Al Serrato Archives - Page 4 of 7

What Doctrinal Differences Tell Us

By Al Serrato

Challenges to Christianity don’t always come from the outside, from atheists committed to removing every vestige of religious faith from society. Challenges can also come from committed Christians, whose beliefs are influenced, and often shaken, by philosophical ideas that are intended to make people stumble.

Recently I was asked this question: “There are numerous Christian denominations, many of which accuse other denominations of doctrinal error. Doesn’t this amount to proof against the existence of God? After all, what kind of God would allow his ‘inspired’ word to be understood so differently by different people?”

This question has substantive, albeit superficial, appeal. Indeed, if you raised your eyebrow and said, “Good question,” you certainly wouldn’t be alone. Of course, there is a trick to such a question, a premise hidden within it, which needs to be teased out and directly considered. I think the full argument, the one in which the logical premise is more explicitly stated, would go something like this:

If God exists, he would make himself known directly and personally to prevent and safeguard us from doctrinal error.
There exists doctrinal error.
Therefore, there is no God.

When you make explicit the premise, you can see that it isn’t necessarily true. The premise is asserting, without providing any proof, that God would choose to act in a certain way. The assertion embodies the view that God values absolute doctrinal uniformity as the highest good and therefore would not allow such error to occur. But why should this be so? Consider how the first premise, if true, would change the nature of God’s interactions with his creation. We would not only know with certainty that he exists, but we would also know in exact detail his every wish or desire. There would be nothing to discuss, no personal growth from overcoming doubts within one’s faith, no ability, in short, to use our free will to search for God and respond, in our own imperfect way, to his call. Instead, his presence and will would essentially be forced upon us.

What then of another human quality that God also seems to value: free will? Is it possible, in fact, that God values free will higher than he values freedom from doctrinal error? After all, it certainly seems that God values free will quite a bit since it is built intrinsically into human nature. Every day we are free to make choices that direct the course of not just the day but ultimately our lives. More importantly, without free will there could be no such thing as love – no doubt the highest value – as love is at its essence the committing of one’s will to the good of another. Though some may deny the existence of free will, that very choice – to hold such a belief and then express it – betrays their case as no one has forced them to adopt that view or to express it.

God has furnished us with sufficient evidence to believe in him, to make our faith rational. Indeed, countless millions who have gone before us have drawn comfort from that knowledge. But he did not provide us with so much evidence that we have no choice but to believe. While he has made himself known to us through general revelation, that is, through the physical world around us, and through the words of the Bible, there is simply no reason to conclude that God seeks to ensure, on a direct and personal level, that we never make mistakes about him, or about his will. After all, if he did directly and personally ensure no mistaken beliefs, would this not amount to removing our free will not to believe?

Some may respond to this with a question: why should the two be in conflict? Why couldn’t God provide us with irrefutable proof of his will (that is, provide us with clear doctrine) in a way that still allowed us to exercise free will? It is of course impossible for limited human beings to know and understand the mind of God. Consequently, any answer to this challenge must be made with the humility to recognize the limits of our ability to know. But it seems to me that the answer has something to do with the distinction between “knowing something,” or someone, and “getting to know” them.

Perhaps God desires that we work at getting to knowing him. A meaningful relationship means that we must know more than a set of rote facts about the other person. A loving partner must know more than the date of birth, height, and weight of their spouse. We need to learn about what matters to them, what their interests are, their likes and dislikes. The only way to do this is to take the time to listen to them, learn from them, to develop connections that grow stronger through time. That of course is what revelation is all about, God’s way of beginning to reveal to us who he is and what he expects. From nature, we see that he is incredibly powerful and highly intelligent. From his Word, we see that he is a God of love who wishes to restore to us a relationship with him that was broken in the distant past. True, many times we get the details wrong, but it’s the process of trying, of praying, of going back to the Scriptures for study, fellowship, and discussion, that matters. This is what eventually leads to developing a deepening knowledge of him and from that knowledge, faith, and trust in his plan.

We shouldn’t despair at the thought that every Christian has a slightly different picture of God. It’s to be expected, given human fallibility. But as we approach this topic, we should take to heart Peter’s admonition (1 Peter 3) that when we give the reason for our hope, we do it with gentleness and respect, keeping our consciences clear.

Who knows, we might even end up with fewer disagreements.

Por qué es un error decir que todas las religiones son iguales

Español

By Al Serrato

Every year in the United States, thousands of crimes occur in which there are no witnesses and little evidence. Sometimes, the perpetrator leaves a fingerprint—a latent print—somewhere at the crime scene. In the past, these prints had little value in identifying the criminal; before they could make a match, police had to already have a known suspect.

Today, law enforcement officers have access to far better technology, in the form of AFIS, the Automatic Fingerprint Identification System. Maintained by the FBI, it houses data on millions of fingerprints, allowing an unknown latent print to be compared to millions of known criminals. Within minutes, the AFIS computer can spit out the twenty best possible matches to the unknown latent print. But this is only the beginning of the analysis, since with only one latent print at the scene, there is only one real source of the print. A trained analyst must then spend time carefully examining each suspect’s patterns—the whorls and arches and loops, the ridges and grooves—to determine if an exact match can be obtained. The first twenty possible matches have much in common, but upon closer examination, differences in the pattern of ridges and details will appear until the real source can be identified.

So what does this have to do with the field of apologetics? Just this: Living as we do in very pluralistic times, we often encounter people who believe that all religions are basically the same. Examining them superficially, you will see that religions share a number of traits; for example, most teach the utility of treating others with respect, of being kind, of helping the poor. So, while acknowledging some differences in doctrines, people who hold this view believe they have arrived at a great truth: there is no one right religion, only people who mistakenly, and sometimes dangerously, think they have the corner on the truth. This makes them feel at ease, for the moment, as they conclude that there is no need to investigate further. Just be kind to others and follow your heart and all will be well. But on closer inspection, all they have done is stop searching for the truth, the “source” of the life they have been given and the universe around them.

Like fingerprints, religions may appear on the surface to be identical, or nearly so, when in fact they are not. And determining how and where they differ requires rigorous and close inspection. This, of course, is crucial in a fingerprint analysis because we know that for a fingerprint there can be only one source. No analyst would stop when he narrowed the search down to three possible sources, because common sense and reason dictate that two of the three—or perhaps all three—must also be excludable in further investigation. It is the nature of the thing examined.

The same is true of knowledge of God. The world’s major religions make mutually exclusive truth claims about the nature and attributes of God. Do we live and die once, and then face judgment, as Christianity teaches? Or do we undergo a continuous cycle of life, death, and reincarnation? Is there one God composed of three persons, or is there instead a single god or a multitude of deities? For one religion to be true, the others cannot be.

It is logically possible, of course, that all religions are false. It is not possible, on the other hand, that religions that hold contrary positions are all true. Either Jesus Christ is the Son of God who rose from the dead and thus provides salvation to a fallen world, as Christians claim, or he is not. He cannot be both a savior and a mere sage.

Careful and critical analysis of a latent fingerprint can lead to the discovery of the truth about who left it. Making the effort is essential to the pursuit of justice, the importance of which we all intuitively recognize.

But careful, critical analysis can also lead to knowledge of the one God who brought us into existence. When we fail to investigate this question because we mistakenly believe that we already know all we need to know—that is, when we delude ourselves into believing that all religions are more or less the same—we may not intuitively realize how much we are giving up.

After all, what comes next—what awaits each of us at the end of our days here on Earth—is arguably the most important question we must face. And the sooner we begin that process, the sooner we will find that good and satisfying answers await us.

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

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Al Serrato received his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he continues to work. An introduction to the works of C.S. Lewis sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He began writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com .

Original Blog: https://cutt.ly/kUG3Ys6

Translated and edited by Yatniel Vega García

January 14, 2022/by Guest

What Would It Take To Prove That God Doesn’t Exist?

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

Atheists who feel certain that there is no God are staking out a rather interesting position. As a corollary of their position, they are of course also convinced that those who believe in God are engaging in a form of wishful thinking, that their desire to believe in a “cosmic judge” of good and evil clouds their thinking, preventing them from following where “the science” actually leads, as they believe they have done. Indeed, many believe that religion is no more than the opiate of the masses. But a bit of careful consideration will lead to quite the opposite conclusion. Holding to atheism may have some superficial appeal, as the theist must concede that it is not possible to directly see or experience God. But pretending to know with certainty that there is no God, no supreme and perfect being, is itself an act of wishful thinking. Granted, completely eliminating doubt as to God’s existence is not possible, nor can we know fully or with certainty God’s character or attributes. But being certain he’s not there? That’s a decisive conclusion to draw.

What reasons or evidence do atheists provide in support of their conclusion? Most no doubt rely on their belief in Darwinian evolution as a satisfactory alternative explanation for how life appeared on this planet. Others might point to the existence of evil in the world and contend that an all-powerful and all-loving God would not allow evil to exist. Since evil does exist, God doesn’t. Still, others will attack the claims of theists, arguing for instance what they take to be contradictions in the resurrection accounts and concluding that all religion is just so much wishful thinking. But “knowing” that there is no God requires much more than any of these rationales could provide. In order to be entirely certain that there is no God, that in other words nowhere in the universe can God be found, one would have to have access to, well, the entire universe. Given the size and scope of the visible universe, this is quite a task. Add to that any aspects or dimensions that may elude our senses and the task becomes even more insurmountable.

Here is the odd thing about such a quest. In order to really satisfy oneself that the universe is devoid of God, the searcher must attain complete knowledge of the universe, for any lack of knowledge could relate to the very place that God is present. Moreover, since an all-powerful God would theoretically precede and transcend this universe, one would have to have the capability to examine anything that exists beyond the universe, a task beyond the reach of science. In short, then, one must become omniscient – possess total and complete knowledge of all places and all things – for only then could they know with the certainty atheism connotes that we are not in fact creatures of an intelligent and powerful creator but the products of mindless evolution.

Ironically, of course, at this point, the searcher would possess the very attributes of God. Proving the truth of atheism is, in the end, a futile quest, for one would need to be godlike to prove that God doesn’t exist.

Now to this conclusion some might object, arguing that by this reasoning, no one could be certain that unicorns or tooth fairies do not exist, since there is no way to prove these negatives either. But such a contention would miss the point. First, while there are no good reasons to believe in the existence of such mythical creatures, there are by contrast many logically compelling reasons to conclude that an uncaused first cause is necessary to explain that which we see around us. There are arguments from the design inherent in nature and the fine-tuning seen in the universe, as well as by the existence of evil. Each individual argument is logically sound and combined they are, to most who have considered them, sufficient warrant to believe that a Supreme Being must exist.

Moreover, the stakes involved are completely different. Being wrong about whether a unicorn can be found somewhere does not bring with it the same consequences as the question of whether there is a perfect being out there who created us. The former is simply a matter of intellectual curiosity. But the latter carries with it much weightier questions regarding who we are, why we are here, and most importantly, whether anything is expected of us by the One who brought us into being.

Weighty questions, worthy of our careful consideration.

Por qué la gente odia ser juzgada

Español

By Al Serrato

“Don’t judge me” seems to be an increasingly uttered, and accepted, refrain in our society, reflecting what seems to be a universal and deeply ingrained human tendency. Even Christians, who should know better, seem to jump on the bandwagon, somehow believing that Christian compassion requires us to be more understanding and accepting of bad behavior.

But if you think about it, that’s not entirely accurate. Most people don’t really mean that they don’t want to be judged. In fact, they do. What they mean is that they want others to approve of their conduct or behavior. What they don’t want is to be judged and seen as lacking. Whether in sports, school, or work, time and again we see that people want to compete, they want to be praised for their performance , and they want to come out on top. What they want to avoid is losing—being told that they haven’t measured up or that they’ve done something wrong.

This inclination to seek praise and avoid condemnation is evident from a child’s earliest days: praise him and he will smile, scold or reprimand him and he will cry. He doesn’t have to be taught how to react, he just knows. And when he learns to express himself, one of the first things he will intuitively understand is that there is a thing called “fairness” by which all behavior is judged. He will use it early and often, as he condemns actions that do not meet his expectations. “It’s not fair!” he will exclaim, not fully understanding the power of that phrase to influence others. And when he himself is accused of being unfair, he will not respond by saying that it is okay to be unfair, but will say that he is being fair, while trying to justify his behavior. Only when he grows up will he learn the now popular trick of claiming that judging is wrong.

What explanation does atheism have for this obvious human condition? Since the vast majority of people seem inclined to want to be free from judgment and free to do as they wish, wouldn’t natural selection have eliminated this condition of feeling compelled to act in a certain way long ago? In other words, when we seek to avoid judgment, what we are really saying is that we don’t want to feel guilt. We don’t want to have that nagging feeling that, as C.S. Lewis said, we are aware of a law pressing down on us, a law we did not create and cannot evade, for it resides in our minds. But if there is no God, what evolutionary benefit could there be from feeling guilty for not acting as we should? Wouldn’t this inhibit us from future acts that might directly and personally benefit us at the expense of others? If natural selection operates as Darwinists suggest, early humans who lacked guilt would have been free to vigorously pursue their own self-interest—to enhance their ability to survive and procreate—in contrast to their peers who held back because they did not want to feel the guilt that comes with harming other people. With survival of the fittest as the norm, behaviors that limit our options and prevent us from putting ourselves first make us weaker, not stronger. In a universe in which we were simply an accident of evolution, the pursuit of self-interest would be the default setting.

The Christian worldview, by contrast, can and does make sense of guilt. We know intuitively that there is right and wrong, that there is goodness and evil and justice and injustice, because the absolute standard of goodness made us in his image. He left within us—written on our hearts, so to speak—an intuitive access to this standard and a desire—a need—to conform to it. Our fallen nature prevents us from fully achieving this, but knowledge of this law, and of our need to conform to it, is woven into the very fabric of our minds.

God left within us a desire to find our way back to Him, and an innate fear of condemnation for failing to meet His standard. Even if we don’t realize it, we long to hear Him welcome us home with words of praise, a heartfelt “well done, my good and faithful servant.”

What we seem to have forgotten, however, is that we need not fear final condemnation, for He also sent His Son to provide us with the way home, the way of redemption. But we cannot get there on our own, and pretending otherwise by trying to avoid the feeling of guilt does no good to anyone.

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

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Al Serrato received his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he continues to work. An introduction to the works of C.S. Lewis sparked his interest in apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He began writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.

Original Blog: https://cutt.ly/XY1TdAT

Translated by Jennifer Chavez

Edited by Yatniel Vega Garcia

December 31, 2021/by Guest

What Does It Mean That God Is “Jealous”

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

The Old Testament contains passages in which God is described as “jealous.” For instance, in Exodus 20, God’s Ten Commandments to the Israelites include the admonition not to worship false idols, with God explaining that “I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God.” Similar passages can be found elsewhere in the Bible. Joshua, for example, refers to God as both holy and “jealous.” Joshua 24:19. On first glance, this may seem a rather odd term to use, and make little sense to us, as we do not view jealousy to be an attractive, or appropriate, character trait. Certainly, it is not what we would expect of a perfect being. Indeed, theists often use these passages to make the case that a “jealous” God is petty and not worthy of our love or respect, let alone our worship.

But let’s take a closer look at what is at play. When we hear the word “jealousy,” it usually carries the connotation of a feeling of envious resentment, often brought on by another person’s rivalry or success. We are jealous of people whose accomplishments are well-respected, or who have found the means to acquire things that we too wish to possess. In some instances, it suggests a desire to possess exclusively, as in completely controlling a romantic partner. But even here, the underlying dynamic is that the person feeling jealous fears the loss of the loved one, or fears being made to look foolish if their loved one is unfaithful.

How, then, could such feelings apply to God? At the outset, it is important to recognize that our understanding of God is of necessity limited. We cannot fully know him. However, applying reason to our observations of the universe supports the belief that he is immensely powerful and intelligent, that he is a personal being (since he acted to bring us into existence), and that he transcends space and time. Reason also suggests that such a being must embody perfection. As St. Anselm once formulated in the Ontological Argument, God must be “that being a greater than which cannot possibly be conceived.” He is the ultimate, the supreme; the creator of all there is, was or ever will be. If this is indeed the case, then reason also tells us that there is nothing –simply nothing – that God wants or needs, for there is nothing that he does not already possess.

But there is another definition of “jealous” that makes a bit more sense in context, and interestingly the dictionary lists it as the “biblical” definition: “intolerant of unfaithfulness or rivalry.” But, the atheist may challenge, why should God be “intolerant?” This too seems to suggest that He is injured or diminished when his creatures turn away from Him to worship idols, when they reject him. But how can a perfect being experience injury, hurt… or even, for that matter, sad feelings?

I would suggest that there is another perspective from which to view these passages. Yes, God is “intolerant” of our worship of false idols, but he is so not because of any pettiness on his part or because of any need he experiences. Our turning away from him does indeed cause damage, but not to him; the damage caused is to us. When we make idols of things, we substitute the proper worship of God with the worship of lesser things. This causes us to turn away from God, and from the redemptive work He has planned for us. We were meant to spend eternity with God, but in our rebellion, we shake our fist at him and demand to have things our way. When we die in that rebellion, when we die with the worship of lesser things consuming our hearts and minds, we end up eternally separated from God.

Idol worship no longer involves figures made of gold. In its modern manifestation it involves love of career, success, wealth, possessions, power, sex… the list goes on and on. But the effect is always the same, to turn us away from the one true source of goodness and life. Idol worship points us back toward ourselves, as we grow increasingly selfish and separated from others, who we begin to view as means to our selfish ends, or perhaps as threats to what we have. God is not “intolerant” of this behavior because of some deficit in him. Instead, this intolerance is reflective of what is necessary for us. Loving us, he wants us to choose wisely, but because love requires free will, he will not coerce our choice.

Satellites like the one pictured above can derive energy from the Sun. But to do so, the satellite must first deploy its solar panels fully and in a particular way, and then orient them so that they are completely facing the Sun’s rays. This is not to accommodate the Sun, or to meet some “need” that the Sun has. Instead, it is to allow the thing in need of the Sun’s energy to be in the proper position, relative to the Sun, to receive what it needs.

So too with people. Only by re-orienting our hearts away from ourselves and instead toward the source of all life – the Son of God – can we hope to attain all the good that is promised to those who place their trust in Him.

Resources related to the topic:

How Can Jesus Be the Only Way? (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek

Was Jesus Intolerant? (DVD) and (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he continues to work. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.

November 11, 2021/by Guest

Why People Hate Being Judged

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

“Don’t judge me” seems to be an increasingly uttered, and accepted, refrain in our society, reflecting what appears to be a universal and deep-seated human tendency. Even Christians, who should know better, seem to be jumping on board, believing somehow that Christian compassion requires us to be more understanding and more accepting of bad behavior.

But when you think about it, the phrase is not quite apt. Most people don’t really mean that they don’t want to be judged. In fact, they do. What they mean is that they want others to approve of their conduct or behavior. What they don’t want is to be judged and found wanting. Whether its sports or academics or work, again and again we see that people want to compete, want to be praised for their performance, and want to come out on top. It is losing – being told that they didn’t measure up or that they did something wrong, or bad – that they seek to avoid.

This inclination to seek praise and to avoid condemnation is apparent from a child’s earliest days: praise him and he smiles, admonish or scold him and he cries. He doesn’t need to be taught how to react; he simply knows it. And when he learns to express himself, one of the first things he will intuitively grasp is that there is this thing called “fairness” by which all behavior is judged. He will make use of this early and often, as he condemns actions that do not meet his expectations. “That’s not fair!” he will exclaim, without fully understanding the power of that phrase to influence others. And when he himself is accused of being unfair, he will not respond by saying that it’s okay to be unfair; instead, he will say that he is being fair, as he attempts to justify his conduct. It’s only as he gets older that he will learn the clever parry that is so popular today of claiming that judging itself is wrong.

What explanation does atheism have for this obvious human condition? Since the vast majority of people seem inclined to want to shake off judgment and be free to do what they wish, wouldn’t natural selection have eliminated this condition of feeling constrained to act a certain way long ago? In other words, when we seek to avoid judgment, what we are really saying is that we do not want to feel guilt. We don’t want that nagging sense that, as CS Lewis put it, we are aware of a law that is pressing down upon us, a law that we did not create and that we cannot evade, for it resides within our minds. But if there is no God, what evolutionary benefit would possibly derive from feeling guilty about not acting as we should? Would this not inhibit us from future acts that might benefit us in a direct and personal way at the expense of others? If natural selection operates as Darwinists suggest, then those early humans who lacked a sense of guilt would have been free to vigorously pursue their self-interest – to enhance their ability to survive and to procreate – as contrasted with their fellows who were inhibited because they did not want to feel the guilt that comes from hurting other people. With survival of the fittest as the rule, behaviors that limit our choices and prevent us from putting ourselves first make us weaker, not stronger. In a universe in which we are simply an accident of evolution, pursuit of self-interest would be the default setting.

The Christian worldview, by contrast, can and does make sense of guilt. We intuitively know that there is a right and wrong, that there is good and evil and fairness and unfairness, because the absolute standard for goodness made us in His image. He left within us – written upon our heart as it were – intuitive access to this standard and a desire – a need – to conform to it. Our fallen nature prevents us from ever fully achieving this, but the knowledge of this law, and of our need to yield to it, is part of the very fabric of our minds.

God left within us the desire to find our way back to Him, and an innate fear of condemnation for failing to meet His standard. Though we may not realize it, we long to hear Him welcome us home with words of praise, a hearty “well done my good and faithful servant.”

What we seem to have forgotten, however, is that we need not fear ultimate condemnation, for He also sent His Son to provide us the way home, the path to redemption. But we cannot make it there on our own and pretending otherwise by trying to avoid feelings of guilt does no one any good.

Lo que nos dice nuestra lucha perpetua con la entropía

Español

Por Al Serrato

Hace muchos años, cuando era más joven y mucho menos sabio, decidí que sería un buen proyecto de padre e hijo invertir en un coche antiguo que pudiera restaurar. (Nota para los padres: es mucho mejor encontrar algo que les guste a tus hijos que al revés). Así que, después de buscar, y teniendo en cuenta mi escaso presupuesto, encontré un Mustang convertible del 87 que, en general, se encontraba en buenas condiciones. No me resultó difícil imaginar que, con un poco de esfuerzo y un sitio web especializado en piezas de Mustang, podría hacer que este coche tuviera calidad de sala de exposición en poco tiempo.

Después de que la novedad desapareciera, y el interés de mis hijos disminuyera de poco a nada, me encontré con que tenía un proyecto solitario entre manos que tenía esa molesta costumbre de progresar negativamente. Así es. No importaba cuántos elementos tachara de la lista de tareas, se seguían añadiendo más. Y descubrí que las cosas siempre pasaban de buenas a malas, de funcionar a estar rotas, de estar limpias a estar sucias. Los interruptores de las ventanas que funcionaban un día, dejaban de funcionar al siguiente. Los motores que hacen que las ventanas se muevan suavemente hacia arriba y hacia abajo comenzaron a rechinar y luego se detuvieron. Los fusibles se fundieron, una y otra vez. Sorprendentemente, el proceso nunca funcionaba al revés. No importaba el tiempo que esperara, los interruptores rotos nunca se arreglaban solos. Las piezas agrietadas de las molduras, o una luz trasera rota, nunca se reparaban solas. El óxido en el metal siempre aparecía donde antes no estaba, y nunca daba paso a un metal limpio y brillante. Sí, la ley de la entropía estaba plenamente vigente, y la única manera de revertir ese proceso era invertir tiempo, energía y dinero.

Esto, por supuesto, no es una sorpresa para cualquiera que haya tenido algo. Tampoco es una sorpresa para quien haya considerado el funcionamiento de la naturaleza. Los científicos nos dicen que esta ley -la entropía- es una característica del universo. La entropía es, sencillamente, una medida del desorden, y parece que una ley universal está en funcionamiento moviendo todo desde estados de mayor a menor orden. En otras palabras, la naturaleza tiene una dirección particular, y esa dirección es hacia abajo.

El cristianismo y el ateísmo son cosmovisiones que compiten entre sí. Cada una de ellas pretende dar sentido al mundo para explicar cómo son realmente las cosas. Y a pesar de la creciente popularidad del ateísmo, y del creciente desprecio por el cristianismo histórico, la cosmovisión atea es totalmente incapaz de dar sentido al mundo. En relación con la entropía, el ateísmo debe explicar por qué la “evolución” de la vida ha escapado a esta ley universal. ¿Cómo es que seres humanos increíblemente complejos evolucionaron a partir de formas de vida inferiores? Cuando el ADN se somete a cambios aleatorios, el resultado suele ser letal: se llama cáncer. Pero de alguna manera, insisten los ateos, dado el tiempo suficiente, una simple forma de vida unicelular adquirió las instrucciones necesarias para producir una vida humana completa, instrucciones que deben dirigir perfectamente el ensamblaje y el inter-funcionamiento de docenas de sistemas. Y si eso no fuera suficientemente difícil, ¿cómo puede haber surgido la vida a partir de un material inerte -sin vida-? Si se deja una roca sola durante unos milenios, se acaba teniendo, bueno, una roca.

La cosmovisión cristiana , por el contrario, puede proporcionar esa explicación. El acontecimiento del Big Bang que inició este descenso en el progreso, es el resultado de un ser masivamente poderoso e inmensamente inteligente, que proporcionó las leyes que vemos en la naturaleza, y que escribió las instrucciones que los científicos están empezando a descifrar dentro del ADN. La razón por la que la vida “evolucionó” en la tierra es porque un Diseñador Inteligente la diseñó y proporcionó la fuente de energía para impulsar el proceso. Reconocer la necesidad de esa “primera causa” no es algo anticientífico. De hecho, la ciencia moderna comenzó con la presuposición de que las mentes inteligentes podían desentrañar los misterios de la naturaleza porque estos misterios no eran aleatorios, sino que eran el producto de una mente ordenada, de la inteligencia.

Luchar contra lo evidente, como hacen los ateos, tiene aún menos éxito que luchar contra la entropía. Estarían mejor empleando su tiempo en actividades más productivas.

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

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Al Serrato se licenció en Derecho por la Universidad de California en Berkeley en 1985. Comenzó su carrera como agente especial del FBI antes de convertirse en Fiscal en California, donde sigue trabajando. Una introducción a las obras de CS Lewis despertó su interés por la Apologética, que ha seguido durante las últimas tres décadas. Comenzó a escribir Apologética con J. Warner Wallace y Pleaseconvinceme.com.

Blog Original: https://cutt.ly/8QUxzYS

Traducido por Yatniel Vega García

Editado por Ámbar Porta

August 13, 2021/by Guest

Why It Is A Mistake To Say That All Religions Are The Same

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

Every year in America, thousands of crimes occur in which there are no witnesses and very little evidence. Sometimes, the perpetrator leaves behind a fingerprint impression – a latent print -somewhere at the crime scene. In the past, these prints possessed little value in identifying the offender; before a comparison could be conducted, the police would have to already have a known suspect.

Today, law enforcement officers have access to much better technology, in the form of AFIS – the Automated Fingerprint Identification System. Maintained by the FBI, it houses the data for millions of fingerprint impressions, allowing an unknown latent print to be compared to millions of known offenders. In a matter of minutes, the AFIS computer can spit out the top twenty possible matches to the unknown latent print. But this is only the beginning of the analysis because, with only one latent print at the scene, there is but one actual source for the print. A trained analyst must then spend the time examining in fine detail the patterns of each suspect – the whorls and arches and loops, the ridges and furrows – to determine whether an exact match can be made. The top twenty possible matches have much in common, but on further examination, differences will emerge in the ridge pattern and detail until the one actual source can be identified.

So, what does this have to do with the field of apologetics? Just this: living as we are in very pluralistic times, we often encounter people who believe that all religions are basically the same. Examining them superficially, they will see that religions share a number of features; for example, most teach the utility of treating others with respect, of being kind, of helping the poor. So, while acknowledging some differences in doctrines, people who hold this view believe they have arrived at a great truth: there is no one right religion, just people who mistakenly, and sometimes dangerously, think that they have the corner on truth. This leaves them feeling settled, for the moment, as they conclude that no further inquiry is required. Just be kind to others and follow your heart and all will be well. But on closer examination, all they have really done is stopped searching for the truth, for the “source” of the life that has been given to them and the universe that surrounds them.

Like fingerprints, religions can appear on the surface to be identical, or nearly so, when in fact they are not. And to determine where and how they differ requires a rigorous and close inspection. This of course is crucial in a fingerprint analysis because we know that for one print, there can only be one source. No analyst would stop when she narrowed the search to three possible sources because common sense and reason dictate that two of the three – or perhaps all three – must also be excludable on further inquiry. It is the nature of the thing examined.

So too with the knowledge of God. The major world religions make mutually exclusive truth claims about the nature and attributes of God. Do we live and die once, and then face judgment, as Christianity teaches? Or do we undergo a continuous cycle of life, death, and reincarnation? Is there one God consisting of three persons, or are there instead of a single god or a multitude of deities? For one religion to be true, the others cannot be.

It is logically possible, of course, that all religions are false. It is not possible, by contrast, for religions holding contrary positions to all be true. Either Jesus Christ is the Son of God who rose from the dead and thereby provides salvation to a fallen world, as Christians claim, or he is not. He cannot be both savior and mere sage at the same time.

Critical and careful analysis of a latent fingerprint can lead to the discovery of the truth as to who left it behind. Making the effort is critical to the pursuit of justice, the importance of which we all intuitively recognize.

But critical and careful analysis can also lead to knowledge of the one God who brought us into existence. When we fail to investigate this question because we mistakenly believe that we already know all we need to know – that is, when we allow ourselves to be misled to believe that all religions are pretty much the same – we may not intuitively realize just how much we are giving up.

After all, what comes next – what awaits each of us at the end of our days here on Earth – is without a doubt the most important question that we must confront. And the sooner we begin that process, the sooner we will find that good and satisfying answers await.

What Our Perpetual Fight With Entropy Tells Us

2. Does God Exist?, Atheism, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

Many years ago, when I was younger and much less wise, I decided it would be a good father-son project to invest in an older car that I could restore. (Note to fathers: it’s a much better bonding idea to find something your kids like than the other way around). So, after some searching, and mindful of my meager budget, I ended up finding an ’87 Mustang convertible that was in pretty good shape overall. It wasn’t difficult for me to envision that with a little elbow grease, and a website that specializes in Mustang parts, I could make this car showroom quality in no time.

After the novelty wore off, and my kids’ interest waned from little to none, I found that I had a solitary project on my hands that had this very annoying habit of making negative progress. That’s right. No matter how many items I crossed off the to-do list, more kept getting added. And I found that things always went from good to bad, from working to broken, from clean to dirty. Window switches that were working one day stopped working the next. Motors that keep the windows moving smoothly up and down began to groan and then stopped. Fuses blew, over and over again. Amazingly, the process never worked the other way. No matter how long I waited, broken switches never fixed themselves. Cracked pieces of trim, or a broken taillight, never repaired themselves. Rust in the metal always appeared, where it wasn’t before, and never gave way to clean and shiny metal. Yes, the law of entropy was fully in effect, and the only way to reverse that process was to invest time, energy, and money.

This of course comes as no surprise to anyone who has ever owned anything. Nor is it a surprise to anyone who has considered the way nature operates. Scientists tell us that this law – entropy – is a characteristic of the universe. Entropy is, put simply, a measure of disorder, and it seems that a universal law is in operation moving everything from states of higher to states of lower order. In other words, nature has a particular direction to it, and that direction is down.

Christianity and atheism are competing worldviews. Each one claims to be able to make sense of the world so as to explain the way things really are. And despite the increasing popularity of atheism, and the increasing disdain for historic Christianity, the atheistic worldview is utterly incapable of making sense of the world. As it relates to entropy, atheism must explain why it is that the “evolution” of life has escaped this universal law. How is it that incredibly complex human beings evolved from lower life forms? When DNA is subjected to random change, the result is often lethal – it’s called cancer. But somehow, atheists insist, given enough time, a simple single-celled life form acquired the instructions necessary to produce a complete human life, instructions that must perfectly direct the assembly and interworking of dozens of systems. And if that were not hard enough, how can life have emerged from inert – lifeless – material? Leave a rock alone for a few millennia and you end up with, well, a rock.

The Christian worldview, by contrast, can provide that explanation. The Big Bang event that started this downward slide in progress is the result of a massively powerful and immensely intelligent being, who provided the laws we see in nature, and who wrote the instructions that scientists are beginning to decipher within DNA. The reason life “evolved” on earth is because an Intelligent Designer designed it to and provided the energy source to power the process. Recognizing the need for such a “first cause” is not unscientific. Indeed, modern science began with the presupposition that intelligent minds could untangle the mysteries of nature because these mysteries were not random but were themselves the product of an ordered mind, of intelligence.

Fighting the obvious, as atheists do, is even less successful than fighting entropy. They would be better off using their time in more productive pursuits.

Giving Atheists a Hand

Atheism, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

My seventh-grade nephew needed some help the other night on social studies. He was working on the Paleolithic Age – the Old Stone Age – a time when man first started working with stone and bone tools. That got me thinking about the greatest “tool” of all – the human hand. It’s something that most people take for granted, but I don’t think it’s an overstatement to say that modern civilization would never have arisen without it.

How can the atheist explain something as complex as the hand? Like the human reproductive system that I discussed in my last post, in his worldview, the hand is the product of a slow, random set of mutations occurring over a long period of time. We just happened to be lucky enough for everything to fall into place so that we – modern humans – are the beneficiaries of this entirely happenstance outcome. But think for a moment about the staggering complexity of the hand. Consider first the intricacy of the nerves that allow not just for feeling but for the fine sensitivity of feeling that exists in the fingertips. Consider the placement of the hand at the end of a flexible wrist on an arm that is also flexible. Five fingers provide the ability to grip and to manipulate objects, and the five can be used in unison or individually. Two matching hands are vastly superior to one, and the hands just happen to match in size, shape, and function. The opposable thumb may be its greatest feature, as it allows for tools to be gripped. There is a versatile muscular system that allows for objects to be firmly, or lightly, gripped, and a feedback mechanism in the nervous system that allows us to know whether we are gripping something so hard as to crush it or softly enough to caress it. All the while, it provides information on warmth and cold. On and on the list goes. It is truly a marvelous tool, and despite the best efforts of modern-day scientists, there is no way at present to even begin to replicate its complexities.

Yet we are to believe, according to the atheist, that this amazing feature of human beings is not the product of an intelligent designer, who foresaw and anticipated our use of tools to build and shape the world around us, but was instead the result of random processes occurring over time. By why should this be so? Well, the atheist will say, the hand is simply the descendent of more primitive appendages. Small, random changes conferred an advantage on some descendents, which allowed them to succeed and pass on this modification. Really? If this is so, then why haven’t monkeys, and these other more primitive forms, gone extinct, if their appendages were so unhelpful to their survival? Clearly, the development of a hand that could use tools, as opposed to one suited for climbing trees, was not needed by them in order to thrive and reproduce. Or conversely, why haven’t modern monkeys, which apparently predate humans, not yet evolved human hands, hands finely suited for using and manipulating tools?

More importantly, what happened before monkeys with primitive hands evolved? What was that earlier mammalian life form from which the arm and hand emerged? A squirrel? A rodent? What were these life forms doing, earlier still, when they had mere stumps on the ends of their limbs? Or no limbs at all? How did they survive? And why aren’t there other examples in nature of animals who randomly produced hands? Or animals that have partial hands that are somewhere on the road to evolving a complete hand?

To be fair, atheists probably think they are doing the believer a favor by arguing that science is the source of all knowledge, and that with enough time and study, answers to the questions I pose will someday be found. I suspect that most have not considered deeply the difficulty with this position. After all, the human hand is just one of dozens of fine-tuned systems in the body, each of which was constructed according to instructions embedded in the millions of lines of coded DNA information that directs the body to grow from a single cell to an adult person.

To conclude that the evolution of life forms happened randomly might have made sense in Darwin’s day, when those considering the question had no idea that information-rich DNA was directing the process of building and sustaining life. But today? Science can tell us many things about DNA and how it works. But the original source of the code, and the identity of the coder who wrote the language of DNA to provide for the life that is teeming on Planet Earth, is not something that science will find, certainly not if scientists insist on assuming that DNA assembled itself.

Tag Archive for: Al Serrato

What Doctrinal Differences Tell Us

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Por qué es un error decir que todas las religiones son iguales

Recommended resources in Spanish:

What Would It Take To Prove That God Doesn’t Exist?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Por qué la gente odia ser juzgada

Recommended resources in Spanish:

What Does It Mean That God Is “Jealous”

Resources related to the topic:

Why People Hate Being Judged

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Lo que nos dice nuestra lucha perpetua con la entropía

Recursos recomendados en Español:

Why It Is A Mistake To Say That All Religions Are The Same

Recommended resources related to the topic:

What Our Perpetual Fight With Entropy Tells Us

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Giving Atheists a Hand

Recommended resources related to the topic:

QUICK LINKS

FEATURED RESOURCES

SUPPORT CROSSEXAMINED