apologetics Archives - Page 119 of 138

Tag Archive for: apologetics

Is An Evidence Based Belief On Shaky Grounds?

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Evan Minton

“If you were talked into your belief, you can be talked out of it”. This is what I read from one theologian in a book a while back. I cannot remember who said it, but that was a direct quote from the book. I think it came from one of the volumes of A.W Tozer’s The Attributes Of God, but I’m not entirely sure. I only remember what was said, not who said it. Anyway, the point this preacher was making is that if one rests on arguments and evidence to justify their belief in Christianity, then their faith stands on shaky grounds, for “If you were talked into your belief, you can be talked out of it”. If you were argued into believing the truth of Christianity by an apologist, then some atheistic philosopher or Muslim theologian or cultist could come along, give some arguments for their worldview, and you may find those arguments persuasive and abandon the faith. The preacher wrote that we should instead rely on the word of God (The Bible) and the inner witness of The Holy Spirit. We should spurn an evidential approach to knowing that Christianity is true and instead rely on faith and religious experiences.

I think that this argument is deeply flawed for a variety of reasons.

I Don’t Hang My Hat On One Argument

I cannot speak for everyone, but I personally don’t hang my hat on a single argument for Christianity’s truth. There is a wide range of arguments for God’s existence, The Bible’s historical reliability, and for Jesus’ resurrection. There’s The Kalam Cosmological Argument, The Cosmic Fine-Tuning Argument, The Local Fine-Tuning Argument, The Moral Argument, The Ontological Argument, The Contingency Argument, The Argument From Desire, The Argument From Science’s Doability, The Transcendental Argument, and there’s plenty of historical evidence indicating that Jesus of Nazareth died on the cross and rose from the dead (see here, here, and here). I defend all of these in great detail in my book Inference To The One True God.

What would happen if one of these arguments were ever shown to be unsound? Would my belief in God collapse? Let’s say that The Big Bang was overturned some day, the second law of thermodynamics was somehow shown to not imply a universe of finite age, and the arguments against actual infinities were also refuted, so that we could not evidentially demonstrate The Kalam Cosmological Argument’s second premise (i.e “The Universe Began To Exist”), thus rendering the argument unsound? Well, we’ve still got The Ontological Argument, which argues that if God’s existence is even possible, then it follows that God exists. I would still believe in God in this hypothetical scenario because although the Kalam was shown to be garbage, no one undermined any of the premises of The Ontological Argument. Moreover, The Contingency Argument doesn’t even need the universe to have had a beginning in order for it to be sound. All the Contingency Argument needs with respect to the universe is that it needs the universe to not exist by a necessity of its own nature, which, as you’ll know if you read the article I linked to on that argument, can be demonstrated apart from arguing that the universe had a beginning to its existence. I could still say “The best explanation for the existence of the universe is God” on the basis of The Argument From Contingency despite there being no way to argue that the universe hasn’t existed forever.

Or what if the Kalam always stands strong, but it’s The Local Fine-Tuning Argument that suffers a fatal blow. Well, I’d still have The Kalam, the cosmic Fine-Tuning Argument, The Moral Argument, and all of the others I mentioned above. Even if it could be argued that, maybe on the basis of the universe’s size or whatever, that the 400+ characteristics could come together by chance, that wouldn’t do anything to the Kalam or Cosmic Fine-Tuning Arguments. And it, again, wouldn’t do anything to The Ontological Argument.

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RyhTm8GO-cI/Wcr48Nbu-mI/AAAAAAAAFbk/vvvp9C8rGWo82LJtljVniukeR6OOTCkogCLcBGAs/s1600/

A meme I saw on the Facebook Page “Philosophy Memes and Theology Dreams”

You see, if one basis their belief on a variety of arguments that all point to the same conclusion, then even if one or two of them were shown to be fallacious, it wouldn’t remove the epistemological justification for belief. The meme on the left-hand side gets this point across magnificently. In this meme, a person is about to be thrown into skepticism about the existence of the external world. Clearly, if the external world isn’t real, then The Cosmological Arguments (both The Kalam and The Contingency) will fail. You can’t say the best explanation for the origin of the world is a transcendent Creator if there is no world of which to have an origin. You can’t say God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe is there is no universe. However, the Ontological Argument doesn’t hinge on the universe at all, beginningless or eternal, existent or non-existent. The Ontological Argument, as even its detractors will tell you, all hinges on whether that first premise is true (i.e “It is possible that a Maximally Great Being Exists”). So, despite jettisoning the Cosmological Arguments on the basis of external-world skepticism, he still has a fallback argument to run to.

If The Sword Cuts At All, It Cuts Both Ways

“If you were argued into Christianity, you can be argued out of it.” — If we were to take this statement’s logic and apply it consistently, it would undercut even belief in God on an experiential or emotional basis. For example, one could say “If you came to know God through an experience of Him, you could come to know a false god through an equally powerful experience.” Suppose a person feels God’s presence in a mighty and inexplicable way during a church service as the pastor was preaching. As a result of this powerful experience, he comes to believe that Jesus is the one true God, that The Bible is true, that he is a sinner whom Jesus died for, and that God wants Him to follow Him. But 10 years down the road, he enters a mosque and hears the Quran being read. He now has the same type of experience he had before, only this time, he believes it’s Allah who is trying to get his attention. He abandons Christianity and converts to Islam.

“That could never happen” you might say. Why not? “Because Allah isn’t the one true God. You can’t have an experience of a god who isn’t there.” Well, isn’t it possible that demonic forces could cause an effect in a person like the above in an attempt to deceive him and lead him to apostatize? Remember, I’m arguing against a preacher here who believes The Bible in its entirety. He has to admit that the devil might play with someone’s mind to get them to commit idolatry. After all, he’s “the father of lies” (John 8:44), who “seeks to kill and destroy” (John 10:10) and “prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour” (1 Peter 5:8), and can even make himself come off as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14). This preacher has to keep open the possibility that demons could give people false religious experiences to get them to worship a false god. Why can’t we say “If you were experienced into the faith, you can be experienced out of it?”

If The Evidence Truly Did Point Away From Christianity, We Should Follow It

Thirdly, if the evidence truly did point to some other worldview, then we ought to hold to that worldview. It would literally be irrational to hold to a belief in light of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. If it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that God does not exist, I would become an atheist. If it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the book of Mormon is divinely inspired, I would become a Mormon. Or if it could be shown that the Quran is inspired, I would become a Muslim. Of course, the evidence would have to actually be beyond a reasonable doubt. After all, this isn’t like deciding what kind of job to get. Eternity is on the line here! Being wrong can have devastating consequences. I’d have to be pretty darn sure that Christianity was false before I’d be willing to abandon it.

For any atheist reading this, you would have to (1) demolish all of the arguments for God’s existence and you would have to discredit The Minimal Facts Case for Christ’s resurrection, and then (2) you would have to provide a positive argument in favor of atheism. If you just do 1, I’ll just be left with agnosticism. For the Muslim, you would have to likewise discredit the historical case for Jesus’ resurrection, and you would have to either refute The Moral and Ontological Arguments or show that Allah is compatible with those arguments conclusion. As in chapters 4 and 5 of my book Inference To The One True God: Why I Believe In Jesus Instead Of Other Gods, I don’t think Allah is the one true God because He cannot be perfectly loving and He cannot be perfectly loving, because He isn’t a Trinity. God has to be a Trinity in order to be a God of perfect love because He wouldn’t be able to express love prior to the creation of any creatures to love. Love requires 3 things; (1) A lover, (2) A Beloved, and (3) a relationship between them. A Unitarian God doesn’t have all the requirements for love to exist until He creates other persons, which means He was lacking in the love department prior to making people. Since God must be morally perfect to be the standard of morality (The Moral Argument), and since a Maximally Great Being must have all great-making properties and have them to the greatest extent possible (The Ontological Argument), since love is a virtue and a great-making property then the God of The Moral and Ontological Arguments must have perfect love. Allah, a non-trinitarian god, doesn’t fit the bill. No polytheistic god fits the bill. No God consists of more than one person than Christianity’s God. Therefore, it is my inference that The Moral and Ontological arguments point to the God of orthodox Christianity. Pick up my book for other explanations for why Allah is not God.

What If A Christian Isn’t Relying SOLEY On Evidence?

For me, the reason my belief that Christianity is true is so strong is that I have both a plethora of arguments evidence as well as The Holy Spirit’s witness to my heart. I think my faith would be a lot shakier if I relied solely on arguments or solely on the inner witness. I believe in God because I’ve experienced Him….multiple times. I also believe in God because He is the best explanation for the origin of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe, the fine-tuning of our local habitable region, the moral law, the possibility of doing science, the reliability of our reasoning faculties, and no explanation has been given over the past 2,000 years to explain the 5 minimal facts than “He is risen”.

Christianity is the inference to the best explanation, and moreover, God has been a living reality in my life. It seems to me that my belief has less of a chance of being destroyed if I lean on both of these epistemological pillars. If I relied on only one, either one, I think it would be a lot more fragile than it is.

Once Saved, Always Saved

Not everyone will agree with me here, but I do affirm that someone who truly got saved will always be saved. He will never lose His salvation. First, we have Jesus’ statement in John 10:27-29. In this passage, Jesus says “My sheep hear my voice. I know them and they follow me. I give them eternal life and they shall never perish. No one can pluck them from my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.” In this passage, Jesus says that no one is able to pluck us out of His hand. This seems to suggest that once you’re saved, that’s it. Nothing can cause you to be removed from Jesus’ hand. Now, people who believe salvation can be lost have responded to this passage by saying that this passage only means that no outside forces will cause us to lose our salvation against our will (e.g demons, the temptations of the world), but it doesn’t follow that we can’t freely choose to jump out of Christ’s hand. Point taken, but there’s more to take away from the passage than merely the “no one can pluck them from my hand” part. Notice that in the earlier part of the passage, Jesus says “I give them eternal life and they shall never perish.” Jesus’ words here are a blunt, de facto statement. He doesn’t say “they shall never perish as long as they don’t hop out of my hand.”. He just says “they shall never perish” period. If we freely chose to jump out of Christ’s hand, what would happen to us? We would perish, in contradiction to Christ’s words. There’s no conditional statement in this passage. Jesus just says point blank “I give them eternal life and they shall never perish”.

Moreover, 1 John 2:19 says “They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.” This sounds almost exactly like what eternal security advocates say. “They were never saved. If they were, they wouldn’t have become unsaved.” The apostle John says “They went out from us, but they weren’t of us. If they were of us, they wouldn’t have left.” When eternal security advocates say to a former Christian “you were never saved. If you were, you wouldn’t have lost it”, they are merely echoing the apostle’s words in 1 John 2:19.

Now, I hold to a more nuanced version of eternal security than most Christians do, but I won’t get into that here. Just check out my 3 part series on what I’ve dubbed “The Can/Won’t Model Of Eternal Security”, here, here, and here.

Given this, if a person truly has been born again (John 3:3) and become a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17), then regardless of how he came to believe that Christianity is true, he won’t stop believing it. He will be a Bible-believing Christ-Follower until the day he dies. So, the fact that some were “argued into the faith” doesn’t mean that they can be argued out of it, at least if they were truly born again.

Conclusion

This attempt by Tozer (or whoever it was) to undermine the legitimacy of an evidential faith fails. For one, most evidentialists don’t put all of their eggs in one basket. Secondly, this logic could be applied to believing in God on the basis of religious experience (what the preacher was arguing in favor of). Thirdly, it’s a false dichotomy to say that one’s belief is based on either evidence or religious experience (why not both?). And finally, given the doctrine of Eternal Security, even if a Christian did lean solely on evidence, if he were truly born again, he would never fall away. God would find a way to keep him from doing so.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2yEK2Wc

November 7, 2017/by Guest

Talking with Your Kids about God w/ Natasha Crain

Podcast

Podcast: Play in new window

Christian parenting is hard work–and it’s getting harder. Parents have a deep desire to pass on their faith but fear that today’s increasingly skeptical and hostile world will eventually lead their kids to reject the truth of Christianity. That leaves many parents feeling overwhelmed–uncertain of what they can do to help their children, given the difficulty and extent of the faith challenges they will face. Frank interviews author Natasha Crain about her new book a practical and timely resource that gives parents the confidence of knowing what to discuss with their children and how to discuss it in order to facilitate impactful conversations that will form the basis of a lifelong faith.

Natasha’s Website: http://christianmomthoughts.com/

Natasha’s New Book: http://christianmomthoughts.com/talkingwithyourkidsaboutgod/

November 6, 2017/by Guest

Why We Should Get To Know the Bible

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

Is there a way to use the Bible to get someone interested in knowing more about the Bible? I’ve thought about this question for many years. As I learned more about the Word, and spoke more with people who called themselves Christian but knew little or nothing about what the Bible teaches, I wondered about the best approach to take. Here, in a nutshell, is one possible approach to make the case for studying the Bible from the Bible.

Most people who call themselves Christian will acknowledge that the Bible is the inspired word of God. What this means to them varies. Usually, they will insist that the Bible is not literal, leaving them free to add meaning as they choose, and to ignore passages that are difficult. But why do such people seem to have no interest in ever learning Scripture? After all, even if the Bible is not literal, it must mean something. Why think of it as “inspired” if its wisdom is largely ignored? There are many possible answers to this question, but the most likely seems to be that they don’t see the need to do the hard work of learning not just what the Bible says, but also its history and context.

So, I sometimes begin by asking such a person whom Jesus might have been referring to in Matthew 7:21-22, where He warned about false prophets and added that not all who “prophesied,” “cast out demons” and “performed miracles” in His name will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Instead, it is “he who does the will of My Father.” In John 8:12, Jesus calls himself the light of the world; “he who follows Me will not walk in darkness, but will have the Light of life.” And then in verses 31-32: “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” Finally in 1 John 2:3-6: “By this, we know that we have come to know Him if we keep His commandments. The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.”

It seems pretty obvious that the Bible teaches – including the words of Jesus Himself – that there are those who know of Him, who may even invoke His name, who He will not recognize because they have not in truth followed Him. But if invoking His name, or calling oneself a believer, is not enough, what then must one do to follow Him? Scripture provides the answer: we must love God not just with our heart and soul and strength, but also with our mind. (Mark 12:30) We must study and know the Word of God. How else can we be “salt and light” to a fallen world (Matt. 5:13) or represent Christ as His ambassadors (2 Corinth. 5:17)?

The Bible tells us that we should “not be conformed to this world” but instead be “transformed” by the renewal of our minds, that by testing we can discern what is the will of God, “what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Rom. 12:2). We must “abhor what is evil and hold fast to what is good” (Rom. 12:9). God intends the Scripture to be this source of the knowledge of good, as it is “inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

In studying the Word, we are to “be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). Writing to the Thessalonians, the Apostle Paul thanked God that when they received the word of God which they heard from him, they “accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.” (1 Thess. 2:13). And to Timothy, Paul urges him “retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me” and to “guard, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you.” (2 Tim 5:13-14).

In short, as the Apostle Peter wrote, we are to always be ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, doing so with gentleness and reverence. (1 Peter 3:15) It takes knowledge, and thoughtfulness, to do this. Studying and knowing the Bible is, necessarily, the first step.

Changing someone’s view of the importance of Scripture is easier said than done. This approach may be a start, but there are no doubt many other, and better, ones. If you’ve had some success in this endeavor, please take a moment to write to me at Al@pleaseconvinceme.com with the approach you took.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2zy0tUw

November 5, 2017/by Guest

Are You Thinking Like an Atheist?

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

By Adam Tucker

As anyone who attends the Southern Evangelical Seminary National Conference on Christian Apologetics knows, SES does its best to offer well-rounded apologetics training that meets the needs of the novice while also challenging those who are more advanced. Our goal is to challenge the status quo of popular Christian thinking about apologetics and theological issues while at the same time being true to what makes SES unique in the evangelical world.

One of those unique aspects was on display at this year’s NCCA in the Friday night debate between Dr. Richard Howe, SES Emeritus Professor of Philosophy and Apologetics, and Dan Barker, Co-President of the Freedom from Religion Foundation. SES unashamedly builds its apologetics and theology proper (i.e., the nature of God) largely on the philosophical underpinnings laid forth by 13th century theologian Thomas Aquinas (who basically used portions of Aristotle’s thinking to provide a systematic approach to Christian apologetics and theology). This “classical” way of thinking about God’s existence has, until the last 200-300 years, been the standard way to do apologetics and to think about God. Sadly, for various reasons, it was largely abandoned, though it was never actually shown to be false. SES is convinced that this abandonment has led to confused thinking about how to actually do apologetics, which leads to shallow (if not false) thinking about who God is. This can lead to dangerous consequences for evangelism. These are all very important issues about which SES is quite passionate. In fact, it was none other than SES co-founder Dr. Norman Geisler who concluded his NCCA session by stating that evangelicals need an inoculation of Thomism (the thinking of Aquinas).

This is exactly the approach Dr. Howe took in the debate. There are plenty of resources from which one can pull in order to learn about popular arguments for God’s existence. Those are numerous and readily available. Instead, Dr. Howe offered a classical argument for God (a la Aquinas) upon which all the traditional attributes of God necessarily follow (an argument included in the SES ebook most conference attendees should have received via email).

We understand that at least a portion of the debate attendees were rather upset with the debate’s outcome. Honestly, we share your frustration. The debate was designed to be about the existence of God, a topic Dr. Howe admirably argued for but one essentially ignored by Mr. Barker. Instead of engaging with the topic at hand, Mr. Barker attempted to derail the discussion with worn out fallacious appeals about how “nasty” God is (a topic we directly addressed in a Saturday breakout session). Dr. Howe didn’t take the bait because that was not the topic of discussion, and with limited time one can only discuss so many things. Rather, he took the approach of showing Mr. Barker’s ignorance of such classical thinking. In other words, Mr. Barker is writing books promoting his atheism and doing “anti-apologetics” while completely ignoring the classical thinking that formed the intellectual foundation of Christianity. It should have been apparent in the debate that Dr. Howe was extremely successful in showing Mr. Barker’s lack of understanding in the subject, and Mr. Barker failed to address in any substantial way Dr. Howe’s arguments. Therefore, it should have been clear that Dr. Howe easily won the debate. He’s the only one who addressed the debate’s topic.

Mr. Barker’s basic response to Dr. Howe was to claim he shouldn’t have to take a class in order to understand the arguments for God’s existence. In Barker’s estimation, if God exists it wouldn’t be that difficult to know. This is simply a species of the argument from divine hiddenness (i.e., if God exists, then His existence should be obvious to everyone). Ironically, we’ve received the same response from some Christians who seem to agree with Barker in this respect. I believe such a response is very problematic. Allow me to illustrate.

My seven-year-old is a pretty smart guy. He makes good grades, is a math wiz and can recite numerous sports statistics. He even understands that when his allergies are acting up he needs some allergy medicine, or if he has a fever, he knows he needs some Tylenol. But exactly how much medicine should he take? How will those medicines interact with other medicines he may be taking or medical conditions he may have? How did that Tylenol come about in just the right combination of chemicals so as to help rather than harm him? He doesn’t know the answer to any of these questions.

I know more than my son and can answer some of those questions. My wife, on the other hand, is a clinical pharmacist. She knows the detailed answers to all of those questions and more. I recall helping her study for her pharmacy boards many years ago. The chemistry she had to study, the names she had to pronounce and recall, and the drug interactions she had to memorize were mind-boggling. We appreciate, and utilize often, the expertise of pharmacists like my wife. In fact, I’ve never heard anyone say, “I reject the study of pharmacology because God wouldn’t make chemistry and the human body so difficult to understand that someone must take a class to be trained. Those pharmacists should just stay in their ivory towers and quit confusing us with their terminology and study.”

Similarly, my seven-year-old can know that nothing comes from nothing, and right now he’s content with knowing that God is the cause of everything. But can he answer challenges from atheists like Dan Barker, Richard Dawkins, Bertrand Russell, or J.L. Mackie? Can he rightly refute the claims of the cults and their misunderstanding of God? Can he adequately respond to popular aberrant doctrines taught by some influential evangelicals? Many questions about God raised by both atheists and Christians require a good deal of background knowledge and, dare I say, philosophy in order to appropriately answer. The fact the someone is a Christian or has read one (or several) popular apologetics books does not necessarily make them an expert on the deeper issues that often need to be addressed when such questions are asked or challenges are raised. And it is simply a fact of reality that many of these deeper issues are difficult to understand (due in part to the abandonment of the classical Christian thinking mentioned above). As Edward Feser observes,

“Due to intellectual error and the complexity of the philosophical issues, [as mere humans we] sometimes fail properly to understand the main arguments for God’s existence, or mix all sorts of errors into whatever knowledge of God we do have. Due to the weaknesses of our wills, we also fall into moral error. And when moral and intellectual errors multiply throughout a culture, the resulting general social environment may make it difficult for a given individual living within it to avoid more numerous and more serious moral and intellectual errors than he otherwise would have been prone to.”[1]

If we understand the need for intense and difficult study in order to comprehend the inner workings of the human body, why would we expect less intense study when learning about the infinite Creator of the human body? To paraphrase Dr. Feser, it’s actually not terribly difficult to demonstrate the existence of God, but it is often very difficult to clear away from someone’s thinking the mounds of bad philosophy that more than likely they simply have absorbed from the culture in order for them to be able to understand the arguments. This was on full display in the debate as Mr. Barker demonstrated his ignorance of the relevant subject matter.

Yes, God’s existence is obvious enough that my seven year old can understand the basics, but we’re not all seven years old. In order to understand the details, we need to put aside childish thinking (1 Cor. 13:11) and devote time to thinking deeply about reality and the conclusions that follow. We should also appreciate those who have devoted their lives to studying these things in order to help equip the rest of us and not be surprised if we don’t instantly understand every detail they communicate. As a seminary hosting a conference, our goal is to challenge our audience to go deeper. I don’t immediately understand half the things my wife talks about from her day at work, but I sure am grateful that she knows what she’s talking about and that she is willing to teach me if I’m interested in learning.

I want to challenge my brothers and sisters in Christ to not think like an atheist. Do not be content with what is often incomplete and unreflective thought. Our faith (and our knowledge of God’s existence) must be built upon deeper foundations that are not so easily disturbed by the tired old fallacious comments made by someone like Mr. Barker. We can’t believe something about God simply because it makes us feel good or it’s easier to think about that reality. The fact is, as was mentioned above, answering Mr. Barker with simple or pithy slogans from pop-Christianity or pop-apologetics will not get to the heart of the matter. In fact, it may even make the situation worse by not first properly defining and understanding terms and concepts relevant to the discussion. Such a failure in thinking can often lead to misunderstanding, a false sense of security, or even outright heresy. We must be careful to build our understanding of God upon reality rather than with our emotions and oft-times misdirected thinking.

Some of us are closer to my seven years old than we should be regarding our knowledge of apologetics, while others are closer to my pharmacist wife. But all of us are capable of learning from each other and going just a bit deeper each year. That doesn’t mean we will or even have to, understand the deeper philosophical arguments and the like (I certainly don’t plan on studying pharmacology any time soon!). But it should at least mean we recognize their existence and appreciate that we can learn from those who do understand them (and point unbelievers to them when needed). We are all on this journey together, and we’re at varying places along that journey. That’s great as long as we all remain teachable and willing to learn. As Mortimer Adler notes,

“Not only must we honestly announce that pain and work are the irremovable and irreducible accompaniments of genuine learning, not only must we leave entertainment to the entertainers and make education a task and not a game, but we must have no fears about what is “over the public’s head.” Whoever passes by what is over his head condemns his head to its present low altitude; for nothing can elevate a mind except what is over its head; and that elevation is not accomplished by capillary attraction, but only by the hard work of climbing up the ropes, with sore hands and aching muscles. The school system which caters to the median child, or worse, to the lower half of the class; the lecturer before adults-and they are legion-who talks down to his audience; the radio or television program which tries to hit the lowest common denominator of popular receptivity-all these defeat the prime purpose of education by taking people as they are and leaving them just there.”[2]

SES will never diminish or ignore our responsibility to become better communicators and seek constantly ways to clearly and effectively break down and explain complex topics. And there will be times when we don’t do that as well as we’d like. In the process, however, may we all show grace to one another and work together to help raise up the church as a whole in loving God with all their minds. In a desperately lost and confused world, the truth and clarity of the Gospel must be communicated and defended now more than ever. We are honored to partner with each of you in that endeavor.

Interested In Going Deeper?

For more on a brief introduction to the importance of Thomism, read Dr. Doug Potter’s article.

For more on classical apologetics, read Dr. Richard Howe’s article.

Be sure to watch my NCCA debrief with Dr. Howe HERE.

Consider the SES Lay Institute Apologetics and Biblical Studies courses.

SES also offers several certificates (for credit) or the ability to audit classes (not for credit).

Notes

[1] Edward Feser, “Modern Biology and Original Sin, Part II,” accessed October 27, 2017, http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/modern-biology-and-original-sin-part-ii.html. (Since all truth is God’s truth, it should be irrelevant to the reader that Dr. Feser is a Catholic. We can agree philosophically even if we disagree on other theological matters.)

[2] Mortimer Adler, “Invitation to the Pain of Learning,” accessed October 27, 2017, https://www.monticellocollege.org/sites/default/files/liberal-arts/invitation_to_the_pain_of_learning.pdf

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2h3YqMr

November 5, 2017/by Guest

Belief In God Is Not a Feeling

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

“Remember, a Jedi can feel the Force flowing through him.” Obi-Wan’s admonition to Luke Skywalker sums up what some skeptics probably think about Christianity. If it were real, they would be able to “feel it” in some tangible way, and perhaps also be able to manipulate its power. A skeptic I spoke with recently framed it this way:

“I don’t ‘feel’ God in my heart the way most theists claim to, I don’t see any external justification for his existence, and I simply see no good reason to believe. So why is it my fault that I don’t believe? God supposedly created me just the way I am, after all. So, I’m not ‘rejecting God’ since he never made himself known to me in any real way. So why is non-belief a crime at all? What is the effect of non-belief that is so horrible?”

These thoughts express, I suspect, what Americans are thinking in larger and larger numbers. Raised in a culture led in many areas by a secular – and in many instances anti-religious – elite, they feel increasingly confident that their view that nature is “all there is” comports with the way things actually are.

So, what is wrong with “non-belief”?

I suppose the first and quickest answer is that the thought itself is a bit incoherent. Consider what is being said. “Belief” is that state of mind in which one concludes that a fact is true. I believe that the car is red. I believe that John’s explanation regarding the accident is false. There is, of course, an issue of certainty. My belief regarding the car’s color may be mistaken, due to poor lighting; or my belief that John is lying may be wrong. But it makes little sense to say that, as to the car’s color, I have no belief. Or that I am hearing John’s explanation but believe nothing about it. Claiming to have “no belief” may seem high-minded and impartial, but it simply mistakes the way the human mind works. Whether we will it or not, our minds naturally move toward forming and reassessing beliefs. Indeed, at a basic level, we need to do so to stay alive. We must be constantly assessing our environment, our surroundings, to make prudent choices as to what to do next. Believing something about those choices and surroundings is indispensable.

As it relates to the question of ultimate things, one must acknowledge that complete certainty is not possible. So it’s fair for someone to say “I believe there probably isn’t a God, that the evidence I perceive of his existence is less compelling than the evidence which supports a conclusion that he does not exist.” But this begs the question: what is it that you are relying on forming this belief?

And this takes me to the second point, the one raised at the outset. If one approaches this assessment with the unspoken premise that God would cause himself to be “felt” in the manner suggested in Star Wars, then believing he is not there gains traction, since few, if any, people have such mystical experiences. Most committed believers I know never have such “feelings.” They conclude from the testimony of their senses, and the working of the reason of their minds, that a staggeringly complex and exquisitely organized creation requires a Creator. Though there are numerous logical proofs that support the belief in the existence of the immensely powerful and intelligent being behind all this, the common sense notion that something cannot be created by nothing has been more than sufficient for most people who ever walked this Earth.

As it relates to Jesus, and his divinity, the case is a historical one. The body of evidence relating to Jesus safeguarded and passed down through the centuries, establishes that he lived, that he was crucified and that he rose from the dead, leaving behind an empty tomb and galvanizing a following that changed the course of history. In so doing, he fulfilled numerous prophecies that predated his birth. The resurrection and the miracles he performed provide a solid foundation upon which one’s belief can rest. Numerous authors have detailed the evidence, but the PleaseConvinceMe website (here and here, for example) is as good a starting point as any for beginning to examine the logical proofs as well as the historical evidence.

So, is “non-belief” a crime? No more so that not believing in the power of medicine is the cause of someone’s death. A person with a fatal disease is not “punished” for refusing to get medical help; it is the disease, and not the lack of belief, that is causing the problem. So too with matters eternal. Christianity teaches that God’s law is written on our hearts so that we are all “without excuse.” Our own consciences will testify against us in the end. Christians do not believe God punishes us for “not believing.” He punishes us for rebellion – for the things we said and did which manifested this rebellion – by separating himself from us. Mercifully, he also provides the means for reuniting with him, through the work of Jesus.

Feelings are a wonderful part of human life. But in this galaxy, and in this time, they’re not particularly reliable in reaching sound conclusions or making wise decisions.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2gShhKx

October 31, 2017/by Guest

Job, Suffering, and a Game of Chess

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

The Ultimate Game of Chess

As a Christian, I come across many challenges to my worldview. Some challenges come from those in other worldviews; others come from other Christians. One of the most common challenges from outside is to God’s existence. One argument observes all the evil and suffering in the world and asks how a good God could allow it. Many Christians also struggle with this very issue. They know that God exists, but they see suffering in their own lives and wonder why God is allowing so much. Because of this, some question whether God is even there, or if they’re not willing to go that far if God is even good. This was articulated to me very clearly not too long ago: “The story of Job is just a chess game between God and Satan, and my life is no different.”

Dealing with Suffering

Before I get deep into how Christianity deals with suffering and evil in the world, I want to make one thing clear. Every worldview MUST deal with the existence of what we call “evil” or “suffering”. We cannot escape its existence simply by dismissing the existence of God; neither can we ignore the fact that suffering does exist. All worldviews are faced with this challenge and must offer a coherent explanation. I believe that it is only in the Christian worldview (properly understood) that suffering and evil makes sense.

Our Purpose And The Purpose of Suffering

If Christianity is true, God has created each individual with many purposes. One of those purposes is to become more like Christ. By this, we mean that we are to exhibit the fruits of the Spirit as listed in Galatians 5:22-23 (love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control). The more our hearts and lives reflect these, the more we will be like God. The more we are like God, the more personal and intimate we will be able to be with Him when we live with Him eternally (heaven).

If the man was already like all this, there would be no need for him to experience life. Yet we are not. Most people will recognize that going through tough times makes them stronger- they come out with more wisdom, patience or love. Many times we can be “on top of the world” and something will happen that forces us into a position of humility. Depending on the person, this is likely to be seen (down the road) as a positive experience that has increased their character. As parents, we guide our kids. Sometimes that guidance requires punishment, which can cause suffering. Kids also hurt themselves by doing certain things that we tell them not to. We tend not to see the consequences as “wrong” or “evil” because they are teaching the child something important about reality (such as gravity or blunt solid objects). We allow them to hurt themselves and even inflict a certain level of suffering on them to grow their understanding of the physical world and increase their character.

God is no different. Like a parent, He is more concerned with our character than our comfort. Our kids’ being mean and hateful to another child for their own gain does little to prepare them for adulthood. Likewise, our comfort here is not going to make us more like God. Our comfort here is not going to do anything good for us in eternity.

The challenge of evil and suffering from a non-believer tends to hold only if there is an inconsistency between a good God and evil. For the believer, the challenge tends to come from a personal experience that is incredibly painful. If a believer is going to spend eternity with God, it would be best for that person to become more like that God. Since man is not like God, it is good that God forms him to be that way. Since suffering is a way for God to develop a person’s character, then suffering is good. There is no incompatibility between a good God and suffering. It also follows that the suffering will develop the character to be more intimate with God in eternity.

What About Other People?

Now, I have been challenged on this response by both Christian and non-Christian. The challenge asks why other people must suffer in order for my character to be made more like God. The simple answer is that God is making them more like Him also. Their character is being molded at the same time that yours is. If God were to only develop the character of a single person per event, there would be MUCH more evil and suffering than there presently is. Imagine how many people are affected by a single sickness or loss of a job. God is not inefficient in His development of the character of people. The fact that a single event causes so many to suffer is evidence that God is minimizing the number of these events. If only one person suffered as the result of a particular event, many more of those events would have to occur to achieve the same amount of character development. God maximizes the impact of a single event so that more do not need to occur.

God’s History

I want to point out a few stories in scripture that show that God does not prevent suffering for His people. This is to show that what I have presented here is completely compatible with the Christian God. I also want to point out the attitude of those affected. This is to show those, who are going through suffering, the attitude that God’s people should have during the suffering.

The first example I wish to give is that of the three Hebrew children who refused to bow before the king’s statue. The king threatened to throw them into a furnace where they would be burned alive. Their attitude is recorded in Daniel 3:17-18 “If the God we serve exists, then He can rescue us from the furnace of blazing fire, and He can rescue us from the power of you, the king. But even if He does not rescue us, we want you as king to know that we will not serve your gods or worship the gold statue you set up.” Those familiar with the story know that the three were delivered. The attitude that they had was that they knew God had the power to deliver them and even prevent the suffering in the first place. They made clear that just because they knew that God could do not mean that He necessarily would– they were satisfied with whatever was God’s will when they obeyed Him.

For the second example, I want to look at the story specifically brought up at the beginning of this post- Job. We learn that Job lost all his family (save his wife), wealth, health, and his livelihood. His attitude is recorded in Job 1:21b “The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away. May the name of the Lord be praised”. After going through the profound discussions recorded in the book of Job, God restored him. We see countless testimonies of those who have found solace in suffering by reading Job’s story. God had a purpose for the suffering that Job went through. If the story of Job represents just a “game” and a nefarious and evil one, at that, then this evil game has had some pretty good consequences. If we are to acknowledge that God is in control and knows what He is doing (which is what Christianity affirms about God), then there was nothing evil about what happened to Job- God knew the good that would result. The preservation of Job’s story allows you to experience God’s comfort, but you have to willing to accept, as Job did, that the Lord has an ultimate plan for your suffering.

The final example I want to present is Jesus Christ Himself. Right before He was arrested to face trial and execution He prayed “Father, everything is possible for you. Please take this cup of suffering away from Me. Yet, I want your will, not mine.” (Mark 14:35) We all know that the “cup of suffering” was not taken away. Jesus was tried and crucified. His attitude was that even in the face of torture and death that the Father’s will be done. The greatest of all good was accomplished by this evil and suffering. The fact that I can even write this post to you explaining why God allows us to suffer is because of the fact that He did not withhold suffering from Jesus Christ. The suffering and death that Jesus experienced was the penalty that had to be paid so that we could even have the option to spend eternity with Him. Thus becoming more like Christ becomes important, and suffering has an ultimate purpose.

In all these examples, we see that God does not have a history of withholding suffering. He brought them through it. We also see people who knew for certain who their God is and what He is capable of. They knew that He had a purpose that goes far beyond their suffering at the time. They were willing to suffer for that purpose. Jesus was even willing to suffer for all humanity to have the option to live eternally in God’s presence and experience Him on a personal level.

Conclusion

To the atheist, I would be more likely to question God’s goodness if suffering did NOT exist in my life. I would also think that God’s use of suffering was gratuitous if fewer people were affected by the events in life. The fact that suffering does exist is powerful evidence that God exists, and the fact that a single event can have such a reach is evidence that this God is being quite care-full of how much is allowed. That care is further evidence of his love for us and desires to have a personal relationship with us. We just have to be willing to understand that the purpose of suffering is not evil, but good. When we realize this, we can understand the love behind the sacrifice that Jesus Christ made. I ask that you think carefully about this and consider dedicating your life to Jesus Christ and becoming more like Him.

To the Christian who is in much pain right now, there is much suffering that happens in all our lives. It is inevitable. I experience it; you experience it. Sometimes we will experience pain from the same event. How we deal with it depends on what we see as our purpose in life. If you believe that Christianity is true, you can take comfort in knowing that the suffering you are experiencing is to make you more patient, more humble, more loving, and much more. When these attributes characterize your heart, you will be able to experience God’s presence like never before, and you will be setting up to experience Him so much more deeply in eternity. God never desired for us to go through this life alone. That is why the Church exists. Many fellow Christians have gone through or are going through the same pain that you are. I ask that you seek these people out. Allow them to minister to you and let God comfort you through them. As Paul stated to the Romans (8:18) “I consider that the present suffering is not worth comparing to the glory that will be revealed in us”. The suffering is worth it. You just need to be willing to accept that God’s will in your experience is to make you and others around you more like Him.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2hrwlzd

October 31, 2017/by Guest

Got Karma? Misses and Misuses

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Marcia Montenegro

The Hindu word “karma” is used more and more often with a Western twist in meaning. Often people say it to mean “luck” (good or bad) or even as a gleeful expression of revenge. I myself once held a belief in karma when I was following Eastern and New Age beliefs and often thought of how someone who had wronged me would eventually suffer karma for what they had done.

Others try to justify the term karma, loosely or strictly, with the idea of consequences, as seen in Galatians 6:

“Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life” (Galatians 6:7, 8).

So, how to view “karma?” First, what is karma?

Karma and Reincarnation

Karma in Hinduism means “action,” and the law of karma refers to the consequences of action. However, although there is a karma relating to consequences of actions in the present life, the usual meaning has to do with the consequences of previous lives (reincarnation) and actions in this life that sow the seeds for consequences in future lives (if interested, see explanations on Christian site Karma2Grace and Hindu site Hinduwebsite.) Reincarnation is:

“Generally speaking, the belief that one lives many lives, returning after death to life in another body, time, and place. This belief is an essential part of Hinduism. One accumulates karma, which are the actions of a person in life, which will influence the person’s subsequent lives… In Hinduism, one can return as an animal or insect (called ‘transmigration’), but in Western views of reincarnation, one returns as a person.”[1]

Reincarnation, a doctrine of Eastern belief systems, is however opposed to Scripture:

“For it is appointed unto man to die once, and then the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27).

Penance, Forgiveness, and Karma

For the purposes of this article, the focus is on reincarnation as part of non-dual Hinduism, not dualistic Hinduism. Non-dual Hinduism is the view that there are no distinctions and all is ultimately one. This type of Hinduism is what has influenced the New Age Movement, and it is the primary Hindu spiritual influence in the West.

The consequences, in karma, are mechanical and ongoing; there is no forgiveness or way to avoid such consequences except, according to some teachings, through the specific actions of a guru or possibly by performing a ritual. Even then, while a temporary erasure has been done, karma continues and will continue in future lives.

Here is advice from a Hindu site on Prayaschitta, which is penance:

“In the broadest sense, the entire system of reincarnation is an elaborate form of penance, for we are born with the body, family, circumstances and even longevity and propensity toward disease brought about by our past actions. Prayaschitta is, however, an act of limited aim, intended only to mitigate or avoid altogether the karmaphala, “fruit of action,” of some action we have taken in this lifetime. Actions from our past lives are not considered within reach of ordinary prayaschitta. The karmas of past lives can only be assuaged or erased altogether by intense tapas or austerities under the guidance of a guru, or by the extraordinary grace of God. Manu Dharma Shastras 11.54 states, “Penances, therefore, must always be performed for the sake of purification, because those whose sins have not been expiated are born again with disgraceful marks.”[2]

Also, one must ask, on what values or standards is karma based? It is based on the values found in Hindu teachings, which are diverse and complex. Hinduism is not one monolithic religion but rather a network of wide and multifarious beliefs depending on from which particular texts, gurus, sects, schools of thought, or region of India they stem. Also, each Hindu can choose which deity they prefer as a main deity (the one god is believed to appear as numerous deities). In New Age beliefs, teachings on karma can vary according to the one teaching it.

The need for a sinless sacrifice of another to pay the penalty for sin is absent in Hinduism; if there is any penalty or consequence, it is paid by each person through karma. The only release is moksha — liberation from the cycle of death and rebirth – dependent on one’s actions and spiritual progress through many lives.

Sowing and Reaping in Galatians

What is the meaning and point of the Galatians verses about reaping what one sows?

“Every action produces an effect on the character of the actor corresponding as exactly to its motive as the fruit to the seed. If it springs from selfish desire, it stimulates the growth of evil lusts, and issues in a harvest of inward corruption. If, on the contrary, it be done in obedience to the spirit, it quickens spiritual growth, and issues eventually in a harvest of eternal life. The heart of man resembles a field in which he sows, by the mere exercise of his will, a future harvest of good or evil.”[3]

This passage in Galatians is written to Christians and is part of an exhortation as we see in the next two verses:

“Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary. So then, while we have an opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith” (Galatians 6: 9-10).

This has nothing to do with the popular notion of “what goes around comes around,” but rather that our deeds are either undertaken to gratify the flesh, that is, the fallen nature, and will end destructively, or they are done according to the power of the Holy Spirit and for God’s glory, leading to results that have eternal value in accordance with eternal life.

The contrast is between sowing to the flesh (fallen nature) and sowing to the Spirit, the flesh vs. the Holy Spirit being a common theme in Paul’s letters. “Flesh” here does not mean the body, as though the body is bad, nor is it about one’s spirit being good since it’s about the Holy Spirit. Nor is it denouncing pleasure. Rather, this is about living by the fallen nature, that is, the sinful nature, vs. living by the Holy Spirit. The results will be different depending on which way one chooses.

Karma and Christ

In Hinduism and Hindu-based New Age beliefs, the way out of karma and reincarnation must be through one’s deeds and realization of one’s true nature (which is allegedly divine), among other possible paths and complex teachings. This realization only comes after many lifetimes and is dependent on one’s own actions to reach moksha, liberation from the cycle of death and rebirth, both in Hinduism and in Buddhism.

In contrast, God tells the man that due to man’s separation from God due to sin and man’s inability to bridge that gap by his own deeds, Jesus came once for all to offer Himself on the cross to pay the penalty for sins. Through faith in Jesus, knowing that His payment makes the way to God possible, one has forgiveness of all sins and inherits eternal life.

God sent Jesus who willingly laid down His life on the cross to take the penalty for sins so that all who believe in Him have eternal life. Jesus died “once for all.” It was a final act that brings eternal results. Even if one were to hypothetically have thousands of reincarnated lives, he or she could never be good enough or do enough good things to earn salvation.

Christ and karma cannot co-exist. Karma would make Christ’s sacrifice of no import, and Christ nullifies karma.

Should Christians Use the Word Karma?

While it is certainly true that there are consequences for one’s actions and often one does “sow what one reaps” in this life, equating karma with the concepts found in Galatians of sowing and reaping, or elsewhere in Scripture, is invalid.

Moreover, using the word karma may give others the idea that the Christian agrees with the Hindu concept of karma or somehow endorses it. Using the word karma lightly may insult someone who believes in karma and thus alienates that person from hearing the truth. There is no good reason for Christians to use this word except as a platform to contrast it with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Disclaimer: The beliefs about karma and reincarnation are complex, and differ in many ways in the New Age from Hinduism. I realize what is written above are simplified explanations and I do not claim to be giving an all-encompassing summary.

Notes

[1] Christian Answers for the New Age, The Occult: Brief Explanations of Various Terms and Concepts, (accessed 10/13/2017)

[2] http://bit.ly/1Rd42Sr

[3] The Expositors Greek New Testament comments on verse 8; see this and other commentaries at The Expositors Greek New Testament

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2lnHvJE

October 29, 2017/by Guest

“Christians Are Opposed To Science!” What Do You Mean By That?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Evan Minton

In any debate or argument, it’s very important that you understand the terminology that your opponent is using and that your opponent understands the terminology that you’re using. If you don’t define your terms, you’ll just end up talking past each other and you’ll end up attacking straw men. As the philosopher, Voltaire put it: “Define your terms or we shall be like two ships passing in the night.”[1]

Often, you’ll hear atheists and anti-theists say things like “Christians don’t believe in science” or “Christians are anti-science!” or “You can believe in God or you can believe in science, but not both.” or “You can believe in The Bible or you can believe in science, but not both.” Atheists claim to be the champions of science and they deride Christians and Christianity for being opponents to science. But, in order to respond to the secularist’s claims, one has to ask a very important question: “What do you mean by that?” It’s one of the questions of The Colombo Tactic, a debate tactic talked about in Greg Koukl’s Tactics: A Game Plan For Discussing Your Christian Convictions.

What do you mean by that? What do you mean by “science”? What definition are you ascribing to that term? Because how the secularist is defining “science” will determine whether or not I agree with his claims. In my experience debating atheists on the internet and in real life, I have found that “science” can mean many different things to many different people, and when they claim “Christianity and science don’t mix” or “God and Science don’t go together” or “You can believe in The Bible or believe in science, but not both”, while all of the atheists are using the same words and are phrasing their arguments the same way, they don’t actually all mean to convey the same message.

It is the object of this blog post to look at the various definitions of “science” and talk about whether or not Christianity (and Christians by extension) are truly “Anti-Science”.

Definition 1: Science = Science Is The Only Way To Know Truth.

Some people confuse “science” with a philosophy called “scientism.” Scientism asserts that the only way to know what is true and what is not is through the scientific method. If you haven’t reached a conclusion through the scientific method, the conclusion can only be believed on blind faith or superstition. Scientism means that it can’t be known through science, it simply cannot be known.

If this is the definition of “science” that the skeptic says is incompatible with Christianity, then I would agree. Scientism and Christianity do not go hand in hand, for Christianity asserts that there are various roads to discovering the truth. For example, Romans 8:16 says that the way in which we know we are children of God is through the inner witness of The Holy Spirit. Hebrews 11:1 says “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance of things we do not see.”[2] We can know that we’re truly born again by The Holy Spirit witnessing to our hearts, telling us so. We can have confidence that God will always keep His promises by having faith in Him. Faith in Him is the evidence of what we do not see. What do we not see? His promises being fulfilled. We will see them in the future (e.g our entrance into Heaven because we placed our faith in Christ, Jesus’ return), but we don’t see them now. We trust that God will do what He says. Neither of these avenues to knowledge are through scientific means. The first is through spiritual, the second is through faith. One cannot be a Christian and believe that science is the only way to know truth.

On theological grounds, we must reject scientism. Since some atheists take scientism to be the same as science, they see a rejection of scientism as a rejection of science.

Of course, I would reject scientism even if I were not a Christian or even a theist at all. Why? Because the philosophy of scientism is logically self-refuting. A self-refuting claim is one that is refuted merely by asserting it. Such as examples would be “I can’t speak a word in English” spoken in English, or “My parents had no kids that lived” or “Everything I say is a lie”. If someone said to you “My parents had no kids that lived”, you would say “Well, that can’t be true. At least if they’re really your parents, since you’re alive.” If someone said “Everything I say is a lie”, you would know that if this statement is true, it’s false. If it’s true, at least one thing this person says is true, so not everything is a lie. But, if the statement is false, then it also isn’t true that everything he says is a lie since not everything he says is a lie. Either way, the statement cannot be affirmed without being undermined. If it’s true, it’s false, and if it’s false, it’s false.

Scientism is self-refuting in the same way. When someone says “Science is the only way to know truth”, I ask them “How did you come to that conclusion?” (another example of The Combo Tactic). How did you come to the conclusion that science is the only way to know truth? Did you come to that conclusion using the scientific method? How could the scientific method even be used to test that statement? What procedures would be involved in testing, scientifically, the claim “Truth can only be known through science”? The statement “Truth can only be known through science” is a philosophical statement, not a scientific one. It cannot be tested using the scientific method, and therefore, it collapses under its own criteria.

1: Truth can only be known through scientific testing.

2: Scientism cannot be known through scientific testing.

3: Therefore, scientism cannot be known.

For this reason alone, even atheists should reject scientism, at least if they want to remain logical. Are Christianity and Science opposites? Only if you’re using “science” as a synonym for “scientism”. But, by that definition, science and logic are opposites as well.

Definition 2: Science = An Old Earth and Darwinian Macro-Evolution

I’ve come to learn that one big reason Christians are labeled anti-science, why Christianity is seen as being undermined by science, and why belief in God and belief in science are seen as incompatible, is because many Christians reject the scientific consensus regarding the age of the universe and the validity of Darwinian macroevolution. Being anti-evolution is seen as being anti-science.

Now, first of all, there are many, many Christians who accept the various dating methods and agree that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and that the universe is around 14 billion years old.[3] There are also Christians who accept Darwin’s theory of large-scale evolution and believe that that was the process God used to bring about all of life.[4] Where I stand on this issue: I don’t know. I am definitely an old earther of some sorts.

So, even given this definition of “Science”, it would only follow that some Christians are anti-science, but certainly not all. On this definition of “science”, only a portion would be anti-science. This charge wouldn’t affect Francis Collins, Deborah Haarsma, N.T Wright, Peter Enns, or others. They would not be opposed to science under this definition of the word.

Would The Bible be opposed to science? Well, this would depend on whether concordism is true or whether accommodationism is true. Does The Bible actually intend to teach us how old the universe is and the precise method and order God brought everything into being? If The Bible’s goal isn’t to convey cosmology or biology to us, but instead used the scientific understanding of its initial recipients (ancient Jews) to get theological and moral truths across, then even if we find scientific nonsense in The Bible, that would be no grounds for disavowing biblical inerrancy or concluding that scripture isn’t inspired. So which is it, concordism or accomodationism? Richard Bushey wrote an article he wrote making the case that God never intended to teach His readers science: see “Why The Biblical Flat Earth Model Doesn’t Flatten Christianity”.

For further reading, see “Hermeneutics 101 – Part 3: Understanding The Cultural Context” and my blog post “Why Did God Write A Book?”

There are many interpretations of Genesis that are compatible with an old earth and even evolution. For a treatment of The Day-Age View, I recommend reading Hugh Ross’ “A Matter Of Days”, for The Functional Ontological Interpretation of Genesis, read John Walton’s books “The Lost World Of Genesis One” and “The Lost World Of Adam and Eve”. Deborah and Loren Haarsma’s book “Origins: Christian Perspectives On Creation, Evolution, And Intelligent Design” is also a source I’d recommend.

Is God incompatible with evolution? No. Christians have always held that God can work through natural processes as well as through miracles. If a man goes into surgery, and people pray that the surgery goes well and it does, they don’t say “Well, God didn’t do it. It was the surgeon and his skills”. They would say something like “God guided the surgeons’ hands so that they wouldn’t screw up” or, if one is a Molinist, “God placed just these surgeons in these circumstances knowing that they would perform the surgery successfully”. For some reason, a lot of Christians just don’t apply that same reasoning to evolution. Evolution no more replaces God as an explanation for the existence of the animal kingdom than a vacuum replaces a maid as the explanation for why the floor is clean. Evolution doesn’t replace God as an explanation for why life exists any more than an oven replaces a chef as the explanation for how dinner was cooked. Evolution doesn’t replace God as an explanation for life any more than a surgeon replaces Him as an explanation for why a surgery went well.

Is evolution incompatible with the epistemological justification of God’s existence? I don’t see why that would be so. Biological design arguments aren’t the only arguments for God’s existence, you know. There’s The Kalam Cosmological Argument, The Cosmic Fine-Tuning Argument, The Local Fine-Tuning Argument, The Moral Argument, The Ontological Argument, The Argument From Desire, The Argument From Science’s Doability, The Transcendental Argument, and there’s plenty of historical evidence indicating that Jesus of Nazareth died on the cross and rose from the dead (see here, here, and here). All of these arguments are, in my judgment, sound, and none of them depend on the truth or falsehood of Darwin’s theory. One can concede evolution and all of these arguments would still need dealing with.

I’d like to point out though, that just because one is opposed to a scientific theory, that doesn’t mean one is anti-science. That would be like saying that because a Christian disagrees with a particular interpretation of a passage of The Bible that he’s therefore “Anti-Bible”.

Definition 3: Science as defined As Philosophical Naturalism.

If what one means by “science” is the philosophical worldview called Naturalism (i.e nothing exists but the natural, physical world), then Christianity is definitely incompatible and opposed to “science”. There’s no such thing as a naturalistic Christianity. Naturalism rules out anything supernatural, by definition. It doesn’t allow for God, angels, or demons, and since it doesn’t allow for God, it doesn’t allow for miracles, and since it doesn’t allow for miracles, it doesn’t allow for a bodily resurrection.

Christians, Christianity, The Bible, God, all of these are anti-science if science is used as a synonym for atheism.

Definition 4 and 5: Science = (A) Knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. (B) Such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena: natural science.

This is one of the definitions that Merriam-Webster’s dictionary gives. It defines science as “such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena :natural science”[5] Definitely not opposed to this. I speak for myself and many others when I say that learning things about the universe is a good thing. I am very pro-science under this definition of the word, and many other Christians are as well. Some Christians are scientists themselves. In fact, historically, the scientists who made the most groundbreaking discoveries and ergo were remembered for generations held to the Christian worldview. Do names such as Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, Michael Faraday, Robert Boyle, and Johannes Kepler ring a bell? Modern day examples would include Francis Collins, who worked with the team that successfully mapped the human genome in its entirety. Under Marriam-Webster’s number 3, we can say that Christians are not anti-science. Christians have actually made great contributions to science.

I love learning science. I can’t get enough of it, to be honest with you. I initially dove into scientific research as part of my apologetics training (i.e to learn how to defend the Cosmological and Fine-Tuning Arguments), but as I learned more and more, I actually became interested in learning science for the sake of science itself. In fact, if I hope to some day buy all the seasons of How The Universe Works and Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s show Cosmos: A Space-Time Oddysee on DVD. I greatly enjoyed those programs.

I find the information in scientific books, journals, and TV programs fascinating. Not only that, but I consider it a form of worship. Jesus said to love God with all of our minds (Matthew 22:37). To learn how creation ticks is one way to pay this intellectual homage Jesus was talking about. When I hear scientists on TV talk about what goes on inside of a star, I cannot help but think “What an awesome God I serve! He made that!”. When I hear of astronomers describe the conditions on Saturn’s moon Titan, even if I never open my mouth, I at least inwardly praise God for making such a fascinating system. Even with evolution, If I fall off this fence I’ve been sitting on, I would say alongside Charles Kingsley, an Anglican Priest, and a friend of Darwin: “We knew of old that God was so wise that He could make all things; but behold, God is so much wiser than that, that He can make all things make themselves.”[6] I believe God loves science, and I believe it makes Him happy the more we learn about this big, beautiful world He created. When the Higgs-Bozon (a.k.a The God Particle) was discovered, I saw a meme that was captioned “‘Hey scientists, thanks for finding my particle’ – God” and although it was intended to be humorous, I personally think it reflected the truth. When Higgs first predicted that such a particle existed, I can imagine the Father turning to The Son and saying giddily “This particle We created, they’re close to finding out about it!” I like to think of it as like a father giving his children a large jig-saw puzzle, then he sits back and watches in gladness as His children piece together more and more, getting a fuller picture the more pieces they successfully fit together.

When I use the word science, I never use definitions 1-3. I always use 4 and 5: “(A) Knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. (B) Such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena: natural science.” Christians, Christianity, The Bible, God, none of these are incompatible or opposed to science by these meanings of the word. And if you’ll click the link in Footnote number 5, I think you’ll find the Christian worldview isn’t incompatible with any of the other 3 definitions Marriam-Webster gives either. It is certainly incompatible with some of the definitions secularists often ascribe to it.

Conclusion

“Christians are opposed to science!”, “God and Science and mutually exclusive”, “You can believe The Bible or science, but not both.”. To my Christian readers, when you hear these statements, you need to first understand what they mean by the word “science”. Do they mean “Scientism”? Do they mean acceptance of an old earth and evolution? Do they mean it as a synonym for atheism? Or do they use it to mean an investigation into how the universe works? Depending on what they mean by it will determine what kind of response you should give. Not getting a definition out of them will likely result in you and the atheist talking past each other. Does he mean the same thing as you do when he says the word “science”? Find out. Ask the question “What do you mean by science?”

Footnotes

[1] Or at least he’s been attributed as saying this. It is uncertain whether he ever did.

[2] I don’t believe that Hebrews 11:1 is teaching blind faith. Fideists will use the verse this way, but I really don’t think that’s what the verse is actually saying. For one thing, the context of this verse includes examples of people who had very strong evidence for God’s existence (e.g Abraham, Moses) and praises them for their great faith. Hebrews 11 is a sort of “Faith Hall Of Fame”. Faith is a synonym for trust. To have faith in God means to have trust in God. You can trust in God while having evidence for His existence. Inversely, you can have evidence for God’s existence and not trust Him at all (cf. James 2:19).

[3] Most of the Christian Apologists I’ve learned from over the years are Old Earth Creationists, such as Lee Strobel, William Lane Craig, Hugh Ross, Frank Turek, Norman Geisler, J. Warner Wallace, Sean McDowell, and Neil Mammen. While they reject evolution, they do agree that the universe and Earth are billions of years old, and would agree that young earth creationism defies sound science. For those interested in this position, I suggest Reasons.org. Also, see my blog posts on this on the “The Creation Controversy” page.

[4] These Christians call themselves Evolutionary Creationists. For those interested in investigating this position, I suggest BioLogos.org.

[5] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

[6] Charles Kingsley, The Natural Theology Of The Future, 1871

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2yXQsPo

October 29, 2017/by Guest

Dan Brown’s Origin: No God Required?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Timothy Fox

“Where do we come from?” and “Where are we going?” These are the two big questions Dan Brown explores in his latest novel, Origin (Doubleday, 2017). (Minor spoilers ahead.) This is the fifth book in the series starring Harvard professor, Robert Langdon, the most famous being The Da Vinci Code. While many of them have explored religion – mostly Christianity – his later books feature science more prominently. A major theme in this book, however, is science versus religion. Can science explain away the superstitions of religion, or even take the place of religion in people’s lives? This is the hope of computer scientist, Edmond Kirsch.

Kirsch is a vocal, New Atheist-type who would make Richard Dawkins proud. He believes he has made a discovery that will rock the major religions, answering two major questions that humanity has always pondered: “Where do we come from?” and “Where are we going?” Without getting too spoilery, Kirsch “proves” that life arose naturally on Earth without any supernatural intervention. Thus, he has squeezed God out of an explanatory gap, making his existence that much less necessary.

But that got me thinking. Suppose God really was unnecessary for the origin of life. After “Where do we come from?”, are there any other questions that science must answer to eradicate the need for God? I thought of a few:

Why is the universe here?

After Kirsch’s presentation showed that the laws of physics alone are sufficient for creating life, Professor Langdon ponders: “If the laws of physics are so powerful that they can create life… who created the laws?!” (p. 420). This question is huge. It’s one thing to explain where life came from. But what about the universe itself? Why is there something rather than nothing?[1] If life naturally arose from the primordial ooze, where did the ooze come from?

How did consciousness arise?

So Kirsch proved that life can naturally arise from non-life. But at what point in the evolutionary process did life become conscious? How does the mind form from purely naturalistic processes? What are the components of consciousness? Honestly, I think this is a far bigger (and more interesting) problem than the origin of life.

Is morality real?

On the news following Kirsh’s presentation, a viewer response reads “RELIGION CANNOT CLAIM MORALITY AS ITS OWN… I AM A GOOD PERSON BECAUSE I AM A GOOD PERSON! GOD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!” (p. 418 – emphasis and CAPS original). But if God has nothing to do with morality, then how do we define good and evil? Is there a real and objective moral standard that is binding upon all people across all time or is it merely a social construct?

Did Jesus Christ rise from the dead?

This goes beyond basic theism into Christianity. If Jesus did rise from the dead, we get a two-for-one: Christianity is true, and, thus, God exists. To kill Christianity, you must simply disprove the resurrection of Jesus Christ. So if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then:

How did the belief in the resurrection begin in Jerusalem, the same place where Jesus was publicly executed and then buried?
Why did many of Christ’s followers – including his disciples and former persecutor of Christians, Saul of Tarsus – claim to have a genuine experience of the risen Christ?
Why were these same followers willing to suffer and die for a belief they would have known was false?

Yes, Origin is just a fictional work that cannot possibly explore every question regarding God’s existence. But still, above are just a few that need to be fully explained before we can proclaim “God is dead.” Even if a real-life Edmond Kirsch can someday prove that life originated naturally on Earth, the universe still requires a First Cause that is outside of time and space. I’m highly skeptical that consciousness can arise naturally from matter. A moral law requires a Moral Lawgiver. And if Jesus Christ rose from the dead, it vindicated all of his teachings, including the authority of the Bible, the message of his followers, and, of course, the existence of God.

I’m sorry, Edmond, but God’s death has been greatly exaggerated.

Notes

[1] This is briefly addressed by a quote from Stephen Hawking: “It is not necessary to invoke God to set the universe going. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing” (p. 418). But if the universe can spontaneously create itself, why not other things, like food in my refrigerator, money in my pocket, or hair on my head?

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2z3WpuH

October 24, 2017/by Guest

Normalize Atheism Christian Parents Kids

What Christian Parents Should Learn from the Normalize Atheism Movement

Apologetics for Parents

By Natasha Crain

I recently encountered a movement underway on social media called “Normalize Atheism.” According to the website of the same name, the movement started a couple of years ago, but it seems to have picked up more speed recently. The basic idea is that atheists post a picture of themselves on social media, using the hashtag #normalizeatheism, to demonstrate that atheists are just like everyone else.

Why is that necessary? The website explains:

Even in countries where church and state are kept separate and mainstream religious practice is fairly moderate, atheists are marginalized, stigmatized, or simply ignored. And that’s a problem. Because if we want our society to be just, pluralistic, and inclusive, there needs to be space not only for the many varieties of religious believers but also for those of us who don’t believe. This isn’t an easy problem to solve…it’s a very old problem. Solving it will require changing the way atheists are perceived by the societies in which we live. And the first step toward realizing that change is reminding everyone else that we’re here. It doesn’t demand any particular political affiliation, it doesn’t necessitate the acceptance of a specific ideology. All it requires is for all of us who are able to speak up and say, ‘I’m an atheist. And I think it’s time for us to #NormalizeAtheism.’”

Here are a few examples of what people are posting:

Example 1

Example 2

Example 3

Example 4

There is, of course, nothing wrong with such a movement. People (oftentimes Christians) do stereotype atheists in unfair ways, so I can appreciate why atheists would start something like this. The reason for this post is that I believe Christian parents should learn several important things from the movement, and I wanted to share those things with you today.

Atheists are a minority, but their numbers don’t appropriately reflect their influence.

Depending on the survey you look at, and how atheism is defined, the percent of atheists in American is usually estimated to be under 10 percent. I’ve had parents ask me at speaking events why it’s so important to help our kids learn how to engage with the atheistic worldview when so few people are actually atheists. This question, however, misses the point: atheists may be a minority, but they are a vocal minority that your kids will hear from. There may be a lot more people who simply identity as “nothing in particular” on religious surveys, but they don’t organize campaigns called #NormalizeNothingInParticular. It’s not the numbers; it’s the influence that requires parents to thoughtfully engage with their kids on the atheist worldview today.

Your kids will engage with atheists from a much earlier age than you probably did.

It may be tempting to think that atheist influence is only at some kind of organized political level, but that’s simply not the case. As the Normalize Atheism campaign readily demonstrates, atheists want a much more popular-level awareness. Reaching out through social media in this way is an excellent way to promote ideas to young people. Talking with your kids about the atheistic worldview isn’t a subject to have when they become teens. They should be well aware that some people don’t believe in God and why Christians have good reason to be confident God exists from the youngest ages.

Kids must learn to distinguish between their feelings about people and the truth about those people’s beliefs.

The overriding message of the Normalize Atheism movement is that atheists are good people, just like everyone else. And if by good they mean they are people who can be nice, love others, be good citizens, and so on, they’re right! As Christians, we should never be teaching our kids that only those who love Jesus can match such a description. If we do, we’re seriously misleading them. Perhaps that sounds obvious, but I think the point has been lost on too many young people. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard teens comment that their atheist friends are “just as good of people” as their Christian friends—as if that has some implication for the truth of the Christianity. Here’s an atheist making the same claim herself:

Example 5

Kids who haven’t been raised to think deeply about the nature of truth and worldviews are spiritually vulnerable to a likeability campaign like this. They can readily confuse their positive feelings for people with a fair evaluation of the truth of those people’s beliefs: “If all these atheists are such good people, why does Christianity matter?”

The answer is obvious for kids who have learned to think about these things: Truth is what corresponds to reality and has nothing to do with who’s nice and who’s not.

Kids need to understand that there is often a difference between what atheists believe and what is logically consistent with an atheistic worldview.

An atheist recently commented on a blog post I wrote: “You have no way of knowing what I believe without talking to me.” I will never forget that comment because it raises such an important point that kids need to understand:

There is often a difference between what an individual atheist believes and what is logically consistent with an atheistic worldview.

In other words, this person was absolutely right. I don’t have any idea what they believe despite the fact they identify as an atheist. This is the case with any person. For example, someone might identify as a Christian but have non-Christian beliefs that are logically inconsistent with a Christian worldview (for example, some Christians believe in reincarnation).

Another example is in the picture I posted above. This lady says she lives her life by doing what is right. But in an atheistic worldview, there can be no objective right or wrong because there is no moral authority; moral judgments can only be a matter of opinion. Looking at the social media discussions in the Normalize Atheism campaign, there are many people who make claims inconsistent with what an atheistic world actually requires. When kids are not well-trained to understand this, they can be persuaded by beliefs that are logically incoherent.

If you’re not prepared to discuss the evidence for God’s existence with your kids, atheists will be happy to fill the role.

While the idea of Normalize Atheism sounds innocuous enough, don’t think for a moment that the only thing atheists want is to have people see them in a more positive light. Just as Christians want to share our beliefs with others, atheists want to share their beliefs as well.

They’ll let you know that atheism represents reason, logic, and science (implying theism doesn’t):

Example 6

They’ll let you know that atheism represents free-thinking (implying theists are all mindlessly indoctrinated):

Example 7

They’ll let you know that if you believe God speaks to you, you need to see a “shrink”:

Example 8

They’ll let you know that God is an imaginary friend:

Example 9

I could continue with examples all day, but you get the point. If you’re not prepared to talk with your kids about why there’s good reason to believe God exists and why the claims of all these skeptics are unfounded, your kids’ faith may well suffer. As atheism indeed is becoming more “normal,” we have a great responsibility as parents to have these discussions with our kids.

Notes

My new book, Talking with Your Kids about God, comes out in just 5 days and is a complete guide for parents to all of the points raised by skeptics in this post and so many more. It walks you step-by-step through conversations on the evidence for God’s existence, the ins and outs of claims about science and God, the logical implications of an atheistic versus theistic worldview, and much more. Click here for the full table of contents and order information!

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2h5ZPT7

October 24, 2017/by Guest

Tag Archive for: apologetics

Is An Evidence Based Belief On Shaky Grounds?

Talking with Your Kids about God w/ Natasha Crain

Why We Should Get To Know the Bible

Are You Thinking Like an Atheist?

Belief In God Is Not a Feeling

Job, Suffering, and a Game of Chess

Got Karma? Misses and Misuses

“Christians Are Opposed To Science!” What Do You Mean By That?

Dan Brown’s Origin: No God Required?

What Christian Parents Should Learn from the Normalize Atheism Movement

QUICK LINKS

FEATURED RESOURCES

SUPPORT CROSSEXAMINED