apologetics Archives - Page 75 of 138

Tag Archive for: apologetics

Does The Cambrian Explosion Disprove Darwinism?

2. Does God Exist?, Philosophy of Science

In The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin argued that “all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from someone primordial form.”¹ Darwin suggested that this primordial life form gradually developed into new life forms, which subsequently developed more life forms, eventually producing all the complex life forms we see today.

In short, Darwin asserted that all life descended from a common ancestor. And starting from that original ancestor, he believed nature selected the fittest species which would survive, reproduce, and last for generations. At the same time, nature would sift out the weaker species.

Darwin famously pictured the history of life as a tree. The first life form was the trunk, and all subsequent life forms are the branches. He was certain that the progression of life takes no sudden leaps, but evolves gradually with small-scale variations.

There was one small problem, though. When Darwin proposed his theory, some of the leading paleontologists rejected his theory based on the fossil record. More specifically, they didn’t believe Darwin’s theory could be reconciled with the Cambrian Explosion.

The Cambrian Explosion

The Cambrian Explosion refers to the abrupt appearance of animal life forms in the geological strata without any trace of prior transitional fossils. During this phenomenon, most of the major animal phyla appear in the strata in a geological blink of an eye.

Darwin was aware of the Cambrian Explosion. He noted, “If my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest [Cambrian] stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the [Cambrian] age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures.”² Meaning, if he’s right, we should find not just a few missing links, but innumerable links preceding the Cambrian era.

After all, Darwin adamantly declared that his theory could take no sudden leaps. He knew that large-scale variations inevitably resulted in deformity or death. Louis Agassiz, the leading paleontologist of Darwin’s day, put it this way: “It is a matter of fact that extreme variations finally degenerate or become sterile; like monstrosities, they die out.”³

Yet these Cambrian animals seemingly came out of nowhere. Of our twenty-seven different phyla — or macro-level animal classifications — at least twenty of them appear in the geological strata suddenly, not gradually as Darwin’s theory demands.⁴ Hence the name “Cambrian Explosion.”

So how did Darwin respond to this dilemma? He acknowledged, “To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer… The case at present must maintain inexplicable, and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”⁵

Darwin, however, was confident that future discoveries would vindicate his theory. Future geological discoveries have since come. Yet these discoveries continue to present fatal objections to his theory.

The Tree Turned Upside Down

Darwin’s tree of life suggests that small-scale differences among species would precede large-scale differences, eventually resulting in different phyla categories altogether. That is to say, as time progressed, and the branches formed, wholesale diversity would result among living species. Phyla categories would only emerge after lower classifications of animals — like species, orders, and families — evolved so much as to warrant macro-level distinctions.

Richard Dawkins put it this way: “What had been distinct species within one genus become, in the fullness of time, distinct genera within one family. Later, families will be found to have diverged to the point where taxonomists prefer to call them orders, then classes, then phyla.”⁶

Yet, the Cambrian Explosion turns this pattern on its head. Instead of species leading to families, orders, and eventually phyla, the Cambrian Explosion presents phyla first, followed by lower-level diversifications (microevolution).

The Burgess Shale, located along the Canadian Rockies and perhaps the most significant Cambrian dig in North America with more than a hundred thousand fossil discoveries, confirms this upside-down model. Stephen Meyer notes, “the large differences in form between the first animals appeared suddenly in the Burgess Shale, and the appearance of such disparity arose before, not after, the diversification of many representatives of lower taxonomic categories within each higher category, designating a new body plan.”⁷

Additionally, the Maotianshan Shale of southern China further confirms the upside-down model. Again, this site does not show the gradual emergence of species progressing toward the diversity of phyla. Rather, it shows full-scale diversity of phyla with subsequent diversification among the species.⁸

The Common Objection By Darwinists

Darwinists typically respond by suggesting that the older, Pre-Cambrian layers could not have preserved the transitional fossils. And they usually suggest one of two reasons. Either the fossils themselves were too small or soft to have fossilized, or the quality of the sedimentary rock was not conducive for preserving fossils.

Neither of these claims, though, holds muster. First, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that older sedimentary rocks have fossilized both small and soft organisms. In several places around the world, Pre-Cambrian rocks have fossilized single-celled algae and other eukaryotes.⁹ Further discoveries in Western Australia show Pre-Cambrian rocks preserved fossilized bacteria of various kinds.

The Maotianshan Shale also preserved a great variety of Pre-Cambrian soft-bodied organism. Archeologist J. Y. Chen found several animals lacking exoskeletons, including corals, sponges, jellyfish, and worms. Chen and his colleague Paul Chien even discovered sponge embryos.

If the sedimentary rock can preserve soft-celled embryos, surely it could preserve the ancestors of the Cambrian animals. It should also be noted that many paleontologists call into question the claim that the ancestors of these hard-shelled animals would have been soft since the hard parts are necessary to protect their soft parts. In other words, the ancestors of these hard-shelled animals would have required a hard-shell to survive in nature. So, the soft-bodied hypothesis is far from certain. Be that as it may, the data still suggests that soft-bodied animals should have fossilized.

Conclusions From The Cambrian Explosion

Darwinism still dominates the biological landscape. But I believe the Cambrian Explosion gives us reason to pump the breaks.

As I’ve studied the Darwinian model, it seems to me that the strongest argument in favor of it is the similarity of genetic information across all living species. Meaning, the closeness of DNA and RNA suggests we all share a common ancestor. While this could be true, it’s also true that similarities in genes could suggest a common designer. For example, when one purchases a set of pots and pans, they all look similar despite their different sizes and shapes. The similarities of the handles and types of metal demonstrate not that they evolved from a common ancestor but that they share a common designer.

Meaning, the genetic similarities among living species is up for interpretation. It’s speculation at best. But the fossil record — especially the Cambrian Explosion — presents us with hard data that is difficult to square with Darwinism. Instead of slow, gradual variations, we see sudden leaps of full-bodied animals without any trace of transitional fossils below.

Darwin knew the Cambrian Explosion didn’t support his theory. But he hoped that future geological discoveries would vindicate him. The Burgess and Maotianshan Shale discoveries, however, create an even larger problem than he realized. For these reasons, I believe we have good grounds to doubt Darwinian evolution.

Jeff Hester Debates William Lane Craig On The Topic “Is Belief In God Rational In A Scientific Age?”

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Wintery Knight

I was very excited to see a recent debate by Christian philosopher William Lane Craig against atheist astronomer Jeff Hester. When I summarize a debate, I do a fair, objective summary if the atheist is intelligent and informed, as with Peter Millican, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, or Austin Dacey. But the following summary is rated VS for Very Snarky, and you’ll soon see why.

The debate itself starts at 29 minutes:

The audio is very poor.

Dr. Craig’s opening speech

Dr. Craig went first, and he presented four arguments, as well as the ontological argument, which I won’t summarize or discuss. He later added another argument for theism from the existence of the universe that does not require an origin of the universe.

A1. Counter-examples

Theists who are elite scientists cannot be “irrational,” for example Allan Sandage, Gustav Tammann, George Ellis, Don Page, Christopher Isham

A2. Kalam cosmological argument

Whatever begins to exist requires a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe requires a cause.

A3. Fine-tuning of the universe to permit complex, intelligent life

The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to physical necessity, chance, or design.
It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
Therefore it is due to design.

A4. Moral argument

If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Therefore, God exists.

Dr. Hester’s opening speech

Dr. Hester went second and presented two arguments, which both committed the genetic fallacy, a logical fallacy that makes the arguments have no force.

Hester starts his opening speech by asserting that Albert Einstein was irrational because he denied quantum mechanics.

Hester explains that he became an atheist at 15. This would have been before the evidence for the origin of the universe became widespread before we had very many examples of fine-tuning before the discovery that the origin of life problem is a problem of the origin of complex, specified information, etc. What kind of reasons can a 15-year-old child have for becoming an atheist? It’s hard to say, but I would suspect that they were psychological. Children often desire autonomy from moral authorities. They want to be free to pursue pleasure. They don’t want to be thought of as superstitious and morally straight by their non-religious peers.

Later on in the debate, Hester volunteers that he hated his father because his father professed to be a Christian, but he was focused on his career and making money. In the absence of any arguments for atheism, it’s reasonable to speculate that Hester became an atheist for psychological reasons. And as we’ll see, just like the typical 15-year-old child, he has no rational basis for atheism. What’s astonishing is how he continues to hold to the atheism of his teens when it has been falsified over and over by scientific discoveries in the years since.

Dr. Craig’s deductive arguments do have premises that reach a conclusion through the laws of logic. On the contrary, he just asserts that God exists as his conclusion, and then says that this assertion is the best explanation of a gap in our scientific knowledge. Some of the gaps in our scientific knowledge he uses in his arguments are: 1) he doesn’t understand why the Sun moves through the sky, so God exists, 2) he doesn’t understand why the wind blows, so God exists.

What counts as “rational” are things that have not been disproved. The progress of science has shown that the universe did not need a cause in order to begin to exist, and also there is no cosmic fine-tuning.

A1. The success of evolution in the software industry proves that there is no God.

All hardware and software are developed using genetic algorithms that exactly match Darwinian processes. All the major computer companies like Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, etc. are just generating products using mutation and selection to evolve products over long periods of time. If you look over a typical software engineering degree, it’s all about Darwinian evolution, and nothing about design patterns, object-oriented design, etc.

This widespread use of evolution in the software industry undermines all of the arguments for God’s existence. Evolution caused the origin of the universe. Evolution explains why the universe is fine-tuned for life. Evolution, which requires replication already be in place in order to work, explains the origin of the first self-replicating organism.

A2. Theist’s view of the world is just a result of peer pressure from their tribes.

All of Dr. Craig’s logical arguments supported by scientific evidence don’t matter, because he got them from a primitive tribe of Christians that existed 2000 years ago. Everyone gets their view of origins, morality, meaning in life, death, etc. from their tribes. Except for me, I’m getting my beliefs from reason and evidence because I’m a smart atheist. I don’t have an atheist tribe in the university that would sanction me if I disagreed with nonsense like homosexuality is 100% genetic, transgenderism, man-made catastrophic global warming, fully naturalistic evolution, aliens seeded the Earth with life, infanticide is moral, socialism works, overpopulation will cause mass starvation, nuclear winter, etc. Also, my argument isn’t the genetic fallacy at all, because smart atheists don’t commit elementary logical fallacies that even a first-year philosophy student would know.

A3. Our brains evolved, so our rational faculties are unreliable, so God does not exist.

The logical reasoning that Dr. Craig uses to argue for theism are all nonsense, because human minds just have an illusion of consciousness, an illusion of rationality, and an illusion of free will. Everything Dr. Craig says is just deluded nonsense caused by chemicals in his brain. He has cognitive biases the undermine all his logical arguments and scientific evidence. He just invented an imaginary friend with superpowers. Except me, I’m a smart atheist, so I actually have real consciousness, real reasoning powers, and no cognitive biases. Also, my argument isn’t the genetic fallacy at all, because my arguments would not get an F in a first-year philosophy course.

Discussion

I’m not going to summarize everything in the discussion, or the question and answer time. I’m just going to list out some of the more interesting points.

Dr. Craig asks him how it is that he has managed to escape these biases from tribalism, projection, etc. He talks about how brave and noble atheist rebels are. The moderator asks him the same question. He repeats how brave and noble atheist rebels are.

Dr. Hester is asked whether he affirms a causeless beginning of the universe or an eternal universe. He replies he states that the universe came into being without a cause because causality doesn’t apply to the beginning of the universe. He also asserts with the explanation that Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin have undermined the kalam cosmological argument, mentioning a web site.

Dr. Craig replied to this phantom argument after the debate on Facebook:

Speaking of which, although I haven’t had time to consult the website mentioned by Dr. Hester concerning Guth and Vilenkin on the kalam cosmological argument, I know the work of these two gentlemen well enough to predict what one will find there. Since neither one is yet a theist (so much, by the way, for the dreaded confirmation bias!), they have to reject at least one of the premises of the kalam cosmological argument.

Guth wants to deny premiss (2) The universe began to exist–for which Vilenkin has rebuked him. Guth would avoid the implications of their theorem by holding our hope for the Carroll-Chen model, which denies the single condition of the BGV theorem. This gambit is, however, unsuccessful, since the Carroll-Chen model does so only by positing a reversal of the arrow of time at some point in the finite past. This is not only highly non-physical but fails to avert the universe’s beginning since that time-reversed, mirror universe is no sense in our past. The model really postulates two different universes with a common beginning.

So Vilenkin is forced to deny premiss (1) Whatever begins to exists has a cause. He says that if the positive energy associated with matter exactly counterbalances the negative energy associated with gravity, then the net sum of the energy is zero, and so the conservation of energy is not violated if the universe pops into being from nothing! But this is like saying that if your assets exactly balance your debts, then your net worth is zero, and so there does not need to be a cause of your financial situation! As Christopher Isham points out, there still needs to be “ontic seeding” in order to create positive and negative energy in the first place, even if on balance, their sum is zero.

Dr. Hester is asked how he explains the evidence for fine-tuning. He literally says that “Life is fine-tuned for the Universe,” i.e., that evolution will create living beings regardless of the laws of physics, constants, etc. For example, he thinks that in a universe with a weaker strong force, which would have only hydrogen atoms, evolution would still evolve life. And in a universe that recollapses in a hot fireball, and never forms stars or planets, evolution would produce life. Physicist Luke Barnes, who was commenting on the YouTube chat for the video, said this:

“Life is fine-tuned for the Universe” – complete ignorance of the field. Read a book.

Hester tries to cite Jeremy England to try to argue for life appearing regardless of what the laws of physics are. Barnes comments:

Jeremy England’s work supports no such claim.

Hester appealed to the multiverse, which faces numerous theoretical and observational difficulties. For example, the multiverse models have to have some mechanism to spawn different universes, but these mechanisms themselves require fine-tuning, as Robin Collins argues. And the multiverse is falsified observationally by the Boltzmann brain problem. It was so ironic that Hester claimed to be so committed to testing theories. The multiverse theory cannot be tested experimentally and must be accepted on faith.

Dr. Hester is asked how he grounds morality on atheism. He says there are no objective moral values and duties. He instead lists off a bunch of Christian beliefs which he thinks are objectively wrong. Even his statements about these moral issues are misinformed. For example, he asserts that homosexuality is causally determined by biology, but this is contradicted by identical twin studies that have a rate of 20-40% where both twins are gay.

Dr. Hester is asked about free will, which is required in order to make moral choices. He denies the existence of a free will, which undermines his earlier statements about morality. Morality is only possible if humans can make free choices to act in accordance with a moral standard. So, he claims that Christians are immoral, then he claims that they have no freedom to act other than they do.

Dr. Hester also volunteered that his father believed in the prosperity gospel, and tithed in order to be rewarded with money by God. Dr. Craig immediately says, “no wonder you’re in rebellion against Christianity.” Indeed.

Dr. Hester is asked about his view that human beings are unable to unable to perceive the world objectively. How is he able to perceive the world objectively, when all of the rest of us are unable to? His response is that he is just smarter than everyone else because his ideas have never been falsified by testing.

Scoring the debate

Dr. Craig’s five arguments went unrefuted. Hester’s argument about genetic algorithms was ludicrous to anyone who understands software engineering. His arguments about tribalism and unreliable mental faculties were self-refuting and committed the genetic fallacy. At several points, Hester denied mainstream science in favor of untested and untestable speculations. It was the worst defeat of atheism I have ever witnessed. He was uninformed and arrogant. He didn’t know what he was talking about, and he tried to resort to speculative, mystical bullshit to cover up his failure to meet Dr. Craig’s challenge.

No, Dan Barker. Covid-19 Doesn’t Disprove God

Atheism, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

Not one to let a good crisis go to waste, former minister and atheist activist Dan Barker tells us that the coronavirus proves that the Christian God doesn’t exist. Why? Because God promises to answer prayer. People have prayed for COVID-19 to stop. The virus continues to spread and people continue to die. Therefore Christianity must be false. Here’s Barker in his own words:

The Christian god makes a crystal-clear pledge: “I will answer your prayers.”

Jesus stated boldly: “All things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.”(Matthew 21:22) There is no ambiguity here. “All things” means “all things.” He even clarified: “Even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,’ it will be done.”

Jesus, who said “I and the Father are one,” confirmed this in many other passages: “So I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.” — Mark 11:24

Barker multiplies many other prayer promises from the Four Gospels. Then he goes on:

The claim is indisputable. The omnipotent and omnibenevolent Christian god promises to answer “everyone who asks,” “all things,” “whatever you ask for in prayer.” If a believing Christian prays, then “it will be done for you,” “you shall receive,” “it will be yours,” “I will do it.”

There is no more solid promise in scripture.

The Christian god vows to answer prayer not with “Yes, No, or Wait,” as some apologists claim. He promises an unequivocal “Yes.”

Can Prayer Alone Fix Everything?

Barker is right about one thing. No passage in Scripture says ‘yes’ ‘no’ or ‘wait.’ But notice that Barker only emphasizes the ‘whatever you ask’ part in these verses. But he conveniently says nothing about the ‘believe that you receive it’ portions.

According to Barker’s strange reading of these texts, if we ask God for anything, it should immediately be performed. But that’s not how any of this works. Jesus didn’t indiscriminately heal anyone and everyone in the Gospels. We read in Mark 6:1-6 that Jesus could barely heal anyone in his hometown, Nazareth. Why? Mark says it was because of their unbelief. While in Nazareth, he went on to say in Luke 4:23-27 that there were plenty of lepers in Israel during the time of Elisha, but it was only Naaman the Syrian who was healed.

Repeatedly throughout the Gospels, Jesus healed individuals in response to their faith. See Mark 5:34, Luke 17:19, Luke 18:42, Matthew 8:13, Matthew 15:28 for just a few samples. Faith then must play a major factor. No one in the Gospels approached Jesus and said, “Hey Jesus. While you’re healing people, why not heal Israel of all their sicknesses?”

This would’ve convinced the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the High Priest, Pilate, Herod, and so forth. But that’s not the way God chose to operate. It is unlikely to have turned them into true worshipers but opportunists. And he’s not going to override his own word or his own divine nature. He expects people to respond in persistent, heartfelt faith.

It’s interesting that repeatedly in the Gospels, Jesus would command people to not tell of the miracles they experienced. (Mark 7:31-37, 9:2-9, Luke 5:12-15, 8:49-56). He also didn’t perform signs when the Pharisees and scribes demanded one. (Matthew 12:38-41) God gives enough evidence for those who want to believe can, but leaves enough ambiguity for those who want to go their own way can do so.

Barker continues:

Multitudes of Christians have been fervently praying. The Jesuits have asked Jesus to “Heal those who are sick with the virus.” The Christian relief organization World Vision is asking Almighty God to “keep this new coronavirus from continuing to spread.” The Southern Baptists are entreating “Lord, you are the Great Physician, so we pray for healing for the victims of COVID-19.” President Trump’s spiritual adviser Paula White said: “I believe in the same way if we call on God Almighty to divinely intervene just as He does so many times, that the plague can be stopped.”

So why are thousands continuing to succumb indiscriminately to the coronavirus? The tragic deaths include devout believers, as well as ministers, priests, and bishops. They are beseeching their Lord for protection, but the impudent virus, no respecter of persons, is recklessly cavorting around the planet oblivious to their beliefs.

Prayer Isn’t A Cure-All And Jesus Never Said That It Was

All this shows is that, at best, the Jesuits, World Vision, the Southern Baptists, etc. are praying unscripturally. Receiving answers to prayer, more often than not, is a matter between the individual and God. There’s nothing wrong with asking God to intervene for others, but I don’t think these leaders are expecting this pandemic to miraculously stop in its tracks, independently from God using people.

I can’t pray for God to keep my entire city free from COVID-19 anymore than I can pray for God to stop every traffic accident, cure every cancer, every heart disease, every stroke, every influenza, and every case of diabetes. You get the idea.

If God allowed that, we would live in a consequence-free world where God was orchestrating tens of thousands of miracles each day. My prayers cannot necessarily sober up every drunk driver, cause every person to make healthy choices, or keep college students from congregating on Florida beaches during spring break, or prevent some Chinese people from eating bats (or acting irresponsibly in a lab) or prevent the World Health Organization from initially advising against closing Chinese borders.

Because we live in a world where natural laws work in predictable ways, diseases can spread, and accidents can happen. Solomon was right when he wrote, “When a man’s folly brings his way to ruin, his heart rages against the LORD.” (Proverbs 19:3)

Is The Coronavirus A Judgment From God?

So is this virus a judgment from God? Barker points out that some Christian ministers have said that it is.

Rev. Ralph Drollinger, the evangelical pastor who conducts bible study at the White House for President Trump’s cabinet, blames the coronavirus on sin: “Whenever an individual or corporate group of individuals violate the inviolate precepts of God’s Word, he, she, they or the institution will suffer the respective consequences,” he wrote. “Most assuredly America is facing this form of God’s judgment.”

Some Christians preach that prayer is contingent. Natural disasters are actually punishments from God, they proclaim. He doesn’t answer prayer at the moment because America has turned its back on him.

Now, I haven’t looked into Drollinger said in context. But we all have seen ministers get on TV and blame people for disasters. And these Christian leaders are an embarrassment to me and many other believers. Barker would be rightly appalled. Notice that Jesus dealt with a similar situation in the Gospels:

Now there was some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.

(Luke 13:1-5)

Jesus And The Problem Of Suffering

I’m sure this isn’t going to be popular, but Jesus didn’t say that tragedies befall people because they were worse sinners than anyone. But He said they were sinners nonetheless and unless we repent, we’ll likewise perish. The wages of sin is death, but God’s gift is eternal life for those who trust in Jesus. (Romans 6:23)

DA Carson’s commentary on Luke 13:1-5 is so insightful that I’ll quote it here at length:

First, Jesus does not assume that those who suffered under Pilate, or those who were killed in the collapse of the tower, did not deserve their fate. Indeed, the fact that he can tell those contemporaries that unless they repent they too will perish shows that Jesus assumes that all death is in one way or another the result of sin, and therefore deserved.

Second, Jesus does insist that death by such means is no evidence whatsoever that those who suffer in this way are any more wicked than those who escape such a fate. The assumption seems to be that all deserve to die. If some die under a barbarous governor, and others in a tragic accident, it is not more than they deserve. But that does not mean that others deserve any less. Rather, the implication is that it is only God’s mercy that has kept them alive. There is certainly no moral superiority on their part.

Third, Jesus treats wars and natural disasters not as agenda items in a discussion of the mysterious ways of God, but as incentives to repentance. It is as if he is saying that God uses disaster as a megaphone to call attention to our guilt and destination, to the imminence of his righteous judgment if he sees no repentance. This is an argument developed at great length in Amos 4. Disaster is a call to repentance. Jesus might have added (as he does elsewhere) that peace and tranquility, which we do not deserve, show us God’s goodness and forbearance.

It is a mark of our lostness that we invert these two. We think we deserve the times of blessing and prosperity, and that the times of war and disaster are not only unfair but come perilously close to calling into question God’s goodness or his power—even, perhaps, his very existence. Jesus simply did not see it that way.

Bingo. Barker goes on to say that God is the ‘most unpleasant character in all fiction’ but it seems like Barker is upset that God judges sin. It’s as if Barker thinks God should wink at people living like Canaanites and never punish anyone. But according to Barker, God should prove himself by instantaneously healing every person on the planet on demand, or else we should conclude He isn’t real!

CS Lewis right when he wrote, “What would really satisfy us would be a God who said of anything we happened to like doing, ‘What does it matter so long as they are contented?’ We want, in fact, not so much a Father in Heaven as a grandfather in heaven — a senile benevolence who, as they say, ‘liked to see young people enjoying themselves,’ and whose plan for the universe was simply that it might be truly said at the end of each day, ‘a good time was had by all.”

Jesus Is Still In The Healing Business

No, suffering and death are in the world because of sin. Jesus said disasters are a reminder of this, and unless we repent, we’ll also perish. And yet, Jesus still goes about “doing good and healing all those that are oppressed by the devil” in response to faith. (Acts 10:38) Barker says God isn’t healing anyone during this pandemic. But just ask this Georgia man, who claims God healed him of COVID-19. Or this woman that was given up for dead. Even the doctors remarked that something miraculous happened.

I personally know a person in my congregation whose 80-year father was in a nursing home that contracted the disease. Their dad was made completely well within a short time after prayer was made. Or what would Barker say to all the healings documented by Craig Keener’s scholarly two-volume work Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts?

So no, Barker is wrong. The coronavirus isn’t “virulent enough to single-handedly kill the Christian God.” As a former pastor, he should know that he is twisting scripture and using the tragedy to stand on his favorite soapbox.

8 Things Christian Parents Should Consider Before Sending Kids Back to Public or Private School This Fall

Apologetics for Parents

By Natasha Crain

This is going to be a very long post, so I’ll cut to the chase:

My husband and I decided back in January that we were going to begin homeschooling our twins for middle school this fall…weeks before we had any idea that the coronavirus existed and that it would lead to everyone schooling at home this spring!

I guess we were unintentionally ahead of the “curve” on this. (Get it? Curve? Coronavirus? Hello?)

This decision was the product of a long period of consideration, during which I did a ton of research, thinking, and learning about educational choices. I came to the conclusion that far more Christian parents should consider homeschooling if they would be able to do it.

Note that I said consider. This is not a black and white subject, and there are many, many family-specific factors involved in an educational choice. I do not think homeschooling is the best for every family. I also realize many parents are not in a position to do it due to health, finances, or other issues. But if it’s at least a possibility, I think every Christian parent should give thought to it.

With the pandemic suddenly sending your kids home, there’s no time like the present to spend time thinking about your educational choices before the fall. Many families will decide to continue homeschooling, and if it’s a possibility for you, I hope this post will provide helpful points to ponder. (If you’re not interested in my personal decision, just skip the first two sections.)

My Family’s Educational Backstory

When it was time for my twins to attend preschool, I spent many hours researching all the programs in the area to find the one I thought sounded “best” based on a host of factors I had researched. It turned out to be a fine little program, but by the end of the year, I felt like there was so much more I wanted them to learn before they went to Kindergarten. I decided to homeschool them for pre-K in order to give them a better academic boost.

For a year, we had a wonderful time of flexible days filled with fun learning experiences and rapid learning. We finished Kindergarten, first grade, and second-grade reading curricula in just a few months—while schooling very minimally each day and leaving much more time for play than in traditional school.

I loved it.

They loved it.

Yet, it never occurred to me to consider homeschooling for their “real” learning years (I saw pre-K as totally different since it was optional). After all, traditional school was what I believed to be “normal.” It was what I knew. It was what I experienced growing up. Most importantly, it was what I expected their lives to look like.

We enrolled the twins in a local private Christian school that was warm and inviting, known for solid academics, and taught from a distinctly Christian worldview. They have now attended that school for six years, and we have genuinely cherished our experience there.

At the same time, as they entered 5^th grade this year, I was struck by the realization that they would be starting middle school next year—and this milestone made me really reflect on our educational choices to date and for the future.

Looking back on their elementary years, which are quickly coming to a close, I felt a certain sadness. At first, I thought those feelings were the normal feelings of a mom seeing her kids close a sweet chapter in their lives.

But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that I lamented a certain loss of time with them.

Every day, my kids have spent 6+ hours at school, where someone else was getting to see them bloom in their understanding of the world and who they were becoming as people. Sure, I had them in the morning briefly and then from 3 PM until bedtime (8:30 PM), but that amounted to about half of their weekday lives being spent somewhere else. Once they started sports, we were driving around in the evenings to baseball and soccer fields, and we had even less time together. I’m an extremely intentional parent, and I’ve always been cognizant of making the most of our togetherness, but when the opportunities for togetherness became the nooks and crannies of the average day rather than the focus, something in my thinking began to shift.

More specifically, I felt regret that I hadn’t given more consideration to homeschooling from the beginning.

Note that I didn’t say I regretted not homeschooling. There have been many wonderful things about my kids’ educational experience at their private school—some of which would not have been replicated if I had homeschooled. But I wondered if I would have chosen a different path had I not so simply seen traditional school as the default option when there wasn’t some kind of special reason to do something else.

This realization made me decide that I would give serious thought to both continued private school and homeschooling as my twins approached a natural transition point with middle school—I didn’t want the same kind of regret in 3 years. And after months of very deep consideration, I decided in January that I would become a homeschooler this fall.

Be Mindful of What You Default To

Perhaps my most important take away from months of research, talking with other parents, and thinking about educational choices is that many Christian parents—myself included until now—don’t give enough consideration to the decision of public school vs. private school vs. homeschool. We tend to have our “default” path in mind and go with it. But there are a lot of reasons why our default idea may not be what’s best for our kids.

For me personally, some of the top reasons I’m choosing homeschool over private Christian school (aside from regaining precious time with my kids) include:

I want to optimize my kids’ academic pace: One of my twins longs to move faster in school and is continually bored by the pace. The other gets things very quickly when I explain it but gets distracted easily in the classroom setting. I am confident both of them will flourish when I set the pace for their individual needs.
I want to pick the curricula best for my kids’ learning: There are SO MANY curriculum options for homeschoolers. It’s overwhelming, but at the same time, it’s a beautiful thing to have this kind of freedom to customize your child’s learning experience. Additionally, you can choose curricula produced from a Christian worldview where desired.
I want my son to regain a love of learning: My son, frankly, has come to hate school. At the same time, he loves to learn at home when it’s something he cares about. This is very common with boys, especially, from what I’ve read. With homeschool, we can tailor his projects to areas of his passion so he can love learning again (an outcome that’s hugely important to me) without the “baggage” of what he hated about school.
I want to reclaim my kids’ free time: Homeschooling takes less time than traditional schooling because so many of the classroom inefficiencies are removed (in middle school, that’s often 2+ hours per day less than in traditional school). If you reclaim 2 hours per day for your child to enjoy play and pursuits of passion, that’s 10 hours per week and 520 hours per year! That’s a meaningful difference in a child’s life.
I want to pour into my kids spiritually throughout the school day: With homeschool, you can easily integrate a Christian worldview throughout all of your child’s subjects, and at a far deeper level than happens in Christian schools. I’ve created my own subject that my twins and I have named BLAW: Bible, Logic, Apologetics, and Worldview. Each day we’ll focus on one letter from the acronym. (I’m super excited to use Talking with Your Kids about Jesus for our first apologetics curriculum!) Yes, our family has had these conversations for years before our homeschool decision. But the opportunity to make this part of their whole education delights me.

There are many other benefits of homeschooling that I’m not listing here. These are simply the ones that have driven my own decision. But it’s not just the benefits of homeschooling that lead me to say other Christian parents should at least give it great thought. It’s also concerns around both public and private schools. The following are four of the most significant ones I see for each.

4 Considerations for Public Schools Families

Living in a “great school district” means little.

This is perhaps the most common reason I’ve seen Christian parents give for keeping kids in public school. I’ve heard it from friends who have left our private school (we live in one of those “great” school districts), and I’ve seen it in many online conversations between parents. But here’s the question we need to ask: What, exactly, makes a public school district “great”? And are those factors the ones that should drive our educational choices?

For most parents, the “great school district” factor means that there are strong academics, typically as measured by test scores, as well as abundant additional offerings (music, art, etc.). But this doesn’t take into account the daily impact of a secular curriculum.

Make no mistake: Curriculum is rarely worldview neutral.

Chances are, you’ll find the math curriculum to not have overtones of any particular worldview (though I’ve seen examples where a math book has questionable word problems).

But history? Here in California, the history books are literally being rewritten to frame the past in terms of the progressive agenda. This is happening across the country as well. Your child’s whole view of history will look different than what you might expect. Here’s a picture from a 1^st grade history book in California. [Of course, there is no critical thinking about the definition of rights, where rights ultimately would come from, why we should celebrate these rights but not the rights of people to marry multiple partners, etc. It’s all just assumed.]

Science? The naturalistic assumptions of an undirected, purposeless universe flow through to every science subject (Earth science, astronomy, life sciences, and physical sciences).

Literature? Most schools are replacing the classics with reading material aimed at indoctrinating kids in a progressive agenda. The recommended reading lists are often filled with books you would never choose for your own kids if you had the opportunity to read them—profanity, adult themes, and progressive views are commonplace. Yes, you could see that as a teaching opportunity to some degree, but that requires you to read everything your kids read and set aside the time to have those conversations consistently. Most parents I know don’t do that. And if you don’t, your child will just hear whatever the teacher and other students say.

Health? I’ll talk about this in my next point.

I could write a whole book on all the ways the secular curriculum teaches a child every day to see the universe differently than you do as a Christian family. These are just a few quick points. If your child remains in public school, it is crucial to be HIGHLY involved in reading what your kids read so you can proactively have conversations about a Christian worldview relative to what they are learning.

The problems are not just with sex ed, and therefore, you can’t just opt-out of subjects you don’t want your kids to hear about.

It’s a giant misconception that the only thing Christian parents really need to battle in a public school is the sex-ed program, as should be clear from my prior point. But let’s talk about the sex stuff specifically. Many parents think they can just opt out of the graphic sexual education happening at younger and younger ages in schools, and their kids won’t be exposed to it. While there may be parts you can opt-out of, schools have strategically moved much content into the “health” subject, which is required. It’s the ultimate switcheroo! If schools can’t force all they want into the optional subject, they’ll just move it into a related required one. And what they are teaching at each age is frankly shocking.

One parent shared the following in a group of concerned families I’m part of online (edited for typos):

My daughter is in 7th grade and she is attending a health class which is one of required classes at school. I expected that she could learn basic reproductive body system, symptoms, signs of adolescent, and important health issues thru the health class. However, I was so shocked after listening to my daughter regarding the health class. The health class includes sex education and several guest speakers were invited and teaching the students. The guest speakers are still visiting the health class. My daughter asked me, “Mom, what is oral sex?” I got shocked…the guest speaker explained that oral sex is mouth to penis, mouth to vagina, but my daughter could not imagine or understand why the words “mouth” and “penis” are connected. And, the guest speaker brought some strange stuff. It looks like rubber latex, and then the speaker explained that sex partners put the latex into their private parts and then they can kiss or lick it…and the latex has flavor and scent to make their sex more excited. One of male students asked the speaker, “If I am allergic to the flavor, what can I do?” The guest speaker replied, “You can get other flavors, such as at Target. There are many different kinds flavors there.

The guest speaker went on to say that there is no age limit to get an abortion, so if any students want one, they can get a pill to do it without a parent’s consent.

Again, there would be NO WAY to opt-out of this. The parents weren’t even informed in advance. Similar stories happen every day throughout the US.

Making educational choices based on experiences with individual teachers or schools is not a good long term strategy.

When I’ve had conversations with people about the impact of the curriculum in public schools, one common reply is that they are lucky because the teachers at their school are Christians, or that their teachers would never teach this stuff, or that their school hasn’t gone off the deep end. This is not a good reason to stay where you are. Teachers and administrators turn over all the time, and you could easily end up with someone who won’t be the buffer you hoped would be there. Additionally, a Christian teacher teaching a secular curriculum with the types of issues I already outlined can only do so much to compensate.

Chances are, your kids are not able to be the “salt and light” you would hope them to be.

Many families feel that if all Christians pull out of public schools, there won’t be anyone left to be “salt and light.” Given the breadth and depth of challenges, however, I personally think it’s unreasonable to think that any kid can publicly counter the secular thinking pervasive across subjects. Sure, they can invite friends to church, share the Gospel, and behave in a way that glorifies God, …and those things are all very important. But every family must weigh the reality and extent of those opportunities happening with the reality of how the curricula and peer influences are affecting them.

4 Considerations for Private Christian School Families

Given all that I just said about public school issues for Christians, it would be tempting to suggest that everyone should run to a Christian school if they can afford it. But I wouldn’t necessarily say that. Here are four things to consider.

Christian schools vary greatly in quality, both academically and spiritually.

Just as two people who both call themselves Christians can have very different understandings of what that means, two schools that call themselves Christian can as well. There are Christian schools that are weak academically but strong in teaching the Christian worldview. There are others that are strong academically but could hardly be called Christian. Some are weak in both areas, and some are strong in both areas.

Never pick a Christian school just because it’s an alternative to public school.

It’s critical to really evaluate what the school offers to see if it’s strong both academically and spiritually. If you find a good one that you can afford, you may avoid some of the most serious issues around public schools, and that is absolutely worth doing. (Read on for why I say may avoid.)

Many Christian schools use a secular curriculum.

In many Christian schools, the “Christian” part reflects the fact that teachers sign a statement of faith, there is a weekly chapel, teachers pray with the kids, and there’s a Bible class. Teachers also work to make “faith connections” to the subjects taught. These are all very wonderful things, and I’ve appreciated every aspect of them while having our kids at a Christian school. But parents should be aware of the curriculum choices a Christian school makes, especially for middle and high school. In many cases, they use secular textbooks and expect teachers to compensate in the class by talking about the subject from a Christian perspective. Many teachers are simply not equipped themselves with this kind of understanding in order to fully counter what secular curricula teaches. You end up with a tug of war between worldviews of the text and teacher. This could be beneficial to the student if done very well, but that completely depends on the teacher’s knowledge and motivation.

If you’re considering a Christian school, ask many questions about curriculum choices at the various grade levels.

Teachers vary greatly in how they incorporate faith into the classroom.

We’ve had teachers who prayed multiple times with the kids throughout the day and teachers who didn’t at all. We’ve had teachers who naturally brought up great connections to the Bible across subjects and some who only talked about faith during Bible time. We’ve had teachers who explained the historical and literary context of monthly Bible verses and some who just asked the kids to come up with a skit for whatever they thought it meant. You get the idea. In most Christian schools, there is little standardization across the classrooms because the teachers all come from such different places in their own spiritual life (even if they’re all Christians, they’ve been Christians for different amounts of time and are at different places in their knowledge and walk).

In short, if you send your kids to a Christian school, don’t think for a minute that that education will replace what you should be doing for discipleship. It won’t, and it shouldn’t.

Kids at Christian schools are often not that different from kids at public schools.

Sometimes parents think that they’ll get rid of the worst peer influences from public school if they go private, and sometimes that is correct. But it’s important to know that people send their kids to a Christian school for all kinds of reasons, and it’s often not because they’re passionate about their kids having a Christian worldview. Sometimes they just want a smaller class size. Sometimes their kids had trouble socially in one school and needed an alternative. Sometimes it’s just the closest school. The kids in Christian schools won’t all be committed Christians because the families won’t all be. But even if the families were, kids will be kids. There will be plenty of mean kids, cliques, kids who watch stuff you wouldn’t allow, and so on. Don’t assume private school is a catch-all solution for negative peer influences.

While I think homeschool is a vastly under-considered choice for Christian parents, there are many families for whom public or Christian school will be the best decision. My purpose here was certainly not to convince everyone to homeschool. But whatever you decide for the fall, be thoughtful about it. Don’t default. Our kids’ education is too important to just do whatever we assumed we always would. The world has changed too much.

Principles to Keep in Mind When Evaluating COVID-19 Conspiracy Theories

Podcast

Podcast: Play in new window

J. Warner Wallace guest hosts for Dr. Frank Turek and describes several principles to help evaluate COVID-19 Conspiracy theories based on his casework as a cold-case detective.

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!

Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google

Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

May 16, 2020/by Frank Turek

There’s More Than One Way To “Trust The Science”

Philosophy of Science, Theology and Christian Apologetics

I have made the case before that scientism is a dangerous belief system. And the COVID-19 Pandemic has done nothing but prove the point. In their response to the virus, many in power exhort us to “trust the science.” Listen to the doctors. Their wisdom should guide the trajectory of our collective futures. But accepting that view greatly depends on your understanding of what science is … and whose science you’re trusting. The truth is that science never provides answers to anything. Scientists do. And that means we not only have to know what branch of science they’re representing, we also have to trust the scientists’ judgment. Our leaders can make decisions using science as a tool. But we accept those decisions on other grounds. That’s because science is not the arbiter of anything. People are. We can’t just “trust the science.” We have to know how our leaders are using evidence, logic, and moral reasoning to reach their science-based conclusions.

Science -vs- Scientists

My point is that there is a vast difference between what science is … and what scientists say. The scientific data about this disease can tell us how to identify its DNA makeup, how it attacks our bodies, how transmissible it is, how long it lasts, how deadly it is, and how to create a vaccine to combat it. We can use that data to evaluate the threat the virus poses and generate statistical analyses from it. The science describes the physical and biological facts about COVID-19.

But scientists interpret that data. They analyze the statistics and suggesting measures to combat it. And those scientists have biases and opinions they bring to the table. Let me offer an example of what I mean.

The Scientists We Trust

During this pandemic, there is perhaps no one who we are being asked to trust more than Doctor Anthony Fauci. And let me be clear. I don’t envy his position or question his credentials. Fauci is a highly educated immunologist. He’s a brilliant man, probably the most qualified person in America to be in the position he holds. But he has also made some public policy statements about the pandemic.

When asked about restarting sporting events, for instance:

“The best way to perhaps begin baseball on TV — say, around July 4 — would be to get players tested and put them in hotels. Keep them very well surveilled … have them tested, like every week. Buy a gazillion tests. And make sure they don’t wind up infecting each other or their family.’”

So, Doctor Fauci endorses the continuous surveillance and monitoring of U.S. citizens. But there’s more.

As it pertains to social interaction during the crisis, Fauci was asked:

Interviewer: “If you’re swiping on a dating [hook-up] app like Tinder … or Grindr [its LGBTQ alternative], and you match with someone that you think is hot, and you’re just kind of like, ‘Maybe it’s fine if this one stranger comes over.’ What do you say to that person?”

Fauci: “You know, that’s tough … Because that’s what’s called relative risk … If you’re willing to take a risk — and you know, everybody has their own tolerance for risks — you could figure out if you want to meet somebody …”

Complicated Answers

Whatever you think of Doctor Fauci’s positions on the Bill of Rights or “relative risk,” one thing is clear. Neither of his answers has anything to do with a need to “trust the science.”

Fauci’s answers are a perfect example of the intersection of ideas that are in play. He is willing to accept the medical and moral risk of a hook-up, but not the risk of human suffering due to an economic collapse. The point is that these things are complicated, and not just because the science is complicated. The reality is that we are not only living with the opinions and biases of different scientists. We are also dealing with the intersection of different kinds of science.

Economics is a Science

Much has been written and said about the economic impact of shutting the world down for this virus. One Yale study shows that rising unemployment causes higher death rates. Another study reveals a link between unemployment and suicide. These are not hypothetical outcomes. The human suffering that will result from this shutdown may be more threatening than the virus itself.

If you’re a Christian, don’t be lured into denying this. And don’t accept the notion that to do so is to value your retirement account more than you value human life. As my friend, Scott Klusendorf argues persuasively, that is a false choice:

“Absent important qualifiers, ‘life over profits’ is moralistic reductionism masquerading as biblical ethics. Seen holistically, ‘profits’ are not just about money. Rather, wrapped up in our economic considerations are clusters of intrinsic goods, such as educating our children, providing for our families, giving to charity, building up our marriages, and pursuing Christian fellowship — all of which contribute to the common good.”

Political Science

On April 15, 2020, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy banned religious services in his state. Fifteen people were arrested as a result. It doesn’t take much thought to understand that this directly impacts both the right to assemble and the religious liberty that are guaranteed by the U. S. Constitution. When he was pressed on this issue, Murphy responded:

“I wasn’t thinking of the Bill of Rights when we did this … The science says people have to stay away from each other.” New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy

For those of us who value the Bill of Rights and the Constitution that enumerates them, this is not just an academic triviality. The whole point of those rights is that the government does not create them. God does. Our government exists primarily to protect them. And when it fails to do so, tyranny is the result.

If you have any doubts about the importance of that dichotomy, look at history. Tyranny crushes the human spirit. Liberty allows it to flourish. History is littered with the wreckage to human life that occurs when the powerful engage in the former.

Sociology is Science

Free market economics works because it is grounded in human nature. We are social beings. And we are meant to interact. Shutting off that aspect of what it means to be human also has devastating effects. When we are prohibited from interacting with other humans, it damages our souls. Anger and irritability run rampant. People are frustrated and short-tempered. Suicides increase.

There is a reason solitary confinement is considered such an awful punishment, even for the worst of criminals. And there are reasons infants deprived of human contact suffer long-term mental health effects or even death.

Defining Science

The dictionary defines science as, “a branch study … that gives systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.” It comes from the Latin word scientia, which means “knowledge.” And that may be where the corruption of our thought about it began. Before the scientific revolution that supposedly led to our “Enlightenment,” there was another branch of science that no one talks about these days. It’s a branch of knowledge that is the key to understanding every other branch.

Theology.

The Queen of the Sciences

They used to call Theology the “Queen of the Sciences” for a reason. Theology identifies the Creator and sustainer of all things. But it does more than that. It makes the case that the mind of God is the basis for truth and reason. And that means His character undergirds every other scientific discipline.

How so?

All matter, mind, power, and morality have their foundation in the nature of God. And we are made in His image. So, it follows that our ability to reason and create are reflections of God’s character. Knowing that changes the way we understand everything else. In the doctrine of the Trinity and the eternal relationship between the Persons of the Godhead, we have the basis for love itself. It’s the model for all human relationships. And that means it is foundational to how we understand community, sacrifice, and cooperation.

If you want to have a robust view of chemistry, biology, anatomy, anthropology, psychology, sociology — you name the discipline — you must understand that theology ties them all together.

Today it sounds absurd to call theology a “science.” But that’s not because we’ve found something wrong with theology. It’s because we have accepted a corrupted and truncated view of science itself. We’ve limited it to matter, energy, space, and time. But we’ve lost our souls and spirits in the process.

Holistic Science

Today, we’ve bought the lie that our study of the physical world is the only way to know things. But there are other ways to acquire knowledge. And each of them includes reason and rationality. It is human beings who practice science every day, whether they think of themselves as scientists or not.

Yes, we need to respect the scientific data. But data doesn’t make decisions. People do. Those people must analyze the data within a holistic view of the world — a view that incorporates all of what it means to be human into the solutions to our problems. Medicine and immunology are not the only important disciplines in play. We need discernment. And that means including everything from our basic human nature to our interpersonal relationships to the makeup of our social fabric in the decision-making process.

“Trust the science” is an empty slogan. When you hear it you should ask, “Which one?” And realize you are listening to someone who holds to a sterilized view of the world.

The Redefinition of Love—Resulting From the Loss of Truth

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Rich Hoyer

Most people agree that we should love one another. But what does it mean to love others?

Love can’t mean what our culture says it means. It can’t be untethered from a transcendent moral standard (i.e., God’s word and natural Law) and left to be defined subjectively by our feelings, to be molded and fashioned into whatever shape current societal trends bend it. The average person in the US today is a Popular Secularist[1] and has accepted the Popular Secularist definition of love. When most people speak of love today, to speak of “loving others” means something like, “I want you to have whatever you want; to exist in whatever state you think will make you happy.” Love is now defined in terms of the core Popular Secularist values of comfort and happiness rather than by the traditional values of goodness and truth. Thus, in today’s culture, to be unloving or hateful is to stand in the way of a lifestyle choice of another which that person thinks will bring him happiness and satisfaction, even to tell someone that what they want is “wrong” in some way and to suggest that they should deny themselves of certain wants and desires. That’s what it means to be “unloving” in our Popular Secularist culture today.

When the concept of knowable moral Truth (a standard of right/wrong and good/evil which originates from beyond mankind and beyond societal opinion) is rejected by a culture, there is nothing by which to authoritatively measure our wants and desires. It becomes impossible to say, “My desire for this person is wrong,” or “My desire to do this is bad for me and for society.” All that is left is for people and society to voice their opinions. Yet, many in our society don’t act like their definition of love is opinion. Some even seek to impose their opinion on those who disagree with the dominant societal view even though there is no solid philosophical foundation to justify such action. Society is still left to talk about concepts like love, but the traditional definition of love which joins love tightly to Truth is lost.

Thus, love becomes like a boat that is untethered from its moorings, left to drift here and thereby the wind and waves of societal fads.

Yet love and Truth go hand-in-hand. Without Truth, that which is claimed to be love is a counterfeit—much like what happens when a person mistakes infatuation for love. Love for another must include a desire for that which is good in the life of the other. More specifically, to love someone is to work to bring about that which is good in the life of another. Yet the only way to measure “the good” is to have a standard that originates from a source beyond society’s opinion by which we can examine the choices put forward. Thankfully, we do have a true measuring stick to measure the good in the form of God’s revelation given to us through the Bible and through natural Law.

Christians should know what love is and what it looks like. We shouldn’t be deceived into accepting the cultural definition of love that is grounded in feelings rather than Truth. In fact, we can learn a lot about love simply by looking at the assumptions at play in the conversation when Jesus answered a Pharisee’s question in Matthew 22:36, “What is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus’ answer is found in verse 37-40:

Matthew 22:37-40 (NIV)
³⁷ Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’
³⁸ This is the first and greatest commandment.
³⁹ And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
⁴⁰ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Jesus said that to love God and to love others as yourself are the greatest commandments, the highest responsibility of man. It’s at this point that the Popular Secularist might agree to say, “Yes, LOVE is the greatest value! See, even Jesus said so. You Christians should be more loving of people. You should affirm them and not criticize their lifestyle choices and beliefs just because they are different than yours.” Sadly, we are seeing more and more Christians affirming immoral lifestyle choices in the name of being more inclusive, affirming, and loving—even in the spirit of the Love of Christ Himself!

Yet those who adopt such a stance fail to consider the context as well as WHAT WAS ASSUMED by the Pharisee’s question and by Jesus’ answer. Both assumed that moral truth CAN BE KNOWN. Both were basing their definition of love, not on subjective feelings, but on the clear revelation of moral Truth originating from God Himself. After all, the question was, “What is the greatest commandment in the Law?” We must ask the question, “To which Law are they both referring?” The answer, of course, is the Law that was given by God to the people of Israel! And from where did that Law originate? From God! In other words, if you want to love God and love others, you must do the things detailed in God’s Law given to Israel.[2] As Jesus said in verse 40, “All of God’s law is designed to help you love God and love others” (my paraphrase). This is not a subjective concept of love, but one that is based on the clear ability to access and to know God’s revelation to man. In short to love God and to love man is to obey the Law of God.

That very revelation to man is what the now dominant Popular Secularist worldview denies. According to Popular Secularism, God may or may not exist, but we certainly can’t definitively say “who” God is, much less what God wants. Thus, the concept of love is left to float about and be defined by whatever wind and wave of doctrine the current version of society pushes. Love becomes like a boat detached from its moorings floating aimlessly this way and that.

While it may not surprise us when non-Christians such as Popular Secularists adopt this viewpoint, it should surprise us when professing Christians adopt this viewpoint. It is partially because many Christians don’t know the Scriptures because they don’t read the Bible, that they are easily led astray by this “wind and wave” of false doctrine that is born from the Popular Secularist worldview. Some professing Christians, I would dare say, are really Popular Secularists at heart even though they profess to believe in Jesus. Their actions and attitudes, just like those of everyone else, flow out of their deepest convictions, which align more closely to the culture at large rather than Christianity.

Yet as Christians, if we truly are Christians, we must accept the teachings of the Bible, the words of Jesus Christ Himself, rather than the convictions of our current culture. We must measure everything we see and hear by the measuring stick of God’s revelation to us. If we fail to do so, we will not be transformed into the image of Christ and will instead conform to false notions of all sorts of things—including distortions of fundamental concepts, even love.

Notes

[1] Popular Secularism is the dominant worldview in the West today. Popular Secularism holds the following assumptions about reality:

God may or may not exist.
1. If God does exist, no one knows which God is true.
2. No one can rightly say one religion is right and another wrong.
3. To make such claims is intolerant.
As such, no one can claim to know what God wants mankind to do to the exclusion of the claims of others.
1. Thus no religious book (the Bible, the Koran, etc…) can rightly claim to be the word of God.
2. Each book carries the same weight, but less weight than the wisdom of elite educational progressive knowledge today.
Morality is probably real but has more to do with the survival of society rather than the pleasure of God.
1. It’s undeniable that “evil” is real.
2. Yet since we don’t know if God is real or who he is, no one can rightly say that someone’s actions are objectively wrong unless the majority of society agrees.
3. Thus, morality is a construction of society rather than a product of God’s revelation to us.
Comfort and happiness are the highest human considerations.
1. Humans should work to make sure that everyone is comfortable and happy.
2. Anything that denies comfort and happiness should be avoided and possibly forbidden.
Economic considerations should always be held in higher regard than religious claims.
1. Public policy/laws should be decided by considering whether something will provide more money for society rather than based upon “religious” claims about morality.
2. As a contemporary example: If legalized gaming with bring added revenue to a city to alleviate budget shortages, that knowledge should be considered more important than religious claims that added gambling opportunities are not “good” for society.
3. “The good” is defined in economic, sexual, and environmental terms.
(Near) total sexual freedom is something to which everyone is entitled.
1. Homosexuality, Transgenderism, sex outside of marriage, are all legitimate lifestyle choices as people should have the right to do what they want.
2. Only those sexual activities that “harm” others are wrong.
3. A growing number of Popular Secularists believe that each person should be entitled to freedom from being offended, including silencing dissenting voices.
Ignorance and the abuse caused by “the rich” are mankind’s two main problems.
1. If we educate people, many of the world’s evils and inequities will disappear.
2. Governments also need to pursue income redistribution to bring about economic justice.
3. If all would cooperate, we could usher in near utopian conditions, and life would improve for everyone.
No one knows what happens when we die.
1. If there is no God, there is no Judgment Day to worry about.
2. On the other hand, some believe that just about everyone goes to heaven.
3. In the minds of those, only the really bad people go to hell, if there is such a place.

[2] Today, one must not immediately institute all the Old Testament laws willy-nilly. One must recognize that God’s revelation is progressive in nature. The Moral Code is repeated in the New Testament and is still valid, while the Ceremonial and Civil laws are obsolete, having been fulfilled by Christ.

Three Actions You Can Take to Address Emotional Doubt

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Jeremy Linn

A few weeks ago, my ministry had a Livestream discussion on the topic of doubt. I thought it would be a great idea to pull in the principles that came from the discussion into a short, sharable source. To explain the principles we covered, I’m going to bring in my own struggle with doubt, and trace through the principles to see how they can help my own struggle with doubt.

My doubt is the following: When I get close to death, I’m not sure if I will really be confident that God is real and that heaven exists.

The first thing to filter this doubt through is the question – Does this doubt have a primarily intellectual nature or an emotional nature? Identifying the nature of the doubt, you are going through will allow you to understand what steps may help to address the doubt.

An intellectual doubt involves an objection or argument that causes you to question if what you currently believe is true. An emotional doubt involves a current or past pain that influences your feelings as well as your thoughts about what you believe. Oftentimes, someone can experience intellectual and emotional doubt simultaneously, making it difficult to identify the primary driver of one’s doubt.

There are factors that can help with this identification, however. If a doubt pertaining to an intellectual topic persists for a long period of time, it is likely that the doubt is mostly intellectual in nature – the doubt has outlasted numerous changes in emotions.

The type of questions that arise in times of doubt can also help with identification. If a question from the doubter involves something deeply personal (like a past pain), or hits on emotional triggers like anxiety or depression, the doubter is likely experiencing at least some emotional doubt.

My personal doubt rests on the question – Will I really believe in God when I get close to death? The question hits on an emotion of anxiety – fearing that my future actions (moving towards disbelief) will look different than the actions I would prefer my future self to take (maintaining belief). Notice the question does not connect to any specific intellectual question about Christianity being true or false – it only connects to my personal future psychology. I can be confident to label this doubt as heavily emotional, even if the doubt does persist over time.

The emotional side of the doubt may not be the only side present. Underlying intellectual doubts could contribute to my thinking; I might not believe this in the future. If I identify what those intellectual areas are, I can then begin to investigate those areas. The investigation could address my intellectual doubt, and could help my emotional doubt as the intellectual conclusions I reach begins to connect to my emotions.

Along with the research of underlying intellectual areas of doubt, what else can help regarding my emotional doubt? This question leads back to the Livestream discussion I had through my ministry. My Livestream discussion partner has suffered severe doubt throughout his life, and through investigation of doubt concluded that three actions help to address emotional doubt. The actions are as follows:

Soothe – This action involves altering the immediate thoughts that come into your head about a topic. Controlling the immediate thoughts in your head is important because the limbic system in the brain triggers an instant “fight or flight” response against fear or danger. So when fear is caused by an emotional doubt, either you respond to the fear with more emotional rigor and stress (fight) or repel from the fear (flight), which leaves the fear unresolved.

We can alter the severity of this fight or flight response through self-statements driven by the cerebral cortex in the brain. For example, when my doubt about near-death belief comes to mind, I can immediately think something like, “I don’t know what my reactions will be to future scenarios, and I have no idea how I will change up until this point of near-death”.

These thoughts help me realize that I cannot predict precisely what my thoughts will be in some future, hypothetical scenario. I don’t need to respond to my doubt through fighting or fleeing – I can accept the thought that contributes to the doubt, and continue living normally. As I consistently repeat these thoughts as the doubt arises, my brain will be progressively trained to respond calmly to doubt, rather than fearfully.

Validate – This action involves expressing doubts to people close to you who you can trust, and receiving affirming statements from them. By affirming, I don’t mean that they need to reassure you that what you believe is true. Instead, they can affirm the feelings you are experiencing and connect with what you’re going through by sharing their own experiences. The point of this process is to attend to express your emotions outwardly so that you can receive emotional support and know you are not alone in your process.

I recently shared my doubt with a mentor figure in my life, and also shared the self-statements I described in the “Soothe” section above. He was able to affirm I was thinking correctly with the statements I was using to address my doubt. This process helped me to push against the fear that people will look down on me for having this doubt, and allowed me to see I’m not alone in the doubting process – I can indeed share my doubts with people I trust.

Establish Structure – This action builds up an intellectual foundation that will keep you stable through times of doubt, instead of fluctuating emotionally. Emotional outbreaks are often caused by distortions in thinking – distortions like overgeneralizing (this thing is negative; therefore, everything is negative), jumping to conclusions (I’m feeling this way; therefore, this will definitely happen), and magnification (blowing up the importance of a small thought).

What can you do to avoid these distortions in thinking? You can create a symbolic grab bag of “containing statements” to reflect on consistently. Over time, the reflecting retrains the limbic system to move away from distorted thinking and towards correct thinking. This process lines up with the Apostle Paul’s instructions in Philippians 4:8 to think about what is true, right, and admirable.

I personally have not done much to work on this step in my doubting process. What would help me establish structure is memorizing passages in scripture relating to God being faithful and putting trust in God. I could also focus on the truth behind the life of Jesus and what his example tells us about life after death. By reflecting on the truth of scripture and truth behind Jesus more, it will be natural for true thoughts to come to mind in moments of doubt, rather than distortions in thinking.

The Livestream discussion opened up strategies to identify and deal with my own doubts. And I now hope this summary will spark your own thoughts for how you can deal with yours.

When it comes to doubt, we don’t need a make-or-break goal of eradicating it. We simply need to accept it and take steps to address it properly.

When Is “Good” Good Enough?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

Your son walks in test paper in hand. You glance over and wince, seeing the big “60” in red ink at the top.

“Don’t worry,” he says, “I did good on this test.”

You ignore the faulty grammar. One problem at a time, you think, mulling over in your mind just how long you will ground him.

“No, really,” he persists, “you should have seen the other scores. Mine was really good!”

“Good,” you think out loud, “how can you call a sixty good?”

“Check it out,” he calls out over his shoulder as he walks away, “you’ll see.”

He’s seems confident, and he may have a point, so you call the teacher. After all, without knowing more about the class and the test, how can you really know?

After the call, you head to the family room, where you find your son on the couch, legs propped up while he’s staring at the tube.

“I’ve got good news and bad news,” you begin. “The good news is that you did, indeed, get the highest score in the class. Congratulations. The bad news is that you all flunked!”

What does this little parent’s nightmare have to do with apologetics? Well, the young man in this story bears a pretty strong resemblance to many of the secularists you will encounter today. They have a pretty strong intuitive notion that they’re doing pretty “good” on this little test called life, so if there is a God – and they’re not granting there is, mind you – well, they’re just not that worried about it. After all, they think they’re not doing anything really bad, like killing people or stealing, and more importantly, they’re just like the rest of the “class” – all of their role models, their friends, their acquaintances. Each of them can think of a gazillion others who would be much worse than themselves.

If you are trying to present the Good News of salvation to such a person, you might find them a bit less than interested in hearing what you have to say. Even if you are presenting an intellectually solid case, you may not get much traction. After all, you are in essence offering to tutor him when he thinks he’s already getting an A. Or, more precisely, you’re asking him to study harder, maybe do some extra credit homework, when he thinks he is simply auditing the class, or that everyone passes. He doesn’t need your answers, your solution to the problem, until he first begins to realize that he may well be “flunking” the class. This analogy, and others like it, can be a starting point to get the modern-day secularist thinking about what he may not have thought about before:

Just where did you get this notion that you will be graded on a curve?

The answer, no doubt, is that grading on a curve is particularly common in today’s culture. If it works for school – indeed, if it forms a part of the upbringing of most young people today – then why wouldn’t it also apply to life generally, and to the consideration of not just the next test but life’s ultimate test?

Let’s consider for a moment what lies behind such thinking. Generally, a teacher who grades on a curve is taking into consideration the difficulty of the subject matter and adjusting downward the grading scale. If most of the class gets a 60 on the test, and if the test is particularly difficult, then what would otherwise be an F might, in fact, become an A. This downward adjustment in grading seems to be increasingly common these days; it’s called “grade inflation.” We can also see it in children’s sports, where an increasing number of kids receive trophies simply for showing up; where games that can only be won or lost by totaling up the points earned are no longer being scored; where, in short, young people are given the impression that holding themselves to a standard of excellence is not only unimportant, it isn’t even necessary. The focus has shifted from building skills and judging outcomes to shoring up what are believed to be fragile egos always in need of enhanced self-esteem.

But on a deeper level, this readjustment of what constitutes a “good” outcome has an intuitive appeal to most people. After all, we are not perfect, so why should we expect ourselves to live up to perfect expectations? Isn’t that just a recipe for disappointment, depression, and despair? Isn’t it better instead to just be happy with ourselves regardless of what we actually accomplish with our time here on Earth?

Now I’m not saying that this way of thinking is always wrong. Being overly focused on success can be detrimental, both to the person who sets unrealistic goals of perfection for himself and for those with whom he collides in his effort to “be the best.” The issue, really, is to figure out which situation is which.

Consider: there are indeed some settings in life in which grade inflation makes no sense, in which a moment’s reflection should make us thankful that it does not. The Navy runs a nuclear power school for its next generation of officers who will handle one of the most dangerous activities known to man. If a particular class of students just isn’t up to snuff, flunking them and starting fresh with a new class makes perfect sense. Similarly, would anyone want to fly with a pilot, or be operated upon by a surgeon, who really didn’t master the subject matter but got an A anyway? In these areas, even if no one in the class can perform up to what is required, wouldn’t common sense still dictate that grading on a curve would be a very bad idea?

So what kind of class, then, is this thing we call human life, what test will we be taking, and what exactly does the “teacher” expect of us? The “bad news” of Christianity, of course, is that a perfect God has some pretty high standards. Far from grading on a curve, we are told that though many are invited, few are chosen. In short, God is not adjusting downward when we fall short but is instead expecting – no, requiring – us to have a perfect score. That’s why standing before God trying to impress him with your accomplishments and trumpeting your “goodness” is such a bad idea. We’re dealing with a schoolmaster who not only is perfection; he also demands it. Any deviation, however trivial in our view, is an eternal offense against Him.

These reflections may make God seem… well, rather horrible. Does he take delight in catching each of our transgressions, like some sadistic teacher who, with rod in hand, is looking for any excuse to beat his students? That’s how the message of Christianity comes across to an increasing percentage of the population today.

But it is not that way. To understand why, one must consider the underlying philosophy that helps us make sense of God and his attributes of love, justice, and mercy. God maintains all three despite the fact that, to us, these virtues seem to be irreconcilably in conflict. To maintain perfect justice, God cannot simply ignore our transgressions. These transgressions are not “mistakes” on our part; they are instead the use of our wills to think and act in ways that violate His laws. What we call “sin” are not those occasions in which we lack the skills or abilities to do a particular job, or to pass a particular test. No, they are those instances in which we intentionally do wrong, knowing that we are doing wrong because of the conscience that God imbedded within us. The punishment we face – the prospect of eternal separation from God – is a necessary consequence of his justice. He cannot simply accept us “just as we are,” because allowing lawbreakers to escape accountability and punishment for their misdeeds is unjust.

But we need not insist on having things our way. The good news of Christianity is that God, in His perfect love and mercy, provided us a solution. By taking the form of Man, He arranged a method through which justice and mercy could both be satisfied. Jesus, as both God and man, was the only being who could stand before God and not be in need of forgiveness, as he lived a perfect life. He then traded his righteousness for our sin, balancing the books in an eternal transaction that allows us to become pure again. More precisely, by accepting Christ into our hearts and lives, we ask God to do what he will not otherwise do and what we lack the capacity to do – fix the corruption of our will so that we can live in harmony with Him. God will not take away our free will, so he awaits our response to his gift of renewed life in His presence. He will do a transforming work in us, making us ready and able to reunite with Him. Or, we can continue to shake our fist at God, die in our rebellion, and face eternal separation from him.

Either way, he will respect our choice.

Thankfully for us, we need not fear the final exam. We need not worry about the grading curve. God, the Son, has already taken the test for us and passed with a perfect score. It is simply for us to place our trust in Him.

Talking with Your Kids about Jesus with Natasha Crain

Podcast

Podcast: Play in new window

Jesus of Nazareth is not only the most influential human being in history but God incarnate. Do you know how to talk with your kids about Him? You will after you hear this podcast because author and apologist Natasha Crain is Frank’s guest. Natasha and Frank discuss:

Is Jesus God?
If Jesus is God, how could He die?
Did ancient people believe in miracles because they were more gullible?
What did Jesus teach about Hell?
Didn’t Jesus tell us not to judge? If so, how are we to make any decisions?
What did Jesus teach about love? Is it approval?
What did the death of Jesus accomplish?
Why does it matter if Jesus resurrected?
Did the disciples lie about the resurrection story?
How is the Christian view of God different?

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!

Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google

Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

May 9, 2020/by Frank Turek

Tag Archive for: apologetics

The Cambrian Explosion

The Tree Turned Upside Down

The Common Objection By Darwinists

Conclusions From The Cambrian Explosion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Dr. Craig’s opening speech

Dr. Hester’s opening speech

Discussion

Scoring the debate

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Can Prayer Alone Fix Everything?

Prayer Isn’t A Cure-All And Jesus Never Said That It Was

Is The Coronavirus A Judgment From God?

Jesus And The Problem Of Suffering

Jesus Is Still In The Healing Business

Recommended resources related to the topic:

My Family’s Educational Backstory

Be Mindful of What You Default To

4 Considerations for Public Schools Families

4 Considerations for Private Christian School Families

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Science -vs- Scientists

The Scientists We Trust

Complicated Answers

Economics is a Science

Political Science

Sociology is Science

Defining Science

The Queen of the Sciences

Holistic Science

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Notes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic: