Tag Archive for: apologetics

Why Doesn't God Need a Creator

Why Doesn’t God Need a Creator

,

By Al Serrato

Christians believe that God is an infinite being who has always existed. But what “evidence” can the theist put forth in support of this claim? This is a common challenge raised by the skeptic.

When a person asks for “evidence,” the usual response is to look for things like witness statements, or documents or fingerprints left at a scene. Since no one has “evidence” relating to things outside our universe, or to a being who preceded the Big Bang, it’s a safe bet, they think, that the Christian apologist can’t come up with any “evidence.” Or is it?

Teasing out the unspoken premise in the question highlights what is at play: the challenger assumes that it is only through physical or testimonial “evidence” that we can know things. But this is simply not true. While evidence and inferences from evidence are valid ways of determining what is true, they are not the exclusive ways. For example, when I know that no circle is also a square, where is the evidence for that? Or that A = C, when told that A = B and B = C? Or that rape is always wrong. These types of knowledge – based on logic and reason or on a basic moral sense – are part of the normal functioning of every human mind. Like a computer running software, our minds come equipped with certain basic programs, such as the ability to acquire and use language. Similarly, we are born with an appreciation of game-playing and fairness. Watch a child develop and you will see these subprograms at work. You may teach them how to play the game and what’s considered fair or foul, but they already intuitively understand the importance of the game and the rules.

The mind has an additional “pre-loaded” capability that helps us better understand where we came from and who created us: the ability to conceptualize, to make sense of patterns by grouping things into categories. For example, we don’t need an exhaustive list of possible ”chairs” or ”tables” to know whether a particular item can serve in that capacity. To know if something new qualifies as ”food,” we needn’t refer to a list but can instead ask questions, such as whether the item is edible and able to provide nourishment. An exotic fruit will pass that test but an ashtray will not. When we reflect on these conceptions, we can derive actual knowledge, even in the absence of traditional “evidence.” By realizing what a square is, we “know” that a circle can never be one. By knowing that people have a right to the integrity of their bodies, we know that rape – which violates that right – is always wrong. By employing logic, we know that A = C when A and C are both equal to B.

What does this have to do with God’s origins? Just this: it is by conceptualizing what is meant by God that we can determine – that we can know – certain important things about him. When we think of God, what exactly are we thinking about? We may of course disagree on specifics, but to qualify as ”God,” we must be referring to that ultimate omnipotent being that possesses and embodies infinite perfection. Well, the skeptic protests, why does that require existence? I can imagine a unicorn but that doesn’t mean I could ever find one.

This objection helps focus the inquiry, because it requires us to think more deeply. When we think of a unicorn, we are thinking of a white horse-like animal with a horn protruding from its forehead. Such a being may once have existed or may exist sometime in the future or may never exist at all. There is nothing about the conception of a “unicorn” that requires it to actually exist; the only requirement is that if such an animal did exist, it would have the noted attributes.

But when we get back to the conception of God, what is it that we have in mind? How do we best put words to the concept of the ultimate being, a being so great that it is simply not possible to conceive of anything greater? God embodies infinite perfections. Such a being, to qualify as ”God” within our minds, must necessarily exist. If you are contemplating two beings with similar attributes and one possesses the attribute of necessary existence and the other does not, it is readily apparent that the former is the greater being. Unless we’re conceiving within our minds this image of God, we have not yet actually begun to think about God but are instead thinking of something lesser.

Anselm of Canterbury is credited with first developing this argument, the ontological argument, ten centuries ago. When you follow where reason leads in conceptualizing what God entails, you realize that he must be an infinite being who necessarily exists. He was not created. He never came into being, and will never cease existing. All that there is, or was, or ever will be is contingent him upon him for existence, while he is complete in and of himself, contingent upon nothing. This is the only rational conclusion that can be drawn from the creation of something from nothing; it is where the “evidence” leads.

That God is the source of this universe, and all that is in it, is a product of recognizing that all created things had a preceding cause, sufficient to bring them into existence. There are no known exceptions and no reason to suspect that there are any exceptions. Moving to the very beginning of the space/time continuum we occupy, there must be a source adequate to the task of creating it. Two possibilities exist: the creator of the universe was himself created, and therefore had a beginning; or he was infinite, having no beginning. If you choose the former, you haven’t gone far enough in your reasoning because the only way for a being to qualify as “God” is to possess infinite perfection. You need to keep moving back in time to frame in your mind that original being, the one who was not himself created.

The skeptic will usually persist in his challenge: why doesn’t your god need a cause? But again, to ask the question betrays the mistake in reasoning of the questioner. The error is in the premise: all things do not need a creator, only created things, or more specifically this universe and all that it encompasses. Something outside of the universe, something that is the source of all things, does not need to be created. In fact, reason leads us in the opposite direction. Since things don’t create themselves, there must be, at the very beginning, a being who always existed, who was never created and never in need of anything.

Seen in this light, the question becomes nonsensical, translating into: who created the uncreated being, or who caused the being which needed no cause? It is no different than asking what time it is on the moon. The time of day is a function of where on earth a person is; it is nonsensical when applied off planet.

Of course, none of this proves that God is the triune God of the Bible, who by the way does provide witness testimony of his eternal nature. But the skeptic will never begin to consider the truth claims of Christianity if he remains stuck doubting the existence of that God.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Does Science Disprove God? by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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 worked for 33 years. 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.

 

 

/by
¿Deben los cristianos tener fe ciega?

¿Deben los cristianos tener fe ciega? 

Por Levi Dade

Hace unos meses, me senté con un íntimo amigo mío en una de las cabinas de la cafetería de nuestra universidad. Mi amigo, al que llamaré Tom, es ateo. Tom es un auténtico buscador de la verdad, y sería cristiano si considerara que el cristianismo es “completamente cierto”. Durante nuestra conversación, terminamos discutiendo el tema de la fe. Después de averiguar sus perspectivas del mundo y sus justificaciones para ellas, dijo algo que me sorprendió.

“Al final del día, supongo que todos estamos obligados a tener fe en algo”.

Quería que me aclarara lo que quería decir con esa afirmación, así que le respondí: “¿Quieres decir fe ciega?”.

“Sí, supongo que es fe ciega”.

La diferencia entre la fe y la fe ciega

Presta atención a éstas breves líneas: hay una diferencia entre la fe y la fe ciega. Para ser claros, la fe ciega es creer algo sin razón alguna para creerlo. También puede decirse que es una creencia incuestionable en algo, aún cuando  es irracional o está equivocada.

Tom hizo una división entre fe y fe ciega. Esta división implica que la fe no siempre es ciega. Si la fe fuera inherentemente ciega, no tendría sentido hacer la división . Sin embargo, mientras lees esto, y aunque no te hayas dado cuenta, ya sabes que la fe no es inherentemente ciega.

Por ejemplo, cuando tenías siete años, ¿dudabas de que tus padres o tutores te protegieran? Probablemente no.

¿Por qué?

No sólo porque son tus padres, sino porque durante toda tu infancia, tus padres te demostraron que te protegerían. A partir de las experiencias pasadas con ellos donde siempre te dieron esta protección, te diste cuenta de que siempre tendrías fe en que constantemente te protegerían. Fíjate cómo inició: primero vino la prueba (o la razón) de que tus padres te protegerían. Después de la prueba llegó  tu fe en ellos.

Supongamos que conocerás a tus padres por primera vez al cumplir siete años. ¿Tendrías la fe para creer que te protegerán? Probablemente no. ¡Son unos desconocidos! No tendrías esa fe en ellos porque no te han demostrado que van a protegerte.

Piénsalo así: Un hombre le propone matrimonio a su novia después de que ella le ha demostrado que será una esposa buena y fiel. Al evidenciar esto, él  tendrá la fe necesaria para pedirle que sea su esposa.[1]

Cuando las pruebas (o evidencias) llevan a la persona a tener fe en algo o en alguien, se llama fe evidenciable/tangible (con “evidenciable” hacemos uso de la palabra entre paréntesis al inicio del párrafo, pero fe tangible pudiera servir de contraparte “natural” a fe ciega) (o fe informada). La fe evidenciable/tangible es lo opuesto de la fe ciega.

Como se puede ver en los ejemplos anteriores, la fe no siempre es ciega.

Esto plantea una pregunta interesante: ¿Los cristianos deben abrazar la fe ciega o la fe evidenciable/tangible?

Una mejor manera de plantear esta interrogante es preguntar: “¿Con qué tipo de fe la Escritura enseña a los cristianos a vivir?”.

La fe informada lleva a vivir en Jesús

En Juan 20:30-31, Juan explica el propósito de su Evangelio:

Y muchas otras señales hizo también Jesús en presencia de sus discípulos, que no están escritas en este libro; pero estas se han escrito para que creáis que Jesús es el Cristo, el Hijo de Dios; y para que al creer, tengáis vida en su nombre.

Juan 20:30-31 LBLA (énfasis añadido)

Las declaraciones de Juan como testigo sobre los milagros de Jesús tenían como objetivo servir de prueba de que Jesús es “el Mesías, el Hijo de Dios”. Que Jesús sea el Mesías implica que podemos poner nuestra fe en él y ” tener vida en Su nombre”.

Si debemos tener fe ciega, ¿por qué Jesús nos daría evidencias que demuestran que Él es el Mesías? Después de todo, la fe ciega afirma que la evidencia no es necesaria.

En otras palabras, Jesús no quería que la gente tuviera una fe ciega, así que proporcionó pruebas (milagros) para mostrarles quién es Él. La fe viene después de que Jesús nos muestra quién es Él. Romanos 10:17 LBLA comunica la misma idea: “Así que la fe viene del oír, y el oír, por la palabra de Cristo”.

Así como los niños desarrollan confianza en los padres que en el pasado han sido responsables dando protección y cariño, también otros pueden tener fe en Jesús después de que Él les ha mostrado quién es y además que también es el Mesías.

La fe informada nos permite compartir el por qué tenemos esperanza en Jesús

… sino santificad a Cristo como Señor en vuestros corazones, estando siempre preparados para presentar defensa ante todo el que os demande razón de la esperanza que hay en vosotros, pero hacedlo con mansedumbre y reverencia; teniendo buena conciencia, para que en aquello en que sois calumniados, sean avergonzados los que difaman vuestra buena conducta en Cristo…

1 Pedro 3:15-16 LBLA (énfasis añadido)

Aunque la fe no se menciona explícitamente en este pasaje, está claro que Pedro habla de nuestra fe cuando se refiere a la “esperanza que hay en vosotros”. El contenido nos da una idea del tipo de fe que debemos tener. No sólo sugiere tener una fe informada; ¡este versículo lo ordena!

Tenemos como encargo saber por qué tenemos fe en Jesús y de esa manera podremos compartir no sólo nuestra fe sino también la razón de nuestra fe.

Es como si Pedro sabía que decirle a alguien que “sólo tenga fe” no iba a responder mágicamente a sus preguntas o dudas, así que bajo la inspiración del Espíritu Santo, escribió el mandato de compartir la razón que hay detrás de nuestra fe. Esto supone que tenemos una razón. Así que saber por qué tenemos fe en Jesús no solo es “algo bueno”, sino que es un mandamiento el saberlo (¡incluso para propósitos prácticos y evangelísticos!).

La fe informada nos permite amar a Dios profundamente

Y amarás al Señor tu Dios con todo tu corazón, y con toda tu alma, y con toda tu mente, y con toda tu fuerza.

Marcos 12:30 LBLA (énfasis añadido)

Una vez más, se nos ordena utilizar nuestra mente como una forma de amar a Dios. Amar a Dios no sólo se origina en nuestro corazón; sino que proviene de todas las facetas de nuestra vida, incluyendo nuestra forma de pensar y razonar. Conocer a Dios intelectualmente te permite conocerlo a un nivel más profundo. Y cuando conoces a alguien con mayor profundidad, también puedes amarlo profundamente. (La traducción “deeper level” es correcta, pero repetir “nivel más profundo” tres veces en dos líneas hace que se escuche o se vea mal, así que intenté darle un sentido de progresión de “nivel más profundo” a “mayor profundidad” a “profundamente”.)

Cuando  sabemos  poco sobre Dios, ¿cómo podríamos amarle mucho? (Sé que no es lo que el autor escribió, pero intuyo que el autor busca dar un contraste, y en español los contrastes de ideas se expresan mejor con antónimos que con la negación de las palabras. En la pregunta, la traducción es correcta, pero dado que hay un contraste de ideas la palabra “expect” implica la probabilidad o certeza de algo que por el contexto es difícil que ocurra, así que usé el condicional simple para enfatizar la situación hipotética e improbable.)

En un artículo anterior titulado “Amar a Dios con la mente: cómo Dios quiere también tu cerebro”, lo explico de la siguiente forma:

En resumen, amar a Dios con la mente es permitir que la mente y el corazón trabajen juntos de manera que produzcan un conocimiento más profundo de Dios. Este conocimiento, a su vez, conduce a una relación más íntima con Dios, en la que  amamos a Dios tanto intelectual como emocionalmente.[2]

Usemos nuestro cerebro para la gloria de Dios

Basándonos sólo en estos pasajes, vemos claramente que una fe informada es bíblica. En pocas palabras, la fe bíblica es creer en algo que tiene buenas razones para proclamar/aseverar que es verdad.

Servimos a un Dios lógico (Isaías 1:18), y Él quiere que utilicemos tanto nuestro cerebro como nuestro corazón. Después de todo, Él nos creó y también a nuestro cerebro, (Quizás sería más acertado poner: Él nos creó con cerebro) así que ¿por qué no usarlo para Su gloria? Una fe (bíblica) evidenciable/tangible te permite saber por qué el cristianismo es verdadero. Conocer la verdad de nuestras creencias es importante en un mundo en el que tantas cosas intentan atraparte para que pongas tu identidad en ellas y no en Cristo.

En el libro,(No podemos hablar de “su” cuando no se ha nombrado a la persona, y como lo que a continuación se menciona es el título del libro entonces cambié “su” por “el”. Lo otro que podemos hacer es mover el nombre al inicio: J. P. Moreland en su libro […]) Love Your God with all Your Mind (Ama a tu Dios con toda tu mente), J. P. Moreland propone que las conexiones esenciales de la fe están en la razón: ” A diferencia del malentendido bíblico moderno, la fe es un poder o habilidad que actúa de acuerdo con la naturaleza del reino de Dios, una confianza en la que tenemos razones para creer que es verdad. Entendida así, vemos que la fe se construye sobre la razón”.[3]

Que todos abracemos esta fe bíblica e informada, la cual nos ayudará a permanecer firmes intelectual y espiritualmente, preservando nuestra identidad en Cristo, y manteniendo nuestros ojos fijos en Él para siempre.

Amén.

Notas

[1]  Adaptado de Frank Turek, ilustración de “creer que” en contraste con “creer en”.

[2] Levi Dade, “Loving God With Your Mind: How God Wants Your Brain Too,” The Rebelution, https://www.therebelution.com/blog/2021/06/loving-god-with-your-mind-how-god-wants-your-brain-too/

[3]  J. P. Moreland, Love Your God With all Your Mind (NavPress: Colorado Springs) 2012, 19.

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

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Levi Dade es del norte de Mississippi y cursa el tercer año de la carrera de Estudios Bíblicos y Teológicos en la Universidad Bautista Ouachita (Ouachita Baptist University). Levi escribe artículos de apología para el blog The Rebelution y para CORE Leadership, un ministerio en línea que da clases a distancia para adultos y jóvenes con el propósito de que tengan un profundo conocimiento y amor por Dios. Levi también es fotógrafo en su universidad, y emprendió un negocio de fotografía mientras estudiaba el bachillerato en el 2017 llamado Dade Photography, Es habitual encontrar a Levi leyendo algún libro, pescando en kayak, haciendo senderismo, escribiendo, tomando fotos para el libro anual escolar, o en plena disputa para decidir ¡cuál de éstas actividades debe realizar!

Fuente del blog original: https://bit.ly/3xhvoQl

Traducido por Daniela Checa Delgado

Editado por Gustavo Camarillo 

 

 

/by

Is There Hope in a Godless Society? | with Todd Herman

As the world continues to get darker, is there hope in a Godless society? What does it mean when a feminist liberal icon like Naomi Wolf starts talking about spiritual warfare and says “it’s time for intellectuals to talk about God“? Is the world starting to get so dark that even atheists and those on the extreme left are seeking out the light? Could it be that the REAL war doesn’t originate with Republicans and Democrats but spiritual dark forces?

Todd Herman was a dominant talk radio host in Seattle for eight years and was a regular fill-in for Rush Limbaugh (God rest him). In November of 2021, after being told he couldn’t say certain things on the air, Todd made the decision to take his show private to what is now ‘The Todd Herman Show‘. On this episode of ‘I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be an Atheist’, he speaks candidly with Frank about many of his experiences as a conservative talk radio host living in Seattle and how God is using these dark times to bring people on all sides of the political spectrum closer to the truth of His Word. He also cautions us on making politics our idol (should churches even talk about politics?), and why today is one of the greatest times to be a Christian. If you know God and His Word, you know that ultimate hope doesn’t come from the government or the next election cycle. It can only come from the Creator Himself.

If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.

Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

 

 

Download Transcript

 

/by
4 Ways Atheism Undermines the Scientific Enterprise

4 Ways Atheism Undermines the Scientific Enterprise

,

By Luke Nix

Introduction

Have you ever wondered if atheism is compatible with science? Not many have. In today’s culture it is commonly assumed that they are best of buddies. Many people even believe that science has done away with God and provides powerful evidence for the truth of atheism. A couple years ago I posted an article that describes six ways that atheism defeats science as a knowledge discipline, thus anyone who accepts that science can give us knowledge about reality must reject atheism as true. Today I want to discuss the more practical side of science and provide four more ways that science and atheism are incompatible.

Before I start though, I want to make a couple things clear: First, I am referring to atheism as a claim about reality not merely a belief: the affirmative claim “God does not exist in reality.” Second, since I am not merely talking about a belief but a reality (one’s beliefs can be false), I affirm that one can certainly believe that God does not exist in reality and still be quite successful as a scientist and do great work. My claim here is very narrow, and it involves the dually claimed realities that God does not exist and that science is not as chaotic as it is about to be described.

Fatalistic Events

If atheism is true, then no agency exists. This means that our bodies are merely “moist robots” that act and react to stimuli with no free will, choice or intention behind any of the actions and reactions. The implication of that is that no scientist intentionally performs “good” science or “bad” science or really has a choice to perform science at all.

There are no deserved accolades due for “good” science because what was done was merely a determined sequence of actions based upon environmental factors that the scientist had no choice in performing. There also are no reprimands due for “bad” science because what was done was merely a determined sequence of actions based upon environmental factors that the scientist also had no choice in performing.

If atheism is true, fatalism is true, and there is no intentionality. People have no free will, no choice, and are fated to do what they do, and they merely watch everything happening to them and nothing happening by them. “Science” is just a series of events that happen without a choice by anyone behind the events. Logically on the atheistic, fatalistic view of reality scientists deserve no credit or responsibility for anything that they have “accomplished” or “perpetrated”. The blind, unintentional forces of “fate” determined or forced them to do everything. In such a world no one has the ability to do otherwise, thus the idea that they deserve credit or reprimand because they made the “right” choice has no ground in an atheistic world.

Subjective Morality

Speaking of “accomplished” and “perpetrated,” when a society discards any anchor for morality (a society based on atheism), they surrender all justification for calling anything evil or wrong. Scientists may “choose” to report their findings incorrectly due to need to survive in the scientific community or to make the data appear to support a preconceived conclusion. On the atheistic view, there is not anything morally wrong with misrepresenting data because there is no objective “right” or “wrong.”

Likewise, if a scientist “discovers” something completely new that helps people in the course of the research or down the road, their work cannot be seen as morally “good” because “good” does not even exist. The same goes for the scientist who “discovers” (or the engineer who “invents”) something completely new that harms people in the course of the research or down the road. Their work cannot be considered “evil” or “wrong” since neither exist.

Whether scientists incorrectly or correctly report data or their work leads to benefit or harm, they should neither be punished nor rewarded or even condemned or commended for their respective actions because without “good” or “evil”, “right” or “wrong” having a moral value, their work and actions cannot have any moral value either.

If someone decides to punish or reward or not to punish or reward (respectively or irrespectively), they have not acted rightly or wrongly either, since “right” and “wrong” do not exist. Punishing “good” science is just as “right” as rewarding “evil” science, and rewarding “good” science is just as “wrong” as punishing “evil” science.

Interestingly enough because morality does not exist on atheism, justice, which is a concept necessarily dependent upon the existence of morality, cannot be promoted and will never be realized in the sciences (or in any other area of life, but that is another blog post for another time).

If there is no morality, then it is up to the individuals to “choose” (see the section above for the reason for the use of the quotes) what is “right” or “wrong”. One person may “choose” to punish “good” science while another “chooses” to reward it; neither is truly “right” or “wrong”; and neither are themselves worthy of reward or punishment for their recognition and related actions.

No Design, No Engineering

As mentioned above, if atheism is true, then intentionality does not exist. One of the implications of such a view is that the very concept of “design” also does not exist. “Design” requires intentionality. This means that no scientific study is designed, no scientific experiment is designed, no sequence or series of anything in science is designed. If intentionality does not exist, then nothing is designed. But that is not where it ends. If intentionality does not exist, the very concept of design is impossible.

If the very concept of design is impossible, then we have an implication that reaches beyond the discipline of science into the discipline of engineering. The study of nature often results in the reverse-engineering of its features, which then leads to new innovations. But what of such a concept if what is being “studied” is not really designed? We cannot really claim to be “reverse-engineering” anything since “engineering” implies design necessarily, which does not exist. Nothing is being “reversed.” And since intentionality does not exist, it has the same implications for the discipline of engineering, so “engineering” is not actually taking place either.

If we insist that some DNA or other biological features are truly undesigned “junk” then why study it (science), much less, try to imitate it (engineering)? Notice that I asked “why” not “how.” If atheism is true, the answer to “how” is “because scientists and engineers are fated to.” That answer explains “how”  (given fatalism) the actions and reactions that we are fated to call “science” and “engineering” take place if atheism is true. But it does not explain “why” scientists and engineers “should” study and invent or even “how” study and invention are intentionally conducted given the lack of intentionality in a fatalistic reality.

No Progress

Finally, if atheism is true, there is no objective goal or final purpose. Without an objective goal, the direction of science is not objectively established. The necessary implication of this is that multiple, divergent or even contradictory goals can be pursued (fatalistically, of course). Without an objective goal, there is no ultimate purpose in science and no way to accurately judge progress. In order to even claim that science as a knowledge discipline is making progress, we must have some objective goal by which to judge whether scientific discovery is moving towards the goal (progressing) or moving away from the goal (regressing).

Sure, a person can put forth a goal that they like (again, fatalistically), but so can multiple persons. Two persons can put forth two goals that are polar opposite of each other, but there is no concept to distinguish between which one is “progressive” or “regressive”, “good” or “evil.” Let’s also not forget that this is not limited to only one pair of polar opposite goals; numerous polar opposite pairs of goals can be in play simultaneously.

Further complicating the issue is that each goal may have multiple pathways to its accomplishment that are at odds with other pathways. There are no objective ends and there are no objective means. Alignment in purpose and in policy is impossible even in theory because there is no objective purposer if atheism is true.

This results in the necessity of “might makes right” in the sciences. If someone wants their purpose to be pursued, they must exercise their influence and power over those who either disagree or have purposes that redirect resources away from their purpose. Such an exercise is conducted fatalistically (as seen above), and objectively morality does not exist (as seen above). So it follows logically that judgment of such an exercise by a person, no matter how evil or good we are fated to feel that it is, cannot be judged nor resisted on any moral grounds. All reactions are fated, neither right nor wrong, neither good nor evil, neither progressive nor regressive…just things that happen to us, with no more significance than the event of a dust particle just now landing on my keyboard.

Conclusion

If atheism is true, the scientific enterprise is nothing more than a baseless, fatalistic, nihilistic chaos. But no one knows this because they are presupposing (in contradiction to atheism) EVERY thing that a grounded, intentional, and meaningful system requires.

The atheist scientist is borrowing from the theistic worldview at every level in order for their “chosen” profession to have any meaning whatsoever. Atheists often resist this idea and insist that they can intentionally do good, purposeful science without God. Sure, this can be done without believing in God, but it is because God exists that anyone can do so. If it were true that God does not exist, then it necessarily follows that science is chaotic, but the fact that science is not as chaotic as described above provides multiple lines of evidence that atheism is necessarily false (that, necessarily, God exists).

The very chosen profession of the atheistic scientist provides numerous foundational reasons for them to abandon their atheism. Ironically for the atheistic scientist, if the scientific enterprise is as reliable as they insist, then no results from it can be used against the knowledge of God. If God does not exist, then it necessarily follows that the scientific enterprise is an unreliable source of truth. The study of nature (science) at every level, from its foundations to its operations to its results, provides numerous evidences for the existence of God and the truth of Christianity.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Why Science Needs God by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Science Doesn’t Say Anything, Scientists Do by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Does Science Disprove God? by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.

 

Original blog: https://bit.ly/3MI5yuB 

 

/by

Hollywood Heroes That Reveal God: Wonder Woman, Captain America, and Star Wars (Part 2)

Zach Turek rejoins Frank to show how your favorite movies reveal God, and how even the Apostle Paul used the stories of his day to communicate the Gospel to non-believers. Drawing on their new book Hollywood Heroes: How Your Favorite Movies Reveal God, Frank, and Zach discuss the fact that many movie characters reveal the characteristics that make Jesus our ultimate hero. In this episode, they do a deep dive on Wonder Woman, Captain America, and the Star Wars saga, and end with surprising insights about Jesus. If you missed the first episode, be sure to check out Part 1 where they discussed Iron Man, Harry Potter, Batman, and The Lord of the Rings.

Hollywood Heroes is a great book for anyone who likes movies and is especially helpful to parents and youth leaders looking to build a modern-day bridge to the gospel. The book is also filled with apologetics and Biblical life lessons, which are taken straight from the movies even those made by non-Christians.

You can get a signed copy by Frank and Zach when placing your order through ImpactApologetics.com (while supplies last)!

If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.

Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

 

/by
What Words Tell Us About Culture

What Words Tell Us About Culture

, ,

By Scott Reynolds

What gives words meaning? Is it the author, the words themselves, the reader, or something else altogether? At different points in history all the above had a place of authority giving words their meaning. However, as the world changes and the power behind words change it causes great change in culture. Exploring the power of words is an extension of exploring the power of culture and who has the power to shape culture.

Jacques Derrida and the Postmodern Revolution

 Jacques Derrida stands at the center of the radical postmodern literary revolution. He is burdened by the idea that anyone can use a text to position authority over someone else. The idea of equality found at the table of interpretation includes more than accepting other readers who might use it for their own advantage but also includes the reader’s equality with the author and the text itself. Derrida’s criticism of literary theory includes a deconstruction of understanding. His goal was to move beyond the written text and the spoken word, and into the fabric of metaphysics, methodology, and the morals of meaning.

Three Ages of Transition in Literary Interpretation

Kevin Vanhoozer uses the work of Derrida to highlight the three ages of transition in literary interpretation. The division of his work follows the critical analysis of the three ages: the age of the author, the age of the text, and the age of the reader. Each section explores the historicity of the age, the mentality of the reader regarding truth, as well as the issues that contributed to advancing a transition away from the prima facie interpretation of objective truth or the author’s meaning found in the text. As Vanhoozer looks at Derrida’s work he is asking the reader to decide whether the meaning of a text is objectively fixed by the author or by the text itself, or whether it maintains the freedom to vary from reader to reader.

Pre-Modern, Modern, and Postmodern Periods

If the three interpretational methodology transitions are broken down historically, they seem to follow the transitions of Western society through the pre-modern, modern, and postmodern periods. The pre-modern period is defined by absolute authority. The reader had limited access to the written word and any word written carried the full weight and authority of the author. The modern period ushered in the age of enlightenment and with it an explosion in education. The quest for knowledge placed an emphasis on the reader’s exegetical skills to interpret the text. The authority no longer rested with the intentions of the author but in the educated hermeneutical methodology of the reader. The 20th century ushered in postmodern era, after two world wars, Western culture began questioning all authority. The institutions of government, marriage, the church, and education all became vulnerable to the removal of objective authority. Regarding the literary interpretation of the postmodern reader Vanhoozer states a word “interprets with a no reality principle (the way it is), only a pleasure principle (the way I want it to be).” The foundational question in the theology of literary interpretation is authority. The battle over authority is critical in how a person approaches interpretation and how they determine whose interpretation is correct.

Reformation and the Battle of Interpretation

Historically, the battle of the Reformation was in part a battle of interpretation. Luther and others questioned Papal Infallibility or the Soul Inerrancy of the Pope. The reformers rejected that the Pope had interpretational inerrancy. The interpretational transition of the Reformation saw the authority move from a single point of Soul Inerrancy to the acceptance of a new idea called Soul Competency. However, as the reformers allowed the average reader access to the Bible, they would still hold the reader to the belief of determinacy in their interpretations. Everyone was welcomed to study and work to interpret the Scriptures as long as they realized that being Soul Competent meant that you could find God’s meanings in the Scriptures. It did not mean that you were Soul Inerrant, meaning that you could wrongly interpret the Scriptures.

Calvin’s goal in interpretation, was clear; “It is the first business of an interpreter to let his author say what he does say, instead of attributing to him what we think he ought to say.” In contrast is Derrida’s “death of an author” which is a direct consequence of Nietzsche’s announcement of the death of God. The death of God means the death of absolute authority. The current state of cultural affairs has drawn an increasing number of biblical scholars to adopt and advocate strategies for translating the Bible, influenced by the work of Derrida. Derrida and his deconstructionist have correctly analyzed the postmodern culture and have declared victory by bracketing out orthodox Christian belief. They also believe that once a text is freed from the author, it can become a canvas on which a reader can exercise their own creativity. The death of the author was critical in moving from premodern to modern, and from modern to postmodern culture.

Spiritual Implications for Biblical Authority

What are the spiritual implications for removing the biblical author’s authority? “The answer is brief but massive: biblical authority is undone. The un-doers effectively strip the Bible of any stable meaning so that it cannot state a fact, issue a command, or make a promise.” The death of the author gave rise to the power of the words themselves. The transition is tame compared to the problems with postmodern philosophies; however, some believed that commentaries were being developed and could be used by anyone to push an agenda on the text. Richard Coggins feared that commentaries would become weapons of propaganda. Today, the church is the living consequences of these transitions and postmodern relativism has left the current culture in a legitimate crisis in biblical understanding.

DETERMINISM

Determinism means that a text has a definite meaning, one that can be qualified and defined. The next step down from determinacy is textuality, “where the autonomous text offers no more resources for limiting the play of meaning than does the strangulated voice of the anonymous author.” Even those modern scholars who helped refine interpretation theory as a science of the text could not stop the downward spiral of deconstruction. Eventually, the second pillar fell, and society experienced the death of the text and with it the possibility of literary knowledge.

POSTMODERN THINKING

Postmodern thinkers have deemed it unnecessary to investigate truths about the world, especially when it comes to epistemology. They believed “the light of reason is no longer needed for the growth of knowledge.”  The ideal of objective knowledge is no longer a truth to pursue but a myth to debunk. These thinkers reject objective knowledge found in a text due to bias found in a theoretical or interpretive framework: “knowledge in the postmodern world is always contextual, always perspectival, always relative to some point of view or other.”

LOGOCENTRISM

Some postmodern thinkers like Paul Ricoeur are not as radical as Derrida in their attack on logocentrism, the catchall term used to describe Western thinkers who are preoccupied with meaning, rationality, and truth. Derrida believes that having a stable point of commonality outside of language, like reason, revelation, or even Platonic ideals, feeds the traditional view of authoritative truth. He uses the name “grammatology” for a study of writing that is no longer governed by logocentrism.

POINTS OF FAILURE

Derrida’s views create a tension, which he classified as a battle between what a text wants to say and what it is systematically constrained to say. “As a deconstructionist he is able to identify points of failure in a system, points at which it is able to feign coherence only by excluding and forgetting that which it cannot assimilate, that which is ‘other’ to it.” Derrida repeatedly finds the best way to escape problems with his belief system is to simply not recognize those issues that will not assimilate into his views. Those authoritative views like objective and absolute truth found in the Scriptures are simply deemed to live outside his interpretative community. When interpretation moves from a methodology used to understanding a text to the primary purpose of the text then all authority is stripped away and only the current relevant meaning of a closed interpretative community remains.

Use of Metaphors

The use of metaphors in ancient writings has leant to the ever-evolving creation of meaning. “It is one thing to interpret metaphors, however, and quite another to interpret metaphorically.” Derrida held that there is nothing outside the text and therefore the whole world is a metaphor. Language is a collection of signs used to promote different views about the world. He believed that the “metaphoricity is the logic of contamination and the contamination of logic.” The metaphorical indeterminacy allows a reader to choose metaphors about God and his relation to the world that best fit and promote their worldview about God.

Derrida’s deconstructionist views on reason, authoritative revelation, and objective truth all stem from his radical views about authority in general. Disillusioned with authority, he states that “reason is what serves our ethico-political interest. Behind rationality lies values (ethics) and power (politics). Deconstruction is a kind of sophistic acid that strips away the layers of rhetoric that disguise values and truths.” The goal was nothing short of incoherent relativism in a world freed from oppressive authorities.

The third age of criticism he explores the transition from textuality to contextuality. “The reader is not a canvas to be molded but an active participate in developing meaning to a text based on what the reader brings to it. Those looking to deconstruct meaning, study the effects of a reader’s social, historical, and theological bents on their personal interpretation of a text. The idea of a reader-response methodology to interpretation opened the door to criticism from many conservatives. The radical reader-response critics continue to reject the traditional role of the reader and insist that the text conform to the reading instead of the reading conforming to the text.

The battle for interpretative freedom and true meaning has deep cross-cultural implications knowing that both moderns and post-moderns are claiming the high ground in the battle for literary theory. Defending the position of the author, Vanhoozer refers to the post-modern reader’s use of a text as a ventriloquist’s dummy serving as the conduit to voice their own opinion.  He recognizes that the current age of criticism is defined by egotistical entitlement that simply refuses to look to the truth found in the past but instead is committed to the unintelligible ideas of their own voice.

  Stanley Fish has declared, “The authorizing agency of interpretational authority is not the author, the text, or even the reader, but the interpretative community.” The worldview of the crowd dictates the range of what is or is not an acceptable interpretation of a text. A conservative might say, I believe it means X, (X being the traditional, authoritative interpretation), but if the culture is bent towards a different liberal view, then having the view of X is outside the range of an acceptable interpretation of the text. The implications of Fish’s conclusion is that truth is demoted from its prior status as timeless and absolute to what the mob perceives is good and acceptable in this moment. Truth, metaphysically, morally, and meaning simply becomes a label we assign to our beliefs. As along as a reader’s beliefs fit inside the acceptable worldview of the interpretative community, then any interpretation that seem right to the interpretative community at the moment or given to advance their beliefs is deemed as good and true.

Derrida’s Deconstructionism

Derrida’s deconstructionism’s underlying purpose is promoting and supporting an inconsistent ideology with the goal of removing institutional authority. As the chart shows the interpretative plurality speaks about approaching a text with different interpretative methods. The idea is that it might take multiple interpretative approaches to get a thick description of meaning out of a text. In contrast, hermeneutical pluralism maintains conflicting interpretations are viewed as equally valid. The deconstructionist represents a small, but growing, number of people who truly believe that a determinate meaning cannot be known from a text. When asked whether a determinate meaning can be determined, the majority of people think yes, even if they will not say so publicly. The power of their interpretive community and the perceived oppression by traditional institutions rallies the average reader to forsake logic and follow an inconsistent ideology.  Derrida’s criticism of literary theory includes a deconstruction of understanding.

Vanhoozer has observed how the work of orality in Rabbinical Sages to create independent and authoritative discourse outside the historical norms shows great similarities to Jacques Derrida’s deconstructionism: “Derrida attends only to the signifiers, not the signified.”  In other words, like the rabbis, Derrida is focused on someone’s speaking and has no concern for what they are saying. The social implications of Derrida’s deconstructionism can be seen in the plurality of Israel’s monotheistic culture. Thus, “The Alexandrian Therapeutae, the Yakhad of Qumran, the Pharisees, and the primitive Jesus-communities, all appear to have been conversionist associations formed to pursue a collective transformative discipline under the guidance of persuasive teachers.”  Vanhoozer promotes critical realism as a middle position between letterism (epistemological absolutism) and deconstructionism (epistemological relativism).

Pre-Deconstructionism: The Next Step?

Could Pre-Deconstructionism be the next step after post-modernism? Premodern was bound by authoritative religions, modernism is bound by scholastic academia, postmodern is bound by the individual, and pre-deconstructionism is bound by the interpretative community. Interpretative Communities could be the next phase of cultural evolution, returning words to premodern authoritative positions, this time not held by the church but multiplied by mobs of interpretative communities.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Counter Culture Christian: Is There Truth in Religion? (DVD) by Frank Turek

How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (MP3 Set), (mp4 Download Set), and (DVD Set)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Dr. Scott Reynolds earned his D.Min from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and is a Ph.D. Candidate in the Theology and Apologetics program at Liberty University. In addition to his doctoral pursuits, he has earned degrees from Troy University. Dr. Reynolds has traveled the world and has served as an archaeologist with some of the biggest names in the field. He brings a passion for biblical studies, biblical history, and an expertise in archaeological studies. Dr. Reynolds is a retired pastor and church planter. He has taught at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and now is now working archaeological digs in a pursuit of discovering the apologetic properties of archaeology. Scott and his wife Lori have two grown children, one granddaughter and a very spoiled dog.

Original blog: https://bit.ly/38nofpb

 

/by

Nihilism and Mass Shootings

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer of the Discovery Institute joins Frank to discuss the worldview contributing to the increase in shootings over the last couple of decades. What is nihilism? What do these incidents tell us about the spiritual and moral condition of our nation? All people, from atheist to Christian, are rightfully horrified by these events, but not all worldviews can account for objective evil. Why not? Where do we go from here? If God is the answer, why does He allow these terrible tragedies to occur in the first place?

Our friend Dr. Michael Brown provides a history of school shootings in America since 1999 here: When It Comes to School Shootings, America Really Has a Deeply Tragic Problem – The Stream

If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.

Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

 

/by
These Viral Pro-Choice Memes Miss the Point and Fail the Test of Logic

These Viral Pro-Choice Memes Miss the Point and Fail the Test of Logic

,

By Natasha Crain  

With the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion potentially pointing to Roe v. Wade being overturned, social media is on fire with pro-choice advocates sharing memes intended to portray abortion “rights” as necessary, important, and even morally good.

For those of us who believe intentionally killing preborn human beings is murder (the unjustified taking of innocent human life), it’s absolutely heartbreaking to see so many people passionately advocating for the right to commit such an act. In response, many Christians have taken to private social media groups to share examples of pro-choice memes and discuss how best to respond.

While it’s not necessary to respond to every post you come across (there aren’t enough hours in the day!), I’m heartened to see so many Christians wanting to address what they’re seeing. That said, I’ve noticed that many people’s responses are missing the key point of the debate as much as the memes themselves are.

As such, I wanted to write this article to respond to several viral pro-choice memes and show how to maintain focus on the core issue without getting pulled into irrelevant other subjects. But first, a critical distinction must be understood.

Distinguishing Worldview Disagreements from Logically Fallacious Red Herrings

Imagine that you come across someone posting the following on social media: “I’m an atheist. I do not believe anything exists beyond the natural world, and therefore I do not believe in the existence of objective morality. Nothing is morally right or wrong, so I’m pro-choice because I believe there’s nothing wrong with ending the life of an unborn baby.”

In this case, the pro-choice advocate is merely being consistent within their own naturalistic worldview. They believe morality is only a matter of opinion, given their view of the nature of the universe. If a Christian is pro-life as a logical outworking of their biblical worldview and an atheist is pro-choice as a logical outworking of their naturalistic worldview, the ensuing conversation isn’t so much about abortion as it is about their respective underlying worldview assumptions.

Worldview-level discussions about the nature of the universe, the nature of humanity, and the corresponding rights (or lack of rights) held by preborn humans certainly transpire in some circles. And these worldview-level questions are ultimately what the debate comes down to.

But this is rarely the level of conversation floating to the top of social media.

In fact, I’ve seen virtually no pro-choice social media posts addressing these questions in popular discourse. Rather, emotion-driven memes carry the day—memes that are nearly always logically fallacious red herrings. In other words, they distract from the real issue with points completely irrelevant to the core (worldview) question at hand:

Is it morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being?

That’s it. That’s what the debate comes down to.

For clarity, the logic behind the answer for Christians with a biblical worldview is as follows:

  1. It’s morally wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.
  2. Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings.
  3. Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.

With this in mind, let’s look at brief responses to eight of the most popular pro-choice memes circulating right now to see how to highlight the red herring and point back to the real issue. As we’ll see, they all fail to address the core question: Is it morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being?

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 1: If you really care about babies, you should be working to provide extensive government and/or business support for their lives (and their families’ lives) after birth (and for much longer).

Social media example:

If intentionally killing a preborn baby is morally wrong, whatever a person does or does not do to support a child and/or their parents does not change the morality of the action itself.

Virtually everyone, for example, would agree that rape is morally wrong. If a person opposed to rape does absolutely nothing for rape victims, we still acknowledge that their opposition to rape is the morally correct position to hold. Logically speaking, the morality of an action must be evaluated on its own basis. The core question remains: Is it morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being?

[Avoid the trap: Don’t try to prove your motivations in response to the wording “if it was about babies…” If someone wants to question your motivations, they’re unlikely to be convinced otherwise by your words. The morality of abortion has nothing to do with any individual’s motivation for holding a given position. Also, don’t start breaking down each good we should supposedly provide (formula, diapers, etc.) to show why it’s unnecessary, unfeasible, or already sufficiently provided. All you’re doing is playing into the red herring.]

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 2: Being “pro-life” means you should agree to a bundle of other social/moral positions assumed to be the best for human beings.

Social media example:

This is logically quite similar to the first meme, but with a twist that often confuses people: equivocation on the term “pro-life” (equivocation is the use of ambiguous language—typically using the same word with two different meanings).

Pro-life, in the context of the abortion debate, means that a person is opposed to abortion. Here the writer wants to make the political point that if you really care about “life,” you’ll agree with a bundle of other positions (ones they assume to be the best life-sustaining positions). But Roe v. Wade is not about a bundle of issues related to human life. This is a question of one specific human life issue.

Again, intentionally killing preborn babies is either morally wrong or it’s not. Whether someone takes a morally right or wrong position on any other issue is irrelevant to whether they’ve taken a morally right or wrong position on abortion.

[Avoid the trap: Don’t start trying to defend that you really are pro “all life,” but that being pro “all life” doesn’t translate into supporting each of the particular positions listed. If you start trying to prove your pro “all life” credentials by getting into detailed discussions on all these other issues, you’re simply playing into the red herring.]

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 3: Caring about unborn babies is easier than caring about people already born.

Social media example:

The logic here is similar to that of the first two memes, but I wanted to include it because this one is especially popular, and it has a slightly different framing: It’s a “Christian” pastor presumably chastising fellow Christians for only caring about who is easiest to advocate for. Non-Christians of course like this because the accusation is coming from one of “our own.”

But regardless of who it’s coming from and regardless of how relatively easy or uneasy it is to advocate for any particular group, the morality of actions against that group remains the same.

That’s it. Even if advocating for the preborn were the easiest thing on earth relative to advocating for other groups, it doesn’t change whether intentionally killing those babies is morally wrong or not. If we’re talking about abortion laws, that’s the question that matters.

[Avoid the trap: Don’t get caught up in showing that this pastor is progressive and doesn’t hold a biblical view. That’s true, but the source of the comment is irrelevant. Also avoid debating how easy or uneasy it is to advocate for different groups—as I’ve shown here, that too is irrelevant.]

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 4: Babies born to parents who can’t afford them, don’t want them, or otherwise are unready for them are better off being aborted.

Social media example:

The basic logic here is that it’s better to kill a preborn human than to allow that human to be born into bad circumstances, ranging from poverty to abuse. But many humans live in and always have lived in bad—often terrible—circumstances regardless of whether their parents wanted them. The pro-choice advocate would almost certainly not say that we should kill every human who lives in or will live in a set of circumstances deemed to be insufficiently pleasant. Imagine the outrage if our society started pulling toddlers out of the homes of poor families to kill them! The only difference between that scenario and the one in the meme is that the child is already born.

Again, it’s either morally wrong or it’s not to intentionally kill an innocent human being. Whether a given human’s parents want to or are able to raise that human according to certain standards has nothing to do with whether killing them is right or wrong. We wouldn’t apply that logic to humans who are already born; there’s no logical reason to apply it before birth either.

[Avoid the trap: Don’t enter into debate about how good a child’s life can be even in bad circumstances. The morality of abortion doesn’t depend on how good or bad a child’s life turns out to be. That’s another red herring.]

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 5: Men have no right to tell a woman what she should or shouldn’t do with her body.

Social media example:

This idea comes in many different meme forms, but the basic logic is that men have no right to tell a woman what she should or shouldn’t do with her body because men can’t get pregnant. (As an aside, I’m not sure how long this argument can go unchecked today given that trans activists claim trans men–biological women–can be pregnant. Will feminists declare that there really are differences between trans men and biological men and allow trans men alone to speak, given their reproductive capabilities? Only time will tell.)

Once again, this avoids the question of the morality of abortion with an emotional red herring. Our society has laws against murder because we’ve collectively agreed that it’s wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being; our laws unashamedly restrain the freedom of citizens to kill one another. It’s no more “controlling,” therefore, to have restrictions on what would-be murderers do with their bodies to kill others than it is to have restrictions on what pregnant women do with their bodies to kill others. The only relevant question is whether it’s morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being, and the morality of an action doesn’t depend on the gender of who makes the law. (As many people have pointed out, it was an all-male Supreme Court that passed Roe v. Wade in the first place, so by this logic, pro-choice people should reject that court decision as well.)

[Avoid the trap: Don’t get distracted by the claim that “conservative Christianity” is about controlling bodies. That’s just a jab at Christians. Focus on the “my body, my choice” logic, which quickly fails for the above reasons.]

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 6: No one has a right to tell a woman what she should or shouldn’t do with her body.

Social media example:

The logic here is identical to that of the last meme except it takes out the gender-specific language. Rather than “men have no right to tell women what to do with their body,” it’s “no one has a right to tell women what to do with their body.” Once again, we have all kinds of laws in society that restrict the use of one’s body to intentionally hurt or kill other humans. Abortion laws are not unique in telling someone what they can or can’t do with their body when it comes to other human lives.

The relevant question is whether it’s morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being, not whether society is in a place to tell someone what they can or cannot do with their body. We already do that in all kinds of ways.

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 7: Legally restricting abortion is classist and racist.

Social media example:

I’m always shocked that someone would make this argument, but it always comes up, so let’s look at the logic: We should keep the intentional killing of preborn human beings legal because if we don’t, certain racial and economic groups will be better able to find illegal ways to kill babies than others. In other words, poor people and people of color won’t have equal opportunity to kill.

We simply do not apply this kind of thinking in other cases—we don’t make actions legal because some groups of people are better able to skirt the law! If we did that, we’d probably have no laws at all. As a society, we work to provide equal opportunity for good not for bad.

The question, therefore, remains: Is it morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being? If it is, there’s no need to give people equal opportunity to do what’s wrong.

[Avoid the trap: Don’t go down the rabbit hole of discussing which groups of people do or do not need abortion “access”—no one needs access to a moral wrong.]

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 8: There are all kinds of bad circumstances leading women to seek abortion, so we can’t and/or shouldn’t make blanket restrictions on it.

Social media example (this is a copy and paste post that is viral around Facebook):

I’m not pro-murdering babies.

I’m pro-Becky who found out at her 20 week anatomy scan that the infant she had been so excited to bring into this world had developed without life sustaining organs.

I’m pro-Susan who was sexually assaulted on her way home from work, only to come to the horrific realization that her assailant planted his seed in her when she got a positive pregnancy test result a month later.

I’m pro-Theresa who hemorrhaged due to a placental abruption, causing her parents, spouse, and children to have to make the impossible decision on whether to save her or her unborn child.

I’m pro-little Cathy who had her innocence ripped away from her by someone she should have been able to trust and her 11 year old body isn’t mature enough to bear the consequence of that betrayal.

I’m pro-Melissa who’s working two jobs just to make ends meet and has to choose between bringing another child into poverty or feeding the children she already has because her spouse walked out on her.

I’m pro-Brittany who realizes that she is in no way financially, emotionally, or physically able to raise a child.

I’m pro-Emily who went through IVF, ending up with SIX viable implanted eggs requiring selective reduction in order to ensure the safety of her and a SAFE amount of fetuses.

I’m pro-Christina who doesn’t want to be a mother, but birth control methods sometimes fail.

I’m pro-Jessica who is FINALLY getting the strength to get away from her physically abusive spouse only to find out that she is carrying the monster’s child.

I’m pro-Vanessa who went into her confirmation appointment after YEARS of trying to conceive only to hear silence where there should be a heartbeat.

I’m pro-Lindsay who lost her virginity in her sophomore year with a broken condom and now has to choose whether to be a teenage mom or just a teenager.

I’m pro-Courtney who just found out she’s already 13 weeks along, but the egg never made it out of her fallopian tube so either she terminates the pregnancy or risks dying from internal bleeding.

You can argue and say that I’m pro-choice all you want, but the truth is:

I’m pro-life.

Their lives.

Women’s lives.

You don’t get to pick and choose which scenarios should be accepted.

Women’s rights are meant to protect ALL women, regardless of their situation!

I’ve saved this one for last because it’s like a capstone example for this article. I’ve seen so many Christians ask how to respond to this post, presumably because it looks so overwhelming. There are a dozen different types of cases given here, and the intent is clearly to confront the reader with too much to respond to. The writer wants to show that there are just too many difficult circumstances leading to a woman’s desire for abortion, so we shouldn’t make blanket restrictions; too many bad things exist that make abortion access necessary.

While the logical problems could be pointed out with each individual case (and I’ve seen people do that well), I think this is more simply and effectively dealt with by sticking with the high level logic the post is using: If difficult circumstances result in or from a human life being created, a woman needs the right to kill that preborn baby. To see the logical problem, apply that thinking to a human being already born…if difficult circumstances lead to one human wanting to kill another human, should we legalize that murder due to their difficult circumstances? As with an earlier meme, we don’t apply that logic in such cases. There’s no reason to apply it to the preborn either.

As one other logic point, to say that you’re not “pro-murdering babies” but are pro-women who want to be able to is a fallacy called distinction without difference. In other words, if you’re for women being able to kill a preborn baby, you’re “pro-(the ability to) murder babies.” Drawing a cursory distinction via word choice does not change the central issue of whether it’s morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being.

[Avoid the trap: There are certainly nuances to some of the cases listed here that could warrant further points. For example, in the case of Vanessa, the baby has already died; that’s not about abortion at all. However, most people posting this aren’t looking to get into conversation about the details. Their whole point is that there are too many considerations that warrant conversation, so we should leave the choice to women. In general, I’d recommend avoiding the trap of replying to each case and stick with the overall points of logic I described here.]

Christians are called to speak truth, but sometimes before we can even speak truth about the sanctity of life, we need to help people see the flawed logic of popular claims. Once we sweep away logical errors so we can clearly see the core question (Is it morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being?), we of course need to be prepared to make the case for life. For help in doing so, I highly recommend Scott Klusendorf’s book The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) downloadable pdf, Book, DVD Set, Mp4 Download by Frank Turek

The Case for Christian Activism MP3 Set, DVD Set, mp4 Download Set by Frank Turek

You Can’t NOT Legislate Morality mp3 by Frank Turek

Fearless Generation – Complete DVD Series, Complete mp4 Series (download) by Mike Adams, Frank Turek, and J. Warner Wallace

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Natasha Crain is a blogger, author, and national speaker who is passionate about equipping Christian parents to raise their kids with an understanding of how to make a case for and defend their faith in an increasingly secular world. She is the author of two apologetics books for parents: Talking with Your Kids about God (2017) and Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side (2016). Natasha has an MBA in marketing and statistics from UCLA and a certificate in Christian apologetics from Biola University. A former marketing executive and adjunct professor, she lives in Southern California with her husband and three children.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3MFd1uY 

 

/by
Is It Possible To Break Through Apathy?

Is It Possible To Break Through Apathy?

, ,

By Al Serrato

The biggest obstacle to most apologetics efforts is apathy. While there are indeed some ardent atheists, usually the ones who take the time to write a response to posts like these, by and large the response of the average skeptic is to figuratively throw up their hands. They usually don’t take the time to research and consider a specific truth claim that is being made, or to counter some argument with evidence to show that an argument is false or mistaken. Nor do they try to convince you that their worldview is in fact true. Instead, most skeptics I’ve dealt with have developed a comfort level regarding the “unknowability” of ultimate things. They often argue that the fact that people disagree about such things – that a range of people have differing views on the subject- is itself evidence that no one can ever know whether there is a God, what He is about, or most importantly, what He may want of us. And so, they often don’t bother to try to investigate these things for themselves.

But if the Christian worldview is correct, such apathy is itself hazardous to one’s spiritual health. Recently, I tried to make this case in a conversation with a skeptic. It went something like this:

“Let’s say this was 70 years ago, and when I saw you, you were chain smoking cigarettes with your children always nearby. I know where medical science is headed, so I tell you that you are hurting yourself, and your kids. You respond that no one can really know such things; after all, you can point to doctors who advertise cigarettes and smoke them themselves, and you feel fine when you smoke. I point to other doctors who think that it’s really bad for you. You respond, ‘See, it’s a tie, so stop bothering me. Each person believes what they were raised to believe, or what they want to believe.”

“Do you see,” I asked, “that the conflict between the doctors should not lead you to conclude that neither is right, or that the answer is not knowable? As a friend, should I keep trying to bring you back to the truth about cigarettes, or should I let you persist in believing something that is, in the end, hurting you and your loved ones?”

My friend’s response was not unexpected. It went like this:

“Have you ever noticed how so many things are bad or wrong only at certain points in a cycle? Eat eggs, don’t eat eggs; give your kids soy, soy is bad; babies should sleep on their backs, no their stomachs, no their sides, no their backs etc., etc. When my daughter was born I would put her on her back to sleep and when I left the room my mother would put her on her side and when my mother left the room my grandmother would put her on her stomach. Over time the answer comes full circle. Why go around and around with it? What I am saying is not just throw up your hands and quit; what I am saying is that I do what feels right to me and that is the best I can do. Sometimes I listen to friends (and doctors) and sometimes I don’t. I think the ‘answer’ to many of these things is unknowable.”

Fair enough. Some things are unknowable, and for some things, it doesn’t really matter. But that of course is the point of being thoughtful: deciding which is which. So, I conceded that for some things, the right answer might be “it doesn’t matter.” For example, a child might be equally safe on her side or her back. Eggs or soy might be good for you or bad, depending on your health and how much you eat.

But for other things – like smoking – it will never “come back around.” Science will never say that smoking is good. It might say that it won’t necessarily kill you, but not that it will “balance your humours” like they said 200 years ago.”

“This analogy to smoking,” I continued, “is just one of many possible examples of the way consequences are built into the nature of reality. Take another example: if I embark upon a life of crime or drug addiction, I will eventually reap what I sow and the place I find myself might not be pleasant. We have the ability to foresee possible consequences through the use of our minds and imaginations. Is it really that much of a stretch to consider that this life will end at some point and to give some thought to what may await? Take my drugs example one step further – since you’re young and healthy, you might be able to abuse drugs for quite some time without being harmed. You might presently be indifferent to whether using drugs is a good or bad idea. But how smart a move would it be for you to say that you really don’t care what effect it will have on you in twenty years? Looking down the road to the consequence of our choices is something we all really need to do.”

“So,” I concluded, “the trick is, which is this? Are questions of eternal life like laying a child on her side, or are they more like smoking with my kids in the room or abusing drugs? I hope you see the answer matters. If you were smoking ten hours a day with your kids present, you would be harming them. Getting the right answer on that would matter. Getting the right answer on your relationship with God also matters, both to you and to the people you influence.”

I don’t think I persuaded her. As with smoking, not everyone bothers to read the warning label.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

What is God Like? Look to the Heavens by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Why Doesn’t God Intervene More? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek

Two Miracles You Take With You Everywhere You Go by Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

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 worked for 33 years. 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.

 

 

 

 

/by

The Top 20 Discoveries About Jesus Outside the Bible

What do we know about Jesus and the story of Jesus from outside the Bible? Much more than you might think! Archaeologist Dr. Titus Kennedy joins Frank to reveal the Top 20 discoveries about Jesus from outside the Bible.

Here they are:

  1. The place and nature of his birth.
  2. The murderous nature of Herod.
  3. The synagogue where Jesus taught in his adopted hometown—Capernaum.
  4. Peter’s house in Capernaum.
  5. The pool of Bethesda.
  6. The pool of Siloam.
  7. The nature of the town of Bethany where Jesus raised Lazarus—Leper colony, “the place of Lazarus”, tomb that matches John 11:38.
  8. The temple place of the trumpeting.
  9. The Caiaphas ossuary (also the Miriam Ossuary—granddaughter of Caiaphus)
  10. The James ossuary.
  11. The gates of Hell.
  12. The miracles of Jesus—he’s admitted as a miracle worker even by non-Christian sources.
  13. The fearful nature of Pilate—Why was Pilate afraid of upsetting the Jews? Archaeological evidence of Pilate includes coins, a ring, an inscription, and ancient writers).
  14. The nature and place of burial and resurrection: Tomb of the Shroud (nature of the burial), Church of the Holy Sepulcher, place of the burial and resurrection
  15. Nazareth inscription.
  16. Crucifixion—archaeology, writings (Acts of Pilate).
  17. Christ the magician cup.
  18. The murderous nature of Herod Agrippa I.
  19. The early spread of Christianity and the belief in the Resurrection.
  20. The graffiti found in Rome.

Due to time constraints, we only were able to discuss the first 15 of these. But Frank and Titus kept recording! To see the remaining five, join our new CrossExamined Community which is a private online forum where believers can interact with us and one another without the fear of being canceled. After the program will be posted there.

To learn much more, get Dr. Kennedy’s excellent new book, Excavating the Evidence for Jesus: The Archaeology and History of Christ and the Gospels.

If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.

Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

 

/by