faculty there, I’ve seen what happens in this intensive two-week worldview training experience. It is nothing short of life changing. I cannot recommend it highly enough. Look for opportunities, prioritize your calendar, and encourage your kids to engage in a short-term, high intensity adventure. Come alongside your kids to help them have a pivotal moment.
As my wife, Susie, and I thought about our journey as Christian parents, we sensed a calling to provide resources to help other parents teach their kids good thinking skills as they examined the case for Jesus. So we wrote Cold-Case Christianity for Kids and God’s Crime Scene for Kids. Our own experience as youth leaders and pastors taught us that young people begin to question their faith in junior high. We wanted to provide a resource that would answer critical questions kids might have before they even begin to ask them. I hope our kids books will help you prepare your own children so you can provide them with answers to encourage them, develop opportunities to talk with them, find mentors to guide them and create experiences to remind them.
J. Warner Wallace is a Cold-Case Detective, Christian Case Maker, Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, and the author of Cold-Case Christianity, Cold-Case Christianity for Kids, God’s Crime Scene, God’s Crime Scene for Kids, and Forensic Faith.
This article was first written for Crosswalk.com
Comment or Subscribe to J. Warner’s Daily Email
What Christianity Teaches About Service
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Al Serrato
I attended an awards assembly recently with my teenage son. He had written an essay on the value of military service, so the speeches and theme this night had to do with the traditions of service. And though this assembly was conducted at a Christian school, none of the comments made addressed the question of why people are willing to sacrifice in service to another. As I sat listening, a comment I had heard many years ago occurred to me: we are living on the fumes of past generations. Especially in the United States, many of us are living out the finest traditions of service, but few seem to remember what the generations that came before us – especially that first group of Patriots that set this great experiment in ordered liberty into motion – knew. Not only do our freedoms derive from the God that created us, but the idea of “service” makes the most sense within the context of a Christian worldview. Their vision of the benefits of service lingers with us, but many seem to be forgetting the reason – the value – behind service.
Consider: many people draw satisfaction and a sense of purpose from serving others. They may never wonder why this is so, but simply recognize the satisfaction it allows them to feel. Others seek out and enjoy – whether secretly or not – the recognition that service to others may entail. However worthy their efforts, they are being done not exclusively for the benefit of the other, but also for the benefit of the doer. This may seem an unfair criticism, especially when one considers that a growing number of people seem to have no interest in serving others, regardless of motivation. But this comment is an observation, not a judgment. It is simply the case that in serving others, we usually obtain some level of reward, whether purely psychological or not.
If, then, these efforts are but an approximation of something else – some purer sense of service that we approximate but never quite reach – just what is that something else? In the Christian tradition, it is referred to by the label agape love: the love of the other for the sake of love. It is a love freely given, a love that seeks no reward. In its highest forms, it manifests in acts of great self-sacrifice, such as when a person lays down his life for the safety of – for the sake of – the other.
And where do we learn about the value of such love? Where does such love find its grounding? Certainly not in the world of Darwinian evolution, a world characterized by random selection and the “survival of the fittest.” No, it is from Jesus’ own lips that we hear these stirring, yet challenging and troubling, words:
“This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (John 15:12-13)
Consider also the Christian command to love one’s enemies:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. (Matt. 5:43-45)
Finally, what example does Jesus give during his last hours on Earth? He could not have made the point clearer, as he washed the feet of his disciples, an act of profound humility and love (John 13).
The apostle John said that all things that have ever come into being have come through the Logos, the son of God. (John 1) So perhaps it is to be expected that we, the image-bearers of God, would have within us the seed of such great love. Perhaps there will always be something tugging at us, that God-shaped whole in our heart that draws us out of ourselves and toward others in acts of loving service. That draws us ultimately back to the One who created us.
But to an increasingly secular world that has forgotten its roots, the debt owed to Christianity for improving our world is worth noting. From the hospitals and other institutions that bear the names of Christian saints to the great universities that were founded to train up new generations to bring the message of Christianity to a fallen world; from the many people of faith who have fallen in the service of this great country to those faithful still among us serving unnoticed wherever there is need – we owe indeed a great debt of gratitude for a faith that inspired such selfless love.
Vigilance is said to be the price of freedom. But that vigilance cannot be directed solely outside the gates. We must look inward and return our hearts and our minds to faith in the One who emptied himself to become one of us and who took on our sins to restore us to right relationship with God.
And showed us the true meaning and value of service in the process.
Notes
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2zDvHpQ
How Can Apologists Best Use Twitter? 6 Ideas
Theology and Christian ApologeticsWhen my father first released Evidence that Demands a Verdict in 1972 there was very little popular apologetics materials available, and so it was an instant success. But now with the recently updated edition, and the growth in the apologetics industry over the past few decades, there is an abundance of material. The challenge today is not the availability of material, but how to make the material accessible, interesting, and relevant to people through the variety of means that people access material.
While there are a variety of different social media platforms, Twitter is one of my favorites. Here are 6 ideas and principles for apologists to effectively use Twitter.
Twitter is a great form of social media. And apologists should use it as a medium to help positively advance the conversation. If you use it, and you want to genuinely influence people for good, then my encouragement is to have a long-term perspective, be positive, provide value, champion others, don’t over-tweet, and be personal. If you follow these ideas (or ones like it), you just might be surprised at how many people you can positively influence for the kingdom.
Sean McDowell, Ph.D. is a professor of Christian Apologetics at Biola University, best-selling author, popular speaker, part-time high school teacher, and the Resident Scholar for Summit Ministries, California. Follow him on Twitter: @sean_mcdowell and his blog: seanmcdowell.org.
Are Young People Really Leaving Christianity?
Culture CrossExaminedMuch has been written about both the Biblical illiteracy of teenage believers and the flight of young people from the Church. Many have observed this trend, and I too have witnessed it anecdotally as a youth pastor (and shamefully, I contributed to the trend for some time before I changed course). Some writers and Christian observers deny the flight of young people altogether, but the growing statistics should alarm us enough as Church leaders to do something about the dilemma. My hope in this post is to simply consolidate some of the research (many of the summaries are directly quoted) so you can decide for yourself. I’ve organized the recent findings in a way that illuminates the problem in a continually updated article found here:
Read the Article