By David Pallman
Circular reasoning is generally understood to be fallacious. The reason for this is that circular arguments assume what they purport to prove. At least one premise in a circular argument depends upon the truth of the conclusion, making the argument lose any justifying force. For in order to accept the relevant premise, one would have to already believe the conclusion. But if one already believes the conclusion then one has no need for the argument, and if one does not already believe the conclusion then the argument will not yield any grounds for belief.
Despite the seeming obviousness of what I have just said, it nonetheless remains startlingly popular to claim that circular reasoning is, in some cases, acceptable and — even worse — ultimately unavoidable. This claim is common among those Christian apologists known as presuppositionalists (although it is, by no means, limited to them). It is not my purpose here to critique circular reasoning in general or to offer a non-circular alternative, although I have done this elsewhere.[1] My purpose here is to critique one popular argument which purports to show that circular reasoning is unavoidable.
The argument is typically phrased something like this: “You must use reason in order to prove reason.” The thrust of the argument seems to be that since one cannot prove reason apart from reason, circularity is simply inescapable.[2] Although I don’t encounter this argument much in scholarly literature (at least not in this form) it is rather popular among internet presuppositionalists. And while I generally prefer to discuss scholarly issues, the pervasiveness of this argument coupled with the fact that I am not aware of any direct interaction with it moves me to write this article in reply.[3]
In this article, I intend to briefly explain my motivation for addressing this argument. After that, I will try to disambiguate the argument and clarify both what it means and how one might respond. After disambiguating the argument, I shall argue that it either assumes a theory of epistemic justification which can be rejected or else fails to recognize an important distinction between two types of usage. Either way, circular reasoning can be avoided.
Raising the Stakes
Before engaging the argument directly, it will be helpful to provide some motivation for examining it at all. After all, why should the argument concern us? Is it really a problem if all justification is circular in the end? Or perhaps we should not even try to justify the reliability of reasoning. Perhaps it is simply a fundamental assumption of all philosophical inquiry which needs no justification.
It would be an understatement to say that many philosophers are content to say that belief in the reliability of reason can only be justified in a circular way.[4] Still, others take the essential reliability of reason to be a fundamental axiom which is incapable of justification and needs none. But I have never found such answers to be satisfactory. I have never been content to suppose that I should require justification for my beliefs down to the bottom level but then give the foundational beliefs a free pass. Such a move seems completely arbitrary and even inconsistent. If our most foundational beliefs are unjustified, then I take this to entail that all beliefs which depend on them for their justification are likewise unjustified. I suspect that many readers feel the same way.
But this conviction forces those who hold it to face the original argument. For if there is no non-circular means of justifying foundational beliefs, then we may well have to face the conclusion that none of our beliefs are justified. For those wishing to avoid such a gloomy conclusion, there is a strong motivation for addressing the original argument.
Clarifying the Issue
Having provided some motivation, let’s turn to assess the merits of the argument. Roughly we are concerned with the claim that one must use reason to justify reasoning. Stated thusly, the claim is quite incoherent. Reasoning is a deliberative cognitive process. It is not a proposition. It is not the sort of thing which can be true or false. As such, reasoning itself needs no justification since it is an action rather than a belief. Imagine how absurd it would be to demand justification for walking, or for driving, or for swimming. Such activities need no justification precisely because they are activities rather than propositions. Once we have understood that only propositions require justification due to their potential to be false, it becomes evident that the act of reasoning does not need justification.
Sometimes the argument is phrased as a question: How do you know that your reasoning is valid? But stated in this way, the argument is guilty of a category error. Validity is not a property of reasoning but rather a property of arguments.[5] To say that one’s reasoning is valid makes as little sense as saying that one’s driving is valid. Validity simply doesn’t apply to activities.
But perhaps it will be objected that I have missed the point. After all, I am taking advantage of very poorly worded versions of the argument. And that is, of course, quite true. As I observed earlier, this argument is not as prominent among scholars as it is among those on the internet. But I do think that addressing these muddled versions of the argument is an important task because it helps us to clarify what is and what is not at issue. Moreover, it forces those who would use these problematic formulations of the argument to be more precise. Finally, pointing out the incoherence of these simplistic formulations of the argument can also serve to rob them of their rhetorical force.
Strengthening the Argument
So let me attempt to reconstruct a more sensible version of the argument. It seems to me that when someone says that we must use reason to justify reasoning, they mean that one must use their ability to reason in order to defend the proposition that reasoning is reliable. One must, in effect, assume that their ability to reason is reliable. Certainly, this is a much more robust argument. But to answer it, we must seek still greater clarification.
Before turning to answer the robust version of the argument, we must ask what is meant by the phrase “reason is reliable.” Taken quite literally it would mean that the cognitive process of reasoning itself somehow yields justification for beliefs by virtue of being reliable. Taken in this way, the argument is saying that one must assume that reasoning yields justification for beliefs by virtue of being reliable in order to reach the conclusion that reasoning yields justification for beliefs by virtue of being reliable.
Reliabilism vs. Evidentialism
Thus construed, the argument assumes a reliabilist epistemology. Reliabilism is a theory of epistemic justification according to which beliefs are justified if they have been produced by a reliable process. If this is what the proponent of the argument is claiming, then we may happily agree with him. It is not at all controversial that reliabilism is guilty of epistemic circularity. This is a well-known fact which is admitted by reliabilists and critics of reliabilism alike.
Notice, however, that if this is what the argument is trying to establish, then it assumes reliabilism and reaches the uncontroversial conclusion that reliabilism leads to circularity. However, not all philosophers are reliabilists. Reliabilism’s main contender is known as evidentialism. According to evidentialism, the justification that any subject has for a belief is always relative to the evidence which that subject possesses for that belief.[6] Evidentialism seeks justification in evidence – not in reliable processes. Hence, the argument considered above will simply not work against evidentialism because it assumes a theory of justification which the evidentialist rejects.[7] As such, one need only reject reliabilism in order for the argument to fail to establish that circularity is unavoidable.
Functional Usage vs. Justificatory Usage
Nevertheless, evidentialists still do use reason to arrive at justified beliefs. Does this indicate that there is still some circularity on the part of the evidentialist? In order to answer this, we will need to be clear on what is meant by using reason. There are two quite distinct ways in which we use things to justify our beliefs. We use things in a justificatory sense and we also use things in a functional sense. Something is used in a justificatory sense when it is offered as a rational justification for a belief. Something is used in a functional sense when it is employed as a tool in the process of offering rational justification. Crucially, nothing about a functional usage contributes to the rational justification for a belief. It is simply a means of helping a subject see that justification for what it is. The upshot is that functional usage doesn’t even have the potential to be circular because circularity can only apply to justification.
We can see the distinction more clearly through an illustration. Imagine that I am debating a friend over the existence of pencils. I am trying to convince him that pencils actually exist. Moreover, suppose that this debate is mediated by means of letters. In my attempt to convince my friend that pencils are real, I offer him numerous syllogistic arguments in support of the existence of pencils. Now let’s say that I use a pencil to write out these arguments for him. In this case, it would be quite correct to say that I used a pencil to justify my belief in the existence of pencils. But the usage was entirely functional. At no point did I use the proposition that pencils exist as a premise in an argument which concluded that pencils exist. The premises in my arguments are what I am using to justify my belief in pencils. Therefore, the justification of my belief in pencils is not circular even though I used a pencil to justify the belief. This is because the usage of the pencil was functional rather than justificatory.
This illustration is fairly analogous to what I have in mind when I say that evidentialists “use reason” to justify their beliefs. While it is true that we must think critically — we must reason — in order to justify our beliefs, we are not using reason as the rational basis for any of our beliefs. The evidence provides the justification for our beliefs and reason is just the process of evaluating it. At no point does the process of reasoning itself justify a belief. Reasoning without evidence from which to reason gets us nowhere. Reason is not some mystical ability which leads us to truth in and of itself. Reason requires to facts to work with. It is simply a necessary means for reaching justified beliefs. Critically, since we are not attributing justification to the reasoning process itself, our use of it is not justificatory. It is functional. As such, our use of reason when seeking to justify our beliefs is not circular.
Summary and Conclusion
In this article, I have assessed the claim that epistemic circularity is unavoidable since one must, in fact, use reason to justify their beliefs about the truth-finding nature of reasoning. I have determined that the argument is usually framed in an unclear and incoherent way. When it is made intelligible, it assumes epistemic reliabilism and, therefore, it is forceless against evidentialism. Any attempt to press the argument against evidentialism will beg the question against evidentialism. Moreover attempts to modify it to face evidentialism on the basis that evidentialists “use reason” fail to acknowledge the distinction between functional and justificatory usage. Since evidentialists only “use reason” in a functional sense, they are not guilty of epistemic circularity.
It has not been my purpose here to assess all arguments for epistemic circularity or to provide a detailed account of a non-circular theory of knowledge. Others more capable than myself have done this elsewhere.[8] My purpose has been minimal. I have merely attempted to show that a single popular argument for the inescapability of circular reasoning does not succeed as long as evidentialism is a viable option.
Notes
[1] See my video “Internalism Versus Externalism” available here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxOg5zKUYmU&t=12s
[2] For a cluster of arguments along these lines see Sye Ten Bruggencate’s video “How To Answer The Fool (full film)” available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQKjUzotw_Y&vl=en&t=329
[3] In particular conversations with Seth Bloomsburg and Tyler Vela convinced me of the need for such an article.
[4] Examples include William Alston, Alvin Plantinga, Michael Bergmann, and Andrew Moon
[5] To be sure, we sometimes speak of valid and invalid reasoning. But this sort of language refers not to cognitive processes, but rather to the validity of the logical inferences that the reasoning follows.
[6] Earl Conee and Richard Feldman, Evidentialism, Oxford University Press, 2004, Pg. 83
[7] See Berit Brogaard, “Phenomenal Dogmatism, Seeming Evidentialism and Inferential Justification,” in Believing in Accordance with the Evidence, Springer International Publishing, 2018, Kevin McCain editor, Pg. 55
[8] Examples include Richard Fumerton, Metaepistemology and Skepticism, Rowman & Littlefield, 1995; Timothy McGrew and Lydia McGrew, Internalism and Epistemology, Routledge, 2007; Paul K. Moser, Knowledge and Evidence, Cambridge University Press, 1989; Brie Gertler, Self-Knowledge, Routledge, 2011
Recommended resources related to the topic:
How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)
When Reason Isn’t the Reason for Unbelief by Dr. Frank Turek DVD and Mp4
Counter Culture Christian: Is There Truth in Religion? (DVD) by Frank Turek: http://bit.ly/2zm2VLF
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
David Pallmann is a student at Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary. He is also a member of the Society of Evangelical Arminians and directs the YouTube Apologetics ministry Faith Because of Reason.
Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/0mhHTXY
The Three Fatal Flaws of Equity
Legislating Morality, Culture & PoliticsBy Jason Jimenez
All this talk about more equity in our institutions seems like a good thing, right?
Not so fast.
On the surface, equity seems to be fair, just, and impartial. But upon further investigation, you find that the outcome of equity is anything but fair, just, and impartial.
There are undoubtedly those within the debate over diversity, inclusivity, and equity who genuinely try to reduce discrimination and attempt to unite people of different backgrounds. That’s a good thing. But let’s not be fooled into believing that we must embrace the Left’s dangerous views of equity hook line and sinker.
To prevent you from believing the secular lies of equity, I’ve put together three areas that expose the faulty thinking and the dangerous results that come with this unchecked justice referred to as “equitable treatment.”
The Unequal Treatments of Equity
Equality, as we’ve known it to mean, is treating everyone the same. But that’s no longer the case. Instead, the Left has hijacked equality by socially engineering it into something predicated on equal outcomes (i.e., equity), not based on equal opportunity.
The Austrian-British economist, Friedrich Hayek (1899-1992), distinctively communicated the difference between equality and equity by writing, “There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal. While the first is the condition of a free society, the second means, as De Tocqueville described it, a new form of servitude.”
The idea of a “new form of servitude” is to mistreat the fortunate to treat the less fortunate fairly. But how is that just and fair? If equity is about the “systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals,” how is the unequal distribution of benefits to low-income individuals considered equitable? This equitable posture is the classic “fair share” philosophy that has its roots in socialism.
Just because inequities exist doesn’t give the government or some social justice system the right to step in and attempt to level the playing field so that everyone ends up in the same place. That, my friends, is not equality, nor is it following the impartial mandates of the law.
The Injustice of Equity
In his book, Prosperity and Poverty, Calvin Beisner proves this point, “The only way to arrive at equal fruits is to equalize behavior, and that requires robbing men of liberty, making them slaves.”
The truth is equity (according to the Left) doesn’t promote fairness, equal opportunities, or equal outcomes. As a matter of fact, it snubs individuality, stifles creativity, cheapens competition, steals from hard earning workers, lowers the standards of achievement, and actually advances partiality—and often, promotes racism.
On his blog, Neal Hardin writes, “In order for total uniformity of results to be achieved, there would have to be a uniformity of our characteristics and desires. In other words, true equality of outcome could only result if there were no meaningful differences among human beings or the choices we would make, which seems to go completely contrary to the diversity which God intended in creation. Clearly, on some level, God created us with these diverse characteristics and desires expecting different outcomes.”
To ignore each person’s uniqueness, giftedness and not to embrace diversity is in itself an injustice that (if left unchecked) leads to more discrimination and oppression.
The Inconsistencies of Equity
“Black Lives Matter stands in solidarity with Palestinians,” the protest group declared in a tweet. The tweet went on to say, “We are a movement committed to ending settler colonialism in all forms and will continue to advocate for Palestinian liberation (always have. And always will be).”
But here’s the thing. If BLM is for equity, then why don’t they stand with Israel?
Or how about female athletes (who have XX chromosomes) that are losing to transgender athletes (who have XY chromosomes)? How is that equitable treatment? From the start, women athletes are being placed at a disadvantage and have no real chance to arrive at an equal outcome. Where’s the equity in that?
What about Mayor Lightfoot of Chicago? In the spirit of equity, she, a black woman, only gave interviews to black and brown journalists in celebration of her two years in office. Say what? How is that being fair while discriminating against white journalists? Not to mention is that honest journalism?
Here’s the bottom line. No one denies there are disparities among people. We come from different backgrounds, ethnic groups, families, etc. But just because we are created equal doesn’t mean we are all created the same. We are not all the same. And it is feasibly impossible to make everyone end up at the same place.
Individual freedom doesn’t guarantee equal outcomes. It does, however, provide equal opportunity for people to succeed in life. Our nation was founded on the solid conviction that equality of humanity retains and sustains the essence of human rights in a civil society. That’s the kind of equity Christians should support and defend.
However, when the culture measures human rights based on color, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, that culture will not survive. The more America moves further away from God and his truth, the deeper our nation will slip into spiritual corruption and generate more inequalities and inequities within society.
As Christians, we are to honor the fact that each human is made in the image of God. We need to remember that God has made each of us diverse in color, ethnicity, and personality and learn to appreciate the uniqueness and difference in each of us.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)
American Apocalypse MP3, and DVD by Frank Turek
Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) downloadable pdf, Book, DVD Set, Mp4 Download by Frank Turek
The Case for Christian Activism MP3 Set, DVD Set, mp4 Download Set by Frank Turek
You Can’t NOT Legislate Morality mp3 by Frank Turek
Fearless Generation – Complete DVD Series, Complete mp4 Series (download) by Mike Adams, Frank Turek, and J. Warner Wallace
Legislating Morality (DVD Set), (PowerPoint download), (PowerPoint CD), (MP3 Set) and (DVD mp4 Download Set)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jason Jimenez is president of STAND STRONG Ministries, a faculty member at Summit Ministries, and the author of Challenging Conversations: A Practical Guide to Discuss Controversial Topics in the Church.
Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/zQYXmZA
What’s the Solution to the Identity Crisis?
PodcastWhy are people denying that there are differences between men and women? Why are people struggling with their identity? What’s the solution to all this?
Join Frank as he addresses these questions and others. Along the way he points out how transgender ideology presupposes fixed genders: how living “my truth” is self-defeating; and why “following your heart” is usually unwise. There is a better way forward, not only in this life but right into eternity.
If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.
Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
Dos tipos de personas que han tratado de avergonzarme para que me aleje del cristianismo
EspañolPor Wintery Knight
En mi último trabajo, tuve dos encuentros interesantes, el primero con un hombre judío de izquierda y el segundo con una mujer cristiana feminista del evangelio de la prosperidad de la Nueva Era.
Hablemos de las dos personas.
El hombre que piensa que los cristianos conservadores son estúpidos
El primer tipo de persona que trató de avergonzarme por ser cristiano es la persona que piensa que el cristianismo es estúpido. Este tipo de personas recurre a las cosas que él escucha en la cultura pop secular de izquierda como si fuera de conocimiento común que el teísmo en general, y el cristianismo en particular, es falso. Ha visto un documental en Discovery Channel que decía que la cosmología de la oscilación eterna era cierta. O tal vez vio un documental en History Channel que decía que Jesús nunca se presentó a sí mismo como Dios al entrar en la historia. Él presenta estas cosas que lee en el New York Times, ve en la MSNBC, o escucha en la NPR con el tono de autoridad que Ben Carson podría tener cuando explica medicina moderna a un curandero.
Así es como suelen ir las cosas con él:
> Yo: aquí hay dos argumentos en contra de la evolución naturalista, el origen de la vida y la explosión Cámbrica.
> Él: pero tú no crees en una Tierra Joven, ¿verdad? Es decir, crees en la evolución, ¿no?
> Yo: hablemos de cómo las proteínas y el ADN son secuenciadas, y el origen repentino de los planos corporales Cámbricos
> Él: (gritando) ¿Crees en la evolución? ¿Crees en la evolución?
Y esto:
> Yo: no ha habido calentamiento global desde hace 18 años, y las temperaturas eran más cálidas en el Período Cálido Medieval
> Él: pero no niegas el cambio climático ¿verdad? Todos en la NPR están de acuerdo
que el cambio climático es real
> Yo: hablemos de los últimos 18 años sin calentamiento, y las temperaturas durante
el Período Cálido Medieval
> Él: (gritando) ¿Crees en el cambio climático? ¿Crees en el cambio climático?
Él hace estas preguntas para etiquetarme de loco o para que concuerde con él, sin tener que sopesar la evidencia que le estoy presentando.. Se trata de ignorar la evidencia, de modo que él pueda regresar a su ocupada, muy ocupada vida práctica, y volver a sentirse engreído por ser más inteligente que los demás. Creo que muchos hombres son así, ellos no quieren desperdiciar su valioso tiempo estudiando, solo quieren saltar a la conclusión correcta y luego volver a hacer lo que sea que quieran, como correr maratones, o llevar a sus hijos a su práctica de hockey, etc.
Así que ¿cómo respondes a un hombre que obtiene toda su cosmovisión de la cultura,
pero nunca se ocupa de la evidencia revisada por expertos y especialistas? Bueno, creo que solo derrotas sus argumentos con evidencia, luego presentas tu propia evidencia (revisada por expertos), y luego lo dejas así. Si la persona solo quiere saltar a la conclusión que todas las personas “inteligentes” sostienen, sin hacer ningún trabajo, entonces no puedes ganar. Existen ateos que creen en la oscilación eterna del universo de la que vieron hablar a Carl Sagan en su escuela primaria. Podrías tratar de argumentar por un origen del universo citando nueva evidencia como el CMB y la abundancia de elementos ligeros. Pero a veces, a ellos no les importará. Carl Sagan lo dejó muy claro hace 50 años. No importa que la nueva evidencia anule las viejas teorías, a ellos no les interesa.
¿Crees que el cristianismo hará que los no cristianos sean como tú?
Considera 2 Tim 4:1-5:
1 Te encargo solemnemente, en la presencia de Dios y de Cristo Jesús, que ha de juzgar a los vivos y a los muertos, por su manifestación y por su reino:
2 Predica la palabra; insiste a tiempo y fuera de tiempo; redarguye, reprende, exhorta
con mucha paciencia e instrucción.
3 Porque vendrá tiempo cuando no soportarán la sana doctrina, sino que teniendo comezón de oídos, acumularán para sí maestros conforme a sus propios deseos;
4 y apartarán sus oídos de la verdad, y se volverán mitos.
5 Pero tú, sé sobrio en todas las cosas, sufre penalidades, haz el trabajo de un evangelista,
cumple tu ministerio.
Y 1 Pedro 3:15-16:
15 sino santificad a Cristo como Señor en vuestros corazones, estando siempre preparados
para presentar defensa ante todo el que os demande razón de la esperanza que hay en vosotros, pero hacedlo con mansedumbre y reverencia;
16 teniendo buena conciencia, para que en aquello en que sois calumniados, sean avergonzados los que difaman vuestra buena conducta en Cristo.
Si tienes creencias teológicas ortodoxas en esta época, entonces serás
avergonzado, humillado, y vilipendiado por las personas. Y no es solo tener una visión ortodoxa de quién es Jesús lo que les molesta (por ejemplo – la deidad, la exclusividad de la salvación, moralidad, etc.). No, su desaprobación se extiende hasta en la política, especialmente el aborto y el matrimonio gay – básicamente cualquier tipo de reglas acerca de la sexualidad. Eso es lo que realmente molesta a estas personas, creo.
La mujer que piensa que el cristianismo mejora la calidad de vida
Esto es especialmente difícil cuando eres un hombre joven porque naturalmente buscamos la aprobación y respeto de las mujeres. Te encuentras sentado en la iglesia o en el grupo de jóvenes, esperando la aprobación y respeto de las mujeres cristianas por tu sólida teología y tu eficaz apologética. No sabes que muchas mujeres cristianas entienden al cristianismo como una mejora de calidad de vida, diseñado para producir sentimientos de felicidad. Dios es su mayordomo cósmico cuya principal responsabilidad es satisfacer sus necesidades y hacer que sus planes funcionen. Aunque te guste la sana teología y buenos argumentos apologéticos, ella no piensa que eso es importante.
Entonces, ¿cómo lidiar con esta necesidad insatisfecha de aprobación y respeto por parte de las mujeres en la iglesia?
En primer lugar, ten cuidado de no asistir a una iglesia en la que el pastor está predicando y escogiendo himnos que te den la idea de que Dios es tu mayordomo cósmico. En segundo lugar, lee la Biblia cuidadosamente, y entiende que respecto a los propósitos de Dios para ti en este mundo, tu felicidad es prescindible. No puedes buscar a mujeres cristianas atractivas que conozcas de casualidad en la iglesia para que te apoyen, ya que muchas de ellas hace tiempo que se han vendido a la cultura. No están interesadas en aprender apologética evidencial para defender la reputación de Dios, o defender al no nacido, o defender el matrimonio natural, o defender el sistema de libertad empresarial que apoya la autonomía de la familia frente al estado, etc. Esas cosas son difíciles e impopulares, especialmente para aquellas mujeres que fueron educadas para pensar que el cristianismo es para mejorar la calidad de vida y aprobación de sus compañeros.
Aquí está 1 Cor 4:1-5 para aclarar este punto:
1 Que todo hombre nos considere de esta manera: como servidores de Cristo y administradores de los misterios de Dios.
2 Ahora bien, además se requiere de los administradores que cada uno sea hallado fiel.
3 En cuanto a mí, es de poca importancia que yo sea juzgado por vosotros, o por cualquier tribunal humano; de hecho, ni aun yo me juzgo a mí mismo.
4 Porque no estoy consciente de nada en contra mía; mas no por eso estoy sin culpa, pues el que me juzga es el Señor.
5 Por tanto, no juzguéis antes de tiempo, sino esperad hasta que el Señor venga, el cual sacará a la luz las cosas ocultas en las tinieblas y también pondrá de manifiesto los designios de los corazones; y entonces cada uno recibirá su alabanza de parte de Dios.
Y 2 Tim 2:4:
4 Ningún soldado en servicio activo se enreda en los negocios de la vida diaria, a fin de poder agradar al que lo reclutó como soldado.
O, ya que me gusta tanto Ronald Speirs de Band of Brothers:
Esta es la situación en la que nos encontramos, así que acostúmbrate a ella. Y créeme, tengo que lidiar con esto también. Así que tengo toda la empatía del mundo por ti. Resígnate al hecho que nadie te aprobará por ser fiel al evangelio de Jesucristo; ni los hombres seculares, ni las mujeres cristianas. No hay caballería que venga a rescatarte.
Recursos recomendados en Español:
Robándole a Dios (tapa blanda), (Guía de estudio para el profesor) y (Guía de estudio del estudiante) por el Dr. Frank Turek
Por qué no tengo suficiente fe para ser un ateo (serie de DVD completa), (Manual de trabajo del profesor) y (Manual del estudiante) del Dr. Frank Turek
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Blog original: https://cutt.ly/MQmljwn
Traducido por Elenita Romero
Editado por Eduardo Álvarez
Is All Reasoning Circular Reasoning?
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy David Pallman
Circular reasoning is generally understood to be fallacious. The reason for this is that circular arguments assume what they purport to prove. At least one premise in a circular argument depends upon the truth of the conclusion, making the argument lose any justifying force. For in order to accept the relevant premise, one would have to already believe the conclusion. But if one already believes the conclusion then one has no need for the argument, and if one does not already believe the conclusion then the argument will not yield any grounds for belief.
Despite the seeming obviousness of what I have just said, it nonetheless remains startlingly popular to claim that circular reasoning is, in some cases, acceptable and — even worse — ultimately unavoidable. This claim is common among those Christian apologists known as presuppositionalists (although it is, by no means, limited to them). It is not my purpose here to critique circular reasoning in general or to offer a non-circular alternative, although I have done this elsewhere.[1] My purpose here is to critique one popular argument which purports to show that circular reasoning is unavoidable.
The argument is typically phrased something like this: “You must use reason in order to prove reason.” The thrust of the argument seems to be that since one cannot prove reason apart from reason, circularity is simply inescapable.[2] Although I don’t encounter this argument much in scholarly literature (at least not in this form) it is rather popular among internet presuppositionalists. And while I generally prefer to discuss scholarly issues, the pervasiveness of this argument coupled with the fact that I am not aware of any direct interaction with it moves me to write this article in reply.[3]
In this article, I intend to briefly explain my motivation for addressing this argument. After that, I will try to disambiguate the argument and clarify both what it means and how one might respond. After disambiguating the argument, I shall argue that it either assumes a theory of epistemic justification which can be rejected or else fails to recognize an important distinction between two types of usage. Either way, circular reasoning can be avoided.
Raising the Stakes
Before engaging the argument directly, it will be helpful to provide some motivation for examining it at all. After all, why should the argument concern us? Is it really a problem if all justification is circular in the end? Or perhaps we should not even try to justify the reliability of reasoning. Perhaps it is simply a fundamental assumption of all philosophical inquiry which needs no justification.
It would be an understatement to say that many philosophers are content to say that belief in the reliability of reason can only be justified in a circular way.[4] Still, others take the essential reliability of reason to be a fundamental axiom which is incapable of justification and needs none. But I have never found such answers to be satisfactory. I have never been content to suppose that I should require justification for my beliefs down to the bottom level but then give the foundational beliefs a free pass. Such a move seems completely arbitrary and even inconsistent. If our most foundational beliefs are unjustified, then I take this to entail that all beliefs which depend on them for their justification are likewise unjustified. I suspect that many readers feel the same way.
But this conviction forces those who hold it to face the original argument. For if there is no non-circular means of justifying foundational beliefs, then we may well have to face the conclusion that none of our beliefs are justified. For those wishing to avoid such a gloomy conclusion, there is a strong motivation for addressing the original argument.
Clarifying the Issue
Having provided some motivation, let’s turn to assess the merits of the argument. Roughly we are concerned with the claim that one must use reason to justify reasoning. Stated thusly, the claim is quite incoherent. Reasoning is a deliberative cognitive process. It is not a proposition. It is not the sort of thing which can be true or false. As such, reasoning itself needs no justification since it is an action rather than a belief. Imagine how absurd it would be to demand justification for walking, or for driving, or for swimming. Such activities need no justification precisely because they are activities rather than propositions. Once we have understood that only propositions require justification due to their potential to be false, it becomes evident that the act of reasoning does not need justification.
Sometimes the argument is phrased as a question: How do you know that your reasoning is valid? But stated in this way, the argument is guilty of a category error. Validity is not a property of reasoning but rather a property of arguments.[5] To say that one’s reasoning is valid makes as little sense as saying that one’s driving is valid. Validity simply doesn’t apply to activities.
But perhaps it will be objected that I have missed the point. After all, I am taking advantage of very poorly worded versions of the argument. And that is, of course, quite true. As I observed earlier, this argument is not as prominent among scholars as it is among those on the internet. But I do think that addressing these muddled versions of the argument is an important task because it helps us to clarify what is and what is not at issue. Moreover, it forces those who would use these problematic formulations of the argument to be more precise. Finally, pointing out the incoherence of these simplistic formulations of the argument can also serve to rob them of their rhetorical force.
Strengthening the Argument
So let me attempt to reconstruct a more sensible version of the argument. It seems to me that when someone says that we must use reason to justify reasoning, they mean that one must use their ability to reason in order to defend the proposition that reasoning is reliable. One must, in effect, assume that their ability to reason is reliable. Certainly, this is a much more robust argument. But to answer it, we must seek still greater clarification.
Before turning to answer the robust version of the argument, we must ask what is meant by the phrase “reason is reliable.” Taken quite literally it would mean that the cognitive process of reasoning itself somehow yields justification for beliefs by virtue of being reliable. Taken in this way, the argument is saying that one must assume that reasoning yields justification for beliefs by virtue of being reliable in order to reach the conclusion that reasoning yields justification for beliefs by virtue of being reliable.
Reliabilism vs. Evidentialism
Thus construed, the argument assumes a reliabilist epistemology. Reliabilism is a theory of epistemic justification according to which beliefs are justified if they have been produced by a reliable process. If this is what the proponent of the argument is claiming, then we may happily agree with him. It is not at all controversial that reliabilism is guilty of epistemic circularity. This is a well-known fact which is admitted by reliabilists and critics of reliabilism alike.
Notice, however, that if this is what the argument is trying to establish, then it assumes reliabilism and reaches the uncontroversial conclusion that reliabilism leads to circularity. However, not all philosophers are reliabilists. Reliabilism’s main contender is known as evidentialism. According to evidentialism, the justification that any subject has for a belief is always relative to the evidence which that subject possesses for that belief.[6] Evidentialism seeks justification in evidence – not in reliable processes. Hence, the argument considered above will simply not work against evidentialism because it assumes a theory of justification which the evidentialist rejects.[7] As such, one need only reject reliabilism in order for the argument to fail to establish that circularity is unavoidable.
Functional Usage vs. Justificatory Usage
Nevertheless, evidentialists still do use reason to arrive at justified beliefs. Does this indicate that there is still some circularity on the part of the evidentialist? In order to answer this, we will need to be clear on what is meant by using reason. There are two quite distinct ways in which we use things to justify our beliefs. We use things in a justificatory sense and we also use things in a functional sense. Something is used in a justificatory sense when it is offered as a rational justification for a belief. Something is used in a functional sense when it is employed as a tool in the process of offering rational justification. Crucially, nothing about a functional usage contributes to the rational justification for a belief. It is simply a means of helping a subject see that justification for what it is. The upshot is that functional usage doesn’t even have the potential to be circular because circularity can only apply to justification.
We can see the distinction more clearly through an illustration. Imagine that I am debating a friend over the existence of pencils. I am trying to convince him that pencils actually exist. Moreover, suppose that this debate is mediated by means of letters. In my attempt to convince my friend that pencils are real, I offer him numerous syllogistic arguments in support of the existence of pencils. Now let’s say that I use a pencil to write out these arguments for him. In this case, it would be quite correct to say that I used a pencil to justify my belief in the existence of pencils. But the usage was entirely functional. At no point did I use the proposition that pencils exist as a premise in an argument which concluded that pencils exist. The premises in my arguments are what I am using to justify my belief in pencils. Therefore, the justification of my belief in pencils is not circular even though I used a pencil to justify the belief. This is because the usage of the pencil was functional rather than justificatory.
This illustration is fairly analogous to what I have in mind when I say that evidentialists “use reason” to justify their beliefs. While it is true that we must think critically — we must reason — in order to justify our beliefs, we are not using reason as the rational basis for any of our beliefs. The evidence provides the justification for our beliefs and reason is just the process of evaluating it. At no point does the process of reasoning itself justify a belief. Reasoning without evidence from which to reason gets us nowhere. Reason is not some mystical ability which leads us to truth in and of itself. Reason requires to facts to work with. It is simply a necessary means for reaching justified beliefs. Critically, since we are not attributing justification to the reasoning process itself, our use of it is not justificatory. It is functional. As such, our use of reason when seeking to justify our beliefs is not circular.
Summary and Conclusion
In this article, I have assessed the claim that epistemic circularity is unavoidable since one must, in fact, use reason to justify their beliefs about the truth-finding nature of reasoning. I have determined that the argument is usually framed in an unclear and incoherent way. When it is made intelligible, it assumes epistemic reliabilism and, therefore, it is forceless against evidentialism. Any attempt to press the argument against evidentialism will beg the question against evidentialism. Moreover attempts to modify it to face evidentialism on the basis that evidentialists “use reason” fail to acknowledge the distinction between functional and justificatory usage. Since evidentialists only “use reason” in a functional sense, they are not guilty of epistemic circularity.
It has not been my purpose here to assess all arguments for epistemic circularity or to provide a detailed account of a non-circular theory of knowledge. Others more capable than myself have done this elsewhere.[8] My purpose has been minimal. I have merely attempted to show that a single popular argument for the inescapability of circular reasoning does not succeed as long as evidentialism is a viable option.
Notes
[1] See my video “Internalism Versus Externalism” available here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxOg5zKUYmU&t=12s
[2] For a cluster of arguments along these lines see Sye Ten Bruggencate’s video “How To Answer The Fool (full film)” available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQKjUzotw_Y&vl=en&t=329
[3] In particular conversations with Seth Bloomsburg and Tyler Vela convinced me of the need for such an article.
[4] Examples include William Alston, Alvin Plantinga, Michael Bergmann, and Andrew Moon
[5] To be sure, we sometimes speak of valid and invalid reasoning. But this sort of language refers not to cognitive processes, but rather to the validity of the logical inferences that the reasoning follows.
[6] Earl Conee and Richard Feldman, Evidentialism, Oxford University Press, 2004, Pg. 83
[7] See Berit Brogaard, “Phenomenal Dogmatism, Seeming Evidentialism and Inferential Justification,” in Believing in Accordance with the Evidence, Springer International Publishing, 2018, Kevin McCain editor, Pg. 55
[8] Examples include Richard Fumerton, Metaepistemology and Skepticism, Rowman & Littlefield, 1995; Timothy McGrew and Lydia McGrew, Internalism and Epistemology, Routledge, 2007; Paul K. Moser, Knowledge and Evidence, Cambridge University Press, 1989; Brie Gertler, Self-Knowledge, Routledge, 2011
Recommended resources related to the topic:
How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)
When Reason Isn’t the Reason for Unbelief by Dr. Frank Turek DVD and Mp4
Counter Culture Christian: Is There Truth in Religion? (DVD) by Frank Turek: http://bit.ly/2zm2VLF
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
David Pallmann is a student at Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary. He is also a member of the Society of Evangelical Arminians and directs the YouTube Apologetics ministry Faith Because of Reason.
Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/0mhHTXY
The Gospels Are Embarrassing for The Apostles
4. Is the NT True?, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Erik Manning
If you want people to trust their leaders, you usually would try to paint them in the best light possible. You don’t go out of your way to undermine their authority. But that isn’t what we see at all in the Gospels. Those who would eventually lead the church often look impulsive, incompetent, boastful, and stupid. If the Gospels are supposed to be PR for the apostles, their propaganda team was a dismal failure.
This kind of information is what NT scholars call the criteria of embarrassment. In his book, Marginal Jew, Meier writes:
Those Faithless Disciples
Let’s look at the Gospel of Mark since most believe it is the earliest Gospel. Mark tells us that the disciples were often faithless. When encountered by a storm when crossing a lake, the disciples panicked. (Mk 4:35-41) They brazenly accused Jesus of not caring about them, and Jesus rebuked them for not having any faith. They were also terrified to see Jesus walking on the water only two chapters later. (Mk 6:50)
When a man brought his demonized son to his followers, the disciples were too incompetent to give the boy any help. Jesus chided them for their lack of faith. (Mk 9:17-19) Mark also tells us that Jesus’ own family thought that he was nuts. (Mk 3:21) Later we read in Acts, 1 Corinthians, and Galatians that James and Jesus’ other siblings became leaders in the church. (Acts 15, 1 Cor 9:5, Galatians 1-2) So far, the future heads of Jesus’ church look like a sorry bunch.
The Disciples Were Slow
Mark also tells us that the disciples were extremely slow on the uptake. They asked questions about Jesus’ parables that he expected them, of all people, to understand. His main points were often lost on them. (Mk 4:13, 7:18)
Jesus had previously fed a crowd of 5000 and later 4000 with a few loaves and fish. Shortly afterward, Jesus said that they should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees. What did the disciples do in response? They fussed with each other because they forgot to pack bread for their boat trip across the lake. Jesus had to remind them that food was neither his point nor an issue. That should’ve been obvious by then. (Mk 8:14-21)
The Disciples Were Rude
The disciples were notoriously bad-mannered. As I mentioned earlier, they accused Jesus of not caring about them when he was sleeping during the storm. Peter had the genius idea of rebuking Jesus when he said he was going to sacrifice himself. Jesus called Peter Satan in response, so yeah, that didn’t go over big. (Mk 8:31-33)
When people brought small children to be blessed by Jesus, like ogres, his disciples tried to run them off. (Mk 10:13-14) When the woman anointed Jesus’ feet with costly perfume, Mark tells us that “they rebuked her harshly.” Not a smooth move. Jesus emphatically told them to leave her alone. She had more value for Jesus than they all did put together. (Mk 14:4-9)
The disciples fought over who was the greatest, and John and James had the brass to ask Jesus if they could sit at his right and left hand when he came into his kingdom. (Mk 9:33-34, 10:35-37) They clearly didn’t understand the kind of servant-leadership that Jesus was modeling.
The Going Got Tough, The Disciples Ran
In Jesus’ darkest hour, they bragged about being willing to die before abandoning him. (Mk 14:31) While Jesus was praying they all fell asleep. (Mk 14:37-42) And when he was arrested, they all fled. (Mk 14:50) Peter ended up denying him three times when pressed by a servant girl (Mark 14:66-72), and they all were AWOL on the day of the resurrection. (Mk 16:1-9) Even though Jesus repeatedly told them he’d rise again three days later. (Mk 8:31-32, 9:30-32, 10:32-34, 14:28) Even atheist scholars like Gerd Ludemann use the criteria of embarrassment when arguing for the historicity of Peter’s denial. (The Resurrection of Christ, p 162)
Finally, who actually showed up at the tomb? The women (Mk 16:1). They were the first eyewitnesses to the empty tomb. This is itself an embarrassing detail, as a woman’s testimony in the 1st-century context carried very little weight.
Luke tells us that the disciples thought the women’s testimony was “nonsense.” They didn’t believe them. (Luke 24:11) 100 years later Celsus would mock the Christians for believing the tales of a hysterical woman. (Contra Celsum 2.54)
Again, if this is supposed to be Christian propaganda to make their leaders look good, or make the resurrection story more plausible, the Gospel writers caused problems for themselves. In the words of scholar NT Wright:
Embarrassing Details In Acts
And it’s not like things are hunky-dory in the Book of Acts, either. You know, that book about the apostles taking over after Jesus. You would think Luke would make them look like they finally got their act together. Instead, we see that Paul and Barnabas got in a big tiff over bringing Mark (the future Gospel writer!) because Mark got homesick and left them in the middle of ministry earlier. (Acts 15:36-40) Mark is later mentioned in Paul’s letters, so apparently, things got patched up later. (Philemon 24)
There was also racist bickering going on in the infant church in Jerusalem because the Hellenized Jewish widows were being neglected in the daily distribution of food. (Acts 6:1)
And even though Jesus told them to take the Gospel to the entire world it took a special vision for Peter to finally understand that it was OK to preach to those unclean Gentiles seemingly years later. (Acts 10)
What Real Christian Propaganda Looks Like
Luke and Mark hardly make the apostles out to be saints. Now compare this to other Christian propaganda. Eusebius wrote a biography of Emperor Constantine that was very charitable, to say the least. He slyly omits that Constantine had his own son Crispus and his other wife Fausta killed. Eusebius instead makes Constantine out to be a super saint. Now that is what real propaganda looks like.
It is hard to imagine the early Christians inventing embarrassments for themselves when they already had enough problems from persecution! And yet, it is difficult to read the Gospel of Mark without getting a negative impression of the apostles. Again, this is the earliest of the Gospels according to most scholars. Eyewitnesses would still be around, including some of the apostles. These negative statements are strong indications that these things were really said. NT scholar C.E.B. Cranfield concludes:
These self-damaging materials are one more reason why we can trust the Gospels. This kind of evidence doesn’t by itself prove that the Gospels are reliable, but it does lend some support to that view. It’s one part of a much larger cumulative case.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)
Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Erik Manning is a Reasonable Faith Chapter Director located in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. He’s a former freelance baseball writer and the co-owner of the vintage and handmade decor business with his wife, Dawn. He is passionate about the intersection of apologetics and evangelism.
Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/MQacEd6
A Scientific Way to Show that God Exists
PodcastWhat do you say when someone says, “What evidence do you have that God exists?” Frank believes the answer to that question is a philosophical principle that is the ground of all science: the law of causality. Every effect has a cause.
So what effects point back to God? That’s what Frank unpacks in this show to the point where you can demonstrate several attributes of God by just looking at the effects around you. In other words, you can show someone that the Creator God of the Bible most likely exists, and you don’t even need to open the Bible to do so. Frank also answers objections to God being the cause of some effects, such as “god of the gaps” and “the law of causality doesn’t always apply”.
If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.
Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
¿Puede la historia de Jesús seguir sorprendiéndote?
EspañolBy Bob Perry
History shows that prudence and wisdom are rarely on the side of new ways of looking at Scripture. This is especially true of the “progressive” trend to remake Jesus in the image of postmodernism. So when I first heard about Tom Gilson’s new book, Too Good To Be False , I have to admit I was confused. Gilson is a solid Christian thinker, but the back cover of his book told me that “Christians who read it will encounter Jesus in new ways to worship him.” Had he gone over to the dark side? Ten pages in, my fears were allayed. It turns out that the story of Jesus can still surprise you. Gilson’s book is not a new interpretation of Jesus. It is a challenge to see old words with new eyes. And the picture he paints is astonishing.
Would you hire this guy?
Imagine that you receive a memo from someone you work with. Its purpose is to introduce a person he wants you to consider for a job opening you have in your office. In the memo, he describes the candidate as someone who never learns from experience, let alone from his own mistakes. In fact, he has never admitted to making a mistake. His leadership skills have not improved in the slightest. He shows no sign of character growth. When you ask him questions, he rarely gives you a straight answer. In his opinion, you can disagree with him, but that would make you wrong. And he orders those who work with him to do things his way without exception (51-52).
Would you hire him? Or would you ask yourself, “Who does this guy think he is?”
That’s Jesus like you’ve probably never thought of before.
Fail embarrassingly
The insights in Too Good To Be False aren’t based on rethinking Jesus’ doctrines or deity. Quite the opposite. They’re reminders that we’re all too accustomed to the populist Jesus we’ve been encouraged to befriend. When you focus on what he actually said and did, there’s no temptation to just slap Jesus on the shoulder and laugh. Instead, you’re overcome with an impulse to bow down before him and worship him—and he invites you into his circle of trust.
The real Jesus is a leader unlike any the world has ever seen. He speaks and acts with authority, confidence, and power. But he never abuses that power. He never even uses it for his own benefit. Instead, he directs that power toward loving others. He commands respect. And he is always the smartest person in the room.
The combination of these character traits describes a man who cannot be of this world. He is unlike anyone we have ever met or even heard of. And while it is tempting to say that makes him too good to be true, history tells us otherwise. The facts are more compelling. They make him too good to be false.
An innovative character
The character of Jesus is so outrageously superior that it demands an explanation. After all, he is the most memorable character ever created. And that might make it tempting to dismiss him as the figment of someone’s very fertile imagination. But you don’t have that option. To dismiss the Jesus of the Gospels in this way would be to subscribe to the most outrageous conspiracy theory in human history. A coordinated forgery made by multiple authors, all possessed by the same fanciful delusion. But it’s even worse than that.
According to skeptics, this Jesus story is one big version of the Telephone Game. It was invented, embellished, retold, and passed down through multiple narrators in various places. Yet somehow the legendary character created in this process turns out to be exactly the same everywhere. He lives on in all four Gospels (five if you add those invoking the “Q”). Somehow this messy mix “produced a miracle greater than the resurrection: the greatest story of all time, with the greatest character in all of literature, presenting a moral teaching that has changed for the better every civilization it has touched.” (133)
A miracle, no doubt.
Facing the skeptics
The usual skeptics won’t accept it, of course. But Tom Gilson has been taking on them and their ideas on his Thinking Christian blog since 2004. He’s heard all their arguments hundreds of times. So when it comes to handling objections to his thesis, he does so with style, grace, and simplicity. They’re all there—Dawkins, Spong, Aslan, Ehrman, Carrier, Price, Armstrong, Hitchens, and others—and Gilson acknowledges their points. But rather than trying to cut down every tree, he focuses on the forest. Jesus of Nazareth is a character no one could invent.
There are ways to respond to the details of the so-called “contradictions” of the Gospel. But some skeptics refuse to acknowledge them as simple differences of viewpoint. It is tempting to feel compelled to explain why Jesus did not speak out on today’s most burning moral and social issues. They do not care that, throughout history, the solution to every moral dilemma has been through the actions of Jesus’ followers. We have heard the bluster about how Jesus “became God” (Ehrman) or how he was just another repeated legend (Dawkins, Armstrong). We have even been told that he did not really exist (Carrier). None of these arguments get to the heart of the problem.
With all the corruption and shenanigans that go into passing on a made-up legend, how could the synoptic authors do it? How could they each arrive at the same Jesus the man-God when the Telephone Game had not had time to invent his deity before they wrote their Gospels?
The Jesus We Take For Granted
Jesus was a media influencer before that was cool. But what made him popular with those who knew him best also made him notorious among the political and religious leaders of his day. Nobody likes a guy who thinks he’s God incarnate. Those people need to be eliminated. But when those same people reappear a short time later, those who tried to eliminate them know they have a real problem on their hands.
It has only happened once.
Today, the most vehement opponents of Christianity still invoke his name. They do so in an attempt to expose the “hypocrisy” of modern Christians. But when they do so, they are agreeing with Tom Gilson. They even admire the only character in human history whom “no author, no poet, no playwright has devised… a character of perfect power and perfect love like Jesus” (126).
He is the standard by which all other characters are measured. Too loving to be a liar. Too convincing to be a lunatic. He leaves us with only one choice. And Too Good To Be False reminds us that it is a choice we have too often taken for granted.
Recommended resources in Spanish:
Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek
Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Bob Perry is a Christian apologetics writer, teacher, and speaker who blogs about Christianity and culture at truehorizon.org. He is a contributing writer to the Christian Research Journal, and has also been published in Touchstone, and Salvo. Bob is a professional aviator with 37 years of experience in military and commercial flight. He holds a BS in Aerospace Engineering from the United States Naval Academy and an MS in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. They have five grown children.
Original Blog: https://cutt.ly/eQpVJh3
Translated by Amber Porta
Edited by Daniela Checa Delgado
Contradictions In The Life of a Christian
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Luke Nix
Introduction
The Christian Church is no stranger to hypocrisy. The Church is comprised of sinners who do not always practice what they preach, and sometimes such practice is in stark contradiction to what we preach. Some of the most heinous acts have been committed by Christians while they speak truth. It seems that sexual misconduct within the Church is always on the radar. Ever since I can remember being able to comprehend it, I have been made aware of numerous sexual scandals within the Church. Like just about any person, some have hit close to home and others further away. The ones that are closer to home tend to be particularly devastating- not just physically and emotionally, but spiritually and intellectually.
It is important for those who are affected to hold to a worldview that can objectively condemn such actions and provide healing for the victims. In these emotionally trying situations it is easy to entertain doubts of the truth of Christianity. Today, I want to take a few moments to show how such hypocrisy actually reveals the truth of the Christian worldview and how the Christian worldview offers the only possible answer to hypocrisy.
The Objectivity of Evil
First, a sexual predator’s actions must be called out as objectively evil, not merely something that a group of people do not like or prefer. The claim that what they did was evil is not just an opinion that can be dismissed by those who do not see anything wrong with the actions. That such actions are objectively evil is a feature of reality that must be faced, explained, and answered by every worldview.
No worldview can escape this obligation. No worldview that is missing an anchor for objective morality can provide any meaningful judgment of “evil”- those who hold to these worldviews can only render opinions, which is no more valid or true than the person, who may also hold to the same worldview, who says the actions were “good.” Any worldview that is missing such an anchor is demonstrably defeated by any sexual predator’s actions (whether they are members of a church or not).
The Scars Sin Leaves and The Cost of Moral Agnosticism and Relativism
Every single victim of sexual misconduct, molestation, rape, etc. is created in the Image of God, thus they are intrinsically valuable. Their violation is objectively evil, and justice must be served. The devastation of violations like these take years and even decades for healing to take place, if it even does. These men, women, boys, and girls will bear the scars for the rest of their lives. These scars will stand as a testimony to the truth that objective evil exists.
Any worldview that remains agnostic or ambivalent about the moral status of these actions makes the victims victims over and over again. Worldviews without an anchor for objective morality objectively devalues the violations and raises them to moral equivalency with love, honesty, and integrity. Worldviews that cannot call evil “evil” in any meaningful sense of the word (or for that matter, cannot call good “good” either) encourages the creation of more victims and compounds the suffering of those who are already victims.
Such sins in the life of a Christian demonstrates conclusively that no morally relativistic or agnostic worldview deserves to have a place in a culture, government, or even at the table of intellectual inquiry because it perpetually violates reality by violating the victims time and time again.
What If God Does Not Exist?
Sexual sin is detestable, despicable, and heinous, and we all know that intuitively. The person who commits evil is ultimately, eternally damnable because they have violated the intrinsic worth of a human being created in God’s Image, and by doing so, they have violated the eternal, morally perfect God. God is the only source for morality that is independent of any and all human beings. He alone is the anchor that allows anyone to objectively identify such actions as morally “evil.”
Simply put, if God does not exist, then nothing that these Christians did is evil. Nothing that they do is worth condemnation or even discussion since they are merely dancing to their DNA- the victims will continue to be victims because they are not really “victims” of anything good or evil. This is not to say that someone has to believe that God exists to condemn a Christian’s sexual violations; rather this is to say that it is only because God does exist that even an atheist can accurately condemn such actions as objectively evil. If God does not exist, not even the theist can condemn sexual abuse as objectively evil.
The Cognitive and Emotional Dissonance of Evil
When the stories of a perpetrator’s heinous acts are recounted, the moral law that is written on all our hearts will emotionally and powerfully rise to the surface. The emotions we feel are not there merely because we feel that these actions are evil, but because they objectively are evil, and our outrage is a most appropriate reaction to such violations. The head and the heart, logic and emotion, converge in perfect harmony to reveal the truth of reality and the truth of God’s existence. Unless God exists, a person’s “evil” deeds bring nothing but cognitive and emotional dissonance.
Actions Speak Louder Than Words
If the grotesque moral failings of ministers of the Gospel are to serve any purpose, it is to attempt to shock our culture back from its moral and intellectual stupor and remind us of the contradiction in every Christian life. But in stark contrast to every Christian, in God there is no contradiction: not in His actions and not in His words. We all long for someone to be fully consistent with what they say and what they do. But this simply will not happen when we look to man, even Christian leaders. We should not be surprised when ministers of the Gospel morally fail. We should be surprised that despite the evidence all around us of humanity’s fallenness that we still try to look to humanity for perfect consistency.
Rather, we must look to the morally perfect Creator, against whom every human has sinned. This God loves us and desires an infinite, personal relationship with us so much that he became one of us to take upon Himself our sins and the wrath that we deserve because of our sin. Justice was served for every sin we could ever commit when Jesus Christ died on the cross. And in His bodily resurrection from the dead, we have forgiveness (1 Cor 15). The resurrection of Jesus provides us proof of the truth of His claim to be the Creator God of the universe- the Way, the Truth, the Life, without whom no one can come to the Father (John 14:6).
Conclusion- My Two Prayers
Sin, hypocrisy and betrayal in the life of any Christian minister does not demonstrate or even indicate that Christianity is false. Rather the opposite is the case: they provide severe tests of a worldview against reality, which Christianity alone passes. Christianity never makes the claim that Christians will be perfect; in fact, it makes the contradictory claim: that Christians can and still do heinously evil things. This is the reality that we live in, that we are a part of, and that Christianity uniquely, among all the worldviews of history, accurately describes. It is only through Christ that the sinner is healed, that the victim is healed, and that both can be reconciled to God.
It is my prayer that all victims will find understanding ears in today’s culture- people who recognize, validate and anchor the objectivity of the evil and suffering they endure, people who recognize that full healing can only be found at the Cross.
It is also my prayer that as more revelations of moral failings within the Church come, that it will cause unbelievers to consider the foundations of their moral outrage, investigate the evidence, and realize that they too are in need of Christ’s atonement, forgiveness and Resurrection.
Finally, remember that it is not Christ who has failed us; it is members of His Church who have failed us. It is time that we stop misplacing our trust in people and start properly placing our trust where the evidence tells us it should have been in the first place: in Christ. I implore you to follow the moral, philosophical, historical, and scientific evidence where it leads: surrender your life fully and completely to Christ to find both healing and forgiveness.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
If God, Why Evil? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek
Is Original Sin Unfair? (DVD Set), (mp4 Download Set), and (MP3 Set) by Dr. Frank Turek
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.
Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/Pm5hRad
Five Tips for Teaching Christian Apologetics
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Doug Potter
I have taught Christian apologetics to seventh graders through seminary students. I have done this in a Christian school, church, home, and graduate school; in-person and online. I even helped put it in print. I still find teaching apologetics challenging. Sometimes I feel I have forgotten more apologetics than my students will ever know.
Over the years I have found that apologetics, in the realm of Christian education, is often misunderstood. For example, apologetics while related to these subjects is not a study of Creationism, Worldviews, Christian Doctrine, Ethics, Evangelism or the Bible. Don’t get me wrong, I am not opposed to any student studying these vital subjects. What I am opposed to is calling the study of all or any of these an education in apologetics. So, what is Christian apologetics education? It is a distinct subject of study that concerns the “application of knowledge to demonstrate that Christianity is true.”
As such, this applies knowledge from three distinct but interconnected subjects: truth from philosophy, the existence of God from natural theology, and Christianity from history. The foundation of philosophy establishes the absolute nature of truth. Upon that is built a theistic worldview that is grounded in the reality of God and miracles. Upon this is the historical claim of Christ to be God incarnate, His resurrection from the dead and teaching that the Bible is the word of God.
Reasons to teach Apologetics
If asked, I offer three reasons why every Christian school, church, and home should start teaching a systematic course in Christian apologetics. First, the Bible says every believer needs to prepare to give reasoned answers.
The justification for Christian education incorporating the study of apologetics hangs on the hook that it can help a student be prepared more effectively and efficiently than any other way.
Second, history demonstrates its use and success. In the 1st century, the Apostle Paul used arguments to respond to Judaism, Hellenism, and early Gnosticism. In the 3rd century, Origen used it to defend the resurrection. Augustine (335-430) used it against Paganism and Thomas Aquinas (1224/5–1274) used it against the intellectual spread of Islam. There are no reasons today’s apologists cannot experience the same level of success if it is used.
Third, a contemporary need exists. Today’s critics leave no room to ignore their objections to Christianity. The thinking person must take them seriously. Apologists must strive to give good answers. Many Christian youths go into the world not knowing why they believe. It does not take long before they question a faith for which they never hear well-reasoned answers. If they go to the University they will be taught so-called “scholarly” views contrary to the Christian faith. If they go elsewhere their non-Christian friends and the media will promote such “scholarly” views as established facts.
In view of these reasons, I offer the following five helpful tips that may pave a smoother path towards the educational goal of demonstrating the truth of Christianity.
1. Apologetics education must be geared towards the believer.
This may seem obvious, but I have watched a teacher, who gets all the answers right, talk right over the heads of their students to the intellectual atheist who is not even in the room. My apologetics teacher was a master at taking the complex and making it understandable. Not simplistic or dumbed down, just understandable. He instilled in me the desire to develop and practice that same skill set. Apologetics education is not about creating a professional apologist anymore than our goal in teaching physics is to create a professional physicist. Teaching apologetics must defend the faith, but it must also strengthen those with faith. The Gospel of Luke shows the careful planning that goes into preparing and delivering knowledge to and for the benefit of the believer:
2. Apologetics education must be age-appropriate.
I take Jesus’ words and warning in Matthew 18:5-6 seriously,
As a professional teacher of apologetics, I don’t think we have any business teaching apologetic arguments to children below the age of developed abstract reasoning. Just let a normal Christian education take its course. Let nothing, including apologetics, disrupt the authoritative faith structure the child has between their parents, teachers and the Bible. That does not mean there is nothing related to apologetics to teach at this age. But even when they are older, don’t dumb apologetics down and don’t let reason replace faith. When they’re old enough move to tip #3.
3. Apologetics education must follow a systematic plan.
Not all approaches to apologetics are created equally. Given the definition and reasons above, an educational approach must use a method that shows there are sound and valid systematic arguments to make from ground zero to the absolute truth of Christianity. As shown in the verses above this educational approach must build a positive case for Christianity (Luke 1:1-4) geared towards the believer and answer questions or objections (1 Peter 3:15) of the unbeliever.
Everything one would experience in studying any other subject should be a part of learning apologetics. It is a branch of knowledge to be mastered. On the part of the teacher that includes, objectives, lesson plans, creative teaching techniques, and evaluations. On the part of the student that includes reading a text, writing, listening, working on projects—individually and in groups, as well as taking tests.
4. Apologetics education must be activity-based.
We learn best when we put into practice what we are taught by a respected and knowledgeable teacher. The teacher must provide students the opportunity to succeed and the security to fail with apologetics, all with a view of developing a lifelong apologetics learner. One thing I realize; I really do not “know” something until I use it, repeatedly. The more I use it, the more it becomes a part of me. My students often tell me that the most meaningful thing I did was “force” them to use apologetics and then reflect and report on it. This can be done in many ways. For youth, I use games and role-playing. For older students, I use in-house debates, mock radio or TV programs or have them talk with someone with a non-Christian worldview. Learning apologetics is also a great opportunity for integrating knowledge from many other subjects.
5. Apologetics education must recognize its limitations.
Apologetics can only show that Christianity is true in its central claims such as “truth is absolute,” “God exists,” “God raised Jesus from the dead” and “the Bible is the word of God.” It cannot cause someone to believe in Christ. That is left to their will and the work of the Holy Spirit. Doctrine discovered solely in Scripture must be accepted on the authority of God and His word. But as my apologetics teacher always reminded us, “God never bypasses the mind on the way to the heart.”
Sometimes I am asked if apologetics will keep a son or daughter from leaving the faith. People may walk away from the faith for all kinds of reasons. All I can say is that if they received apologetics education, especially as outlined above, at least it was not because of a failure to teach them good reasons why Christianity is true.
Keep in mind, young people tend to be what their parents are. The most important person to help youth stay in the faith is you. Don’t forget to ask yourself, what are you doing to improve your knowledge and skills in Christian apologetics?
Recommended resources related to the topic:
I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)
Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl (Book)
Defending the Faith on Campus by Frank Turek (DVD Set, mp4 Download set, and Complete Package)
So the Next Generation will Know by J. Warner Wallace (Book and Participant’s Guide)
Fearless Faith by Mike Adams, Frank Turek, and J. Warner Wallace (Complete DVD Series)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Doug Potter is an Assistant Professor of Apologetics and Theology, Director of D.Min. Program, Registrar (B.S., 1991, M.A., 1992; M.A., 1998; D.Min., 2005). A writer, teacher, and speaker on Christian theology and apologetics, Dr. Potter is committed to maximizing every opportunity to prepare the next generation of believers to know what they believe and most importantly, why it is true. He is the author of Developing a Christian Apologetics Educational Program (Wipf & Stock, 2010) and co-author (with Dr. Norman Geisler) of the Teacher’s Guide for Twelve points that Show Christianity is True (NGIM, 2015). He has written and published articles in the Christian Apologetics Journal, The Homeschool Digest, as well as the Christian Research Journal. Currently, Dr. Potter writes popular books on Theology and Christian Apologetics.
Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/7m5wT68
Has God Failed You?
PodcastWhat kind of God would allow evil and suffering to good people? Didn’t God promise that your faith could move mountains? Then why haven’t your prayers been answered? And isn’t the Bible a bigoted and outdated book (just look at the transgender issue)?
To address those questions, Dr. Michael Brown joins Frank and cites insights from his new book, “Has God Failed You? Finding Faith When You’re Not Even Sure God is Real”. This honest look into some of the most vexing questions that Christians face is both helpful and encouraging.
Websites referenced include AskDrBrown.org and SexChangeRegret.com For more on Dr. Brown and his outstanding work on Messianic Prophecy see RealMessiah.com
If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.
Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher