apologetics Archives - Page 85 of 144

Tag Archive for: apologetics

Are Pro-Lifers Who Own Guns Hypocrites?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

Another assertion has become commonplace in discussions of abortion. Pro-lifers who own firearms, or support military actions abroad are misled at best, and at worst, hypocrites. The critic assumes that any inconsistently held pro-life beliefs are evidence pro-lifers aren’t actually motivated by a desire to protect human life, but rather a desire to control women’s liberty. This line of criticism lacks substance and misunderstands both the essential pro-life position as well as why people support gun rights or particular military actions.

Suppose for a moment it’s true that the vast majority of pro-lifers are hypocritical in how they hold their views on protecting life across various issues. Would that supposition invalidate the pro-life position as a whole? The essential pro-life argument is as follows:

It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings
Elective Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings
Therefore, elective abortion is wrong.

If the premises are true (and there’s good reason to believe they are) and the conclusion logically follows, then the argument is sound. Would a subset of the pro-life community being hypocrites demonstrate that either premise is untrue? Of course not. Neither the wrongness of killing innocent human beings nor the nature of abortion and its victims are in any way impacted by whether some pro-life advocates behave inconsistently toward life in regards to the views they champion.

In fact, this is little more than a personal attack. It’s highly unlikely that if the moral consistency of particular pro-lifers changed overnight, these critics would then drop their support for abortion. It’s a smokescreen, an attempt to poison the well of the pro-life cause, not an actual rebuttal of the above argument.

Guns Protect Life

That being said, the claim that supporting gun rights or military service is inconsistent with the pro-life view is mistaken. As philosopher Tim Hsaio points out, self-defense is an extension of the right to life, intrinsic to all human beings. Since all human beings have the natural (intrinsic or God-given) right to life, then it is perfectly just for human beings to take steps to prevent themselves from being victimized by those with an evil intent. Writes Hsaio,

“Now since the purpose of a right is to protect my well-being, the possession of a right entitles me to protect that which I have a right to. Thus, if I possess the right to life, then I must also possess the corresponding right to secure or protect my life. I must, in other words, possess the right to self-defense. The right to self-defense follows immediately from the right to life—in fact, the right to self-defense is an integral part of the right to life itself. It is what gives substance to the right to life.”[1]

Remember, the reason abortion is wrong is because it intentionally kills an innocent human being. The vast majority of Americans who purchase firearms do not do so for the purpose of going out and intentionally killing innocent human beings, but for self-defense purposes or for protecting friends and family from those with wicked intentions.

What About Military Service?

Military action is a bit more complicated but still serves as a further extension of this principle. Being a service-member myself (Going on six years as a Cavalry Scout in the Army National Guard) I have received the question on numerous occasions, why do I oppose abortion if I am engaged in a line of work where my job is predicated upon the taking of human life?

The question ultimately relies on a confusion of moral principles. Remember, pro-lifers oppose elective abortion because it intentionally takes the life of innocent human beings. We could be mistaken in that claim, but that doesn’t necessarily make us inconsistent if we support or serve in the Armed Forces. It’s impossible to find a valid comparison between an ISIS fighter or a Nazi executioner and an unborn child. It’s not even worth pondering.

The ethics of warfare are complex and involve a great amount of moral ambiguity, but at their core are the same basic principles which underlie both the pro-life position and self-defense. Just as a toddler cannot adequately exercise the ability to defend their life or well-being, and therefore needs an adult (such as a parent) to fill this role, governments must protect the lives of citizens against immoral aggressors such as foreign states and terror groups. This is why we have police, intelligence services, and the military provided by civil government.

Debates over the ethics of contemporary military actions abroad usually come down to finer details about how to effectively engage enemy combatants and achieve victory with minimal loss of innocent life. While a military commander may foresee the loss of life on the battlefield, this in no way makes a conflict inherently immoral, provided steps are taken to mitigate the loss of life without compromising the overall mission. For instance, the introduction of laser-guided weaponry, thermal imaging, communications, and better surveillance/reconnaissance equipment has been a major boon towards limiting the risk to civilians(and friendly forces) caught in the crossfire of a battle.[2]

Even when an attack or war is being fought for justified reasons, the loss of innocent human life can sometimes be unavoidable. For instance, during the D-Day landings in Normandy, due to uncontrollable circumstances such as bad weather, enemy anti-aircraft fire, and other factors, Allied bombers often overshot their objectives and accidentally bombed civilian centers as well as Allied fighting positions.[3][4] While undoubtedly tragic, few would argue that the invasion would have been inherently unjust unless no civilian lives were lost. In war, a variety of unseen and unavoidable variables can pop-up in an instant and impact battlefield decision making. The advent of modern military technologies helps, but similar problems can still impact the battlespace resulting in tragedy. Communications errors, equipment failures, bad intelligence, and unethical behavior on the part of soldiers sometimes tragically lead to unintended results in conflict. Fatigue and cynicism can also play a role. Decision making on the battlefield changes within split seconds while still being guided by the commander’s intent, which is guided by an overall strategy and “big picture” mission of friendly forces. All of these safeguards can’t prevent the occasional unethical and immoral behavior (human beings aren’t basically good), which is why a clearly defined Rules of Engagement (ROE for shorthand) and Uniform Code of Military Justice are essential for a morally upright military. In the circumstances where soldiers behave unethically or even wickedly towards non-combatants, the military justice system corrects and punishes bad behavior, while promoting and honoring good behavior on the parts of service-members. Leaders should model good behavior and combat bad behavior within the ranks. As retired Marine Corps General James Mattis poignantly puts it, people should know that they have no better friend and no worse enemy “than a United States Marine.” The same is true for the rest of the Armed Services.

As Army Major Pete Hegseth points out, by and large, it has been the United States military (with help from countless invaluable allies worldwide), which has promoted stability, justice, and peace at home and abroad by serving as a sort of world sheriff.[5] Perfect, no, but until a better alternative presents itself, those who love justice shouldn’t feel ashamed for supporting the United States military. As the noted British historian Andrew Roberts argues, when the United States military is weak, wicked men like Adolf Hitler are able to make growing threats to the lives of millions of marginalized people; however, when the American military is strong, even oppressive superpowers like the Soviet Union are forced to tread carefully.[6]

The decision to engage in conflict must be guided by sound moral principles, which includes considering the possible unintended consequences of one’s decision. Good intentions alone are not good enough.

Conclusion

In light of this, pro-lifers are not hypocritical to support either gun ownership or armed conflict provided both are guided by sound moral reasoning. Debates over both are a sign of healthy functioning social conscience.

However, the debate over abortion has nothing to do with what sort of human beings pro-lifers are; it has everything to do with whether the unborn are human, and will be granted recognition as fellow members of the human family. Debates over the Ethics of war, capital punishment, and gun ownership are ultimately irrelevant to the humanity of the unborn and the inhumanity of abortion.

Notes

[1] Hsiao, Tim “Natural Rights, Self-Defense, and the Right to Own Firearms,” The Public Discourse https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/10/42765/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guided_bomb

[3] United States Army, “Invasion of Normandy” https://history.army.mil/brochures/normandy/nor-pam.htm

[4] Beevor, Antony D-Day: The Battle for Normandy

[5] Maj. Hegseth, Peter “Who Should Win the Nobel Peace Prize?” PragerUniversity, Nov 11, 2019

[6] Roberts, Andrew “Why America’s Military Must Be Strong” PragerUniversity, May 26, 2014

Cosmic Child Abuse? Answering Moral Objections to the Atonement

Podcast

Podcast: Play in new window

For two thousand years, Christians have understood the death of Jesus to be substitutionary—a sacrifice that paid for our sins. From the earliest creeds to the teaching of the New Testament to the writings of the Church Fathers to today, this has been a core belief of Christianity throughout its history. But in modern times, this idea is being repudiated as “Cosmic Child Abuse.” On today’s show, we are going to address these questions:

• What is the historic belief of the Christian church on atonement?
• Why does God have wrath and how can that be a good thing?
• Is penal substitutionary atonement a late invention of medieval Christians?
• If God required the sacrifice of his Son, doesn’t that make him a Divine child abuser?
• If I can just forgive people without a sacrifice, why can’t God?

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

February 8, 2020/by Guest

Life is Like Football

Podcast

Podcast: Play in new window

Is Christianity a crutch that just makes people feel better?
Is Christianity too binary? Too exclusive?
Does God want to condemn most of his beautiful creation to a fiery Hell?
What if Christianity doesn’t work for you? Doesn’t resonate with you?

Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers has left Christianity because he believes it is too exclusive, too binary, and that the Christian God wants to condemn most people to a fiery Hell. Join Frank on Super Bowl weekend as he responds to Aaron’s characterization of Christianity and goes on to point out that all of reality (including football) is binary and that truth is exclusive. In fact, Frank points out that life is a lot like football in at least seven ways.

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

January 31, 2020/by Guest

William Lane Craig Lectures on The Evidence for The Resurrection of Jesus

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Wintery Knight

Here is Dr. William Lane Craig giving a long-form argument for the historical event of the resurrection of Jesus and taking questions from the audience.

The speaker’s introduction goes for 6 minutes, then Dr. Craig speaks for 35 minutes, then it’s a period of questions and answers with the audience. The total length is 93 minutes, so quite a long period of Q&A. The questions in the Q&A period are quite good.

Introduction:

Many people who are willing to accept God’s existence are not willing to accept the God of Christianity
Christians need to be ready to show that Jesus rose from the dead as a historical event
Private faith is fine for individuals, but when dealing with the public, you have to have evidence
When making the case, you cannot assume that your audience accepts the Bible as inerrant
You must use the New Testament like any other ancient historical document
Most historians, Christian and not, accept the minimal basic facts supporting the resurrection of Jesus

Fact #1: the burial of Jesus following his crucifixion

Fact #1 is supported by the early creed found in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 15)
Fact #1 is supported by the early Passion narrative which was a source for Mark’s gospel
Fact #1 passes the criterion of enemy attestation since it praises one of the Sanhedrin
Fact #1 is not opposed by any competing burial narratives

Fact #2: on the Sunday following his crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by some women

Fact #2 is supported by the early Passion narrative which was a source for Mark’s gospel
Fact #2 is implied by the early creed found in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 15)
Fact #2 is simple and lacks legendary embellishment, which argues for an early dating
Fact #2 passes the criterion of embarrassment because it has female, not male, witnesses
Fact #2 passes the criterion of enemy attestation since it is reported by the Jewish leaders

Fact #3: Jesus appeared to various people in various circumstances after his death

Fact #3 is supported by the early creed found in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 15)
Fact #3 is supported by multiple, independent reports of the events from all four gospels
Fact #3 explains other historical facts, like the conversion of Jesus’ skeptical brother James

Fact #4: the earliest Christians proclaimed their belief in the resurrection of Jesus

Fact #4 explains why the earliest Christians continued to identify Jesus as the Messiah
Fact #4 explains why the earliest Christians were suddenly so unconcerned about being killed

Dr. Craig then asks which hypothesis explains all four of these facts. He surveys a number of naturalistic hypotheses, such as the hallucination theory or various conspiracy theories. All of these theories deny one or more of the minimal facts that have been established and accepted by the broad spectrum of historians. In order to reject the resurrection hypothesis, a skeptic would have to deny one of the four facts or propose an explanation that explains those facts better than the resurrection hypothesis.

I listened to the Q&A period while doing housekeeping, and I heard lots of good questions. Dr. Craig gives very long answers to the questions. One person asked why we should trust the claim that the Jewish leaders really did say that the disciples stole the body. Another one asked why we should take the resurrection as proof that Jesus was divine. Another asks about the earthquake in Matthew and whether it is intended to be historical or apocalyptic imagery. Dr. Craig is also asked about the Jewish scholar Geza Vermes, and how many of the minimal facts he accepts. Another questioner asked about the ascension.

If you are looking for a good book to read on this topic, the best introductory book on the resurrection is “The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus,” and the best comprehensive book is “The Resurrection of Jesus.”

Sacrifice and Redemption in the Skywalker Saga

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Timothy Fox

With the release of Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, the “Skywalker Saga” is officially complete (for better or worse), and we can now examine all nine episodes as a completed whole. (Spoilers ahead!) While all of the Star Wars movies carry similar themes, such as hope, the importance of family, and the ultimate triumph of good over evil, I think there is one concept that rises above the rest: redemption.

Quickly defined, redemption is the act of making up for one’s past wrongs. The greater the wrongs committed, the greater the necessary actions to atone for one’s past. Redemption usually (always?) involves some sort of sacrifice, and so sacrifice and redemption are closely linked. The two greatest examples of this in the Skywalker Saga involve Darth Vader and Kylo Ren:

Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker – Darth Vader is the shining example of redemption in the original Star Wars trilogy. In spite of the great evils that Vader has committed, his son, Luke Skywalker, believes that there is still good within his father and that Vader could be turned back to the Light. At the end of Return of the Jedi, Luke rejects the Emperor’s temptation and refuses to kill Vader, so the Emperor decides to kill Luke instead. Witnessing the suffering of his son, Vader rescues Luke, throwing the Emperor to his death (or so we think!). The injuries sustained by Vader are fatal, but he still has the opportunity to thank his son for not giving up on him. As a sign of Vader’s ultimate redemption, he appears as a Force Ghost at the end of the film as his unfallen self, Anakin Skywalker, alongside his – and his son’s – former teachers, Obi-Wan Kenobi and Yoda.

Kylo Ren/Ben Solo – Kylo Ren’s redemption story was a major arc of the sequel trilogy. Like his grandfather, Darth Vader, Ren was guilty of many wrongdoings, his worst (especially to us fans!) being killing his father, Han Solo, in The Force Awakens. Ren believes this action would fully push him over to the Dark Side; instead, it brings him massive guilt and inner turmoil. He wants to embrace the darkness fully, but the light within him does not allow that. In The Rise of Skywalker, Rey mortally wounds him, but in an act of grace and mercy, she heals him. This – along with a vision of his dead father – brings Ben Solo back from the darkness to the light. Ben then travels to Exegol to help Rey defeat Palpatine (once and for all!). But his true act of redemption is when he gives his life to bring Rey back from the dead.

Our Redemption

In these cases of redemption within the Star Wars universe, we see how characters sacrifice themselves to atone for their past evil actions. But while Vader’s and Ren’s sacrifices complete their turns from darkness to the light, does that truly make up for all of the evils they committed? Probably not. And it is the same for us. There is no amount of good deeds that will erase our sins and make us right in God’s eyes. But that doesn’t mean there is no hope for us. As noted earlier, sacrifice and redemption are connected. But it is not our own sacrifices that redeem us:

“In [Jesus] we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins” (Eph. 1:7).

Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross is what grants us redemption and forgiveness for all our sins – no matter how many or how terrible. Vader and Ren believed they were too far gone into the Dark Side of the Force, and yet they found their way back to the Light. Likewise, there is absolutely nothing that can separate us from God’s love (Rom. 8:38-39). But while none of our own actions can save us, we can be redeemed by Jesus’ sacrifice.

Turn and Live

As satisfying as it was to see Emperor Palpatine meet his demise at the end of Return of the Jedi, and then ultimately in The Rise of Skywalker, I was far more pleased to watch Vader and Ren turn from the darkness back to the light. God feels the same way about us:

“Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? Declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?” (Ezek. 18:23)

Many people may view God as an angry old man in the sky, waiting for us to mess up so he can smite us and condemn us to hell. But as we see from the verse above, this cannot be farther from the truth. God desires us to repent of our wrongdoing and to choose life. Like the parable of the lost son (Luke 15:11-32), God is waiting for us to return to him and will welcome us with open arms. He is desperate to save us from the darkness and bring us to the light:

“[The Father] has qualified you to share in the inheritance of his holy people in the kingdom of light. For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins” (Col. 1:12-14, emphasis mine).

Judaism 101 with Dr. Michael Brown

Podcast

Podcast: Play in new window

Here is our list of questions (we might not get to them all, but we will try to give people an overview of what Jews believe today and how we can best reach them for Jesus).

What were the major sects of Judaism in the first century?
1. Pharisees
2. Sadducees
3. Essenes
4. Zealots
5. Others
Where did they come from and how did they differ in what they believed?
When did synagogues begin, and why did they exist during the Temple period?
Once the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, how did Judaism change?
How can one obey the OT law if the Temple does not exist?
What are the current denominations of Judaism and how do they differ from one another?
What are the writings outside the OT that Jewish believers think are authoritative? Talmud?
Where did these writings come from and why do Jews believe they are authoritative?
How do traditional Jews view the Law, as a burden or a blessing?
What are the main Jewish views of the Messiah?
What do the majority of Jews think regarding the afterlife? Why?
What do Jewish scholars think about the evidence for the Resurrection? Alternative theory? Why would the Jewish writers of the NT invent it?
What are the three biggest theological obstacles to a Jewish person accepting Jesus?
How do you overcome them?
If Jesus is the Messiah, why didn’t he bring in world peace?
What are some questions you can ask a Jewish person to get them to begin to consider Jesus as the Messiah?

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

January 24, 2020/by Guest

Apologetics and a Different Kind of Persuasion

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Mikel Del Rosario

A Different Kind of Persuasion

Have you ever found yourself “in debate mode” while talking to a skeptical friend about Christianity? Perhaps this is because many of us have been equipped with apologetic content (arguments for God’s existence, the reliability of the Gospels, etc.) with less of a focus on an apologetic method for use in everyday conversations.

Sometimes, we can get so concerned about winning or making a certain point, that we lose the credibility that an ambassador of Christ should have. Others you don’t notice may be watching and listening to your conversation. If the exchange gets heated, some may be thinking, “I don’t care if Christianity is true if it’s not good.” So, is there a different kind of persuasion to employ?

At the Hendricks Center, Darrell Bock and I invited John Dickson, the Founding Director of the Centre for Public Christianity, to join us in discussing what persuasion and apologetics can look like when Christians function as cultural minorities in a society.

In this post, I share three quick tips I learned from his visit on how to use a different kind of persuasion in our apologetic encounters:

Give ’em pause
Have conversations, not debates
Show truth and goodness.

Give ’em Pause

Instead of walking into a conversation in “debate mode,” Christians should seek to persuade others by provoking two things: Reflection and a longing for the truth of the gospel. On an episode of the Table Podcast called “Keys to Effective Cultural Engagement,” Bock talked about what he calls “a different kind of persuasion.” He says:

My initial goal…is to get the person to pause and reflect. “Might there be another way to think about what we’re talking about?” with the hope that what I’m putting out on the table is something they can recognize the potential merit of, and then consider what is being said, because it’s different than what they’re used to hearing.

Instead of relying on a more forceful kind of attempt at persuasion, he suggests an approach that communicates something like, “What I’m putting out on the table for you is a helpful way to think about how humans should interact and live with one another…” He says, “There’s certain effectiveness of living that’s being represented. I want to give them pause so they’ll start to think.”

Dickson agrees. He explains how this applies not just in conversations, but even in televised public debate situations:

If I lose well in a debate or discussion with a journalist, but I’ve done it so well that I know that the audience is thinking, “That Christian guy was reasonable and level headed and pretty nice.” That commends the gospel. I don’t go around trying to lose, but I’m not so concerned about losing… losing well is sometimes a beautiful representation of the gospel for those looking on…

Richard Dawkins is doing us a favor in the long term because he is so extreme…If the average, thoughtful doubter thinks, “That’s not an approach I like. I thought the Christian did a little bit better there.” That is winning.

Have Conversations, not Debates

You probably won’t yourself defending the faith on TV or in a literal academic debate. But even in everyday conversations, other people may be watching you interact with someone who sees Christianity differently. How do you compose yourself? Rather than being consumed with winning the debate, let’s engage in a real conversation. Remind yourself, “I’m in a conversation, not a debate.” Bock elaborates:

The first rule is, “I’m engaged in a conversation versus a debate. I’m not trying to win anything. All that I’m trying to do is demonstrate what I hope is the reasonableness of what I believe in a way that will draw people in to consider what it is that’s being said…” I’m probably not going to convince the guy on the other side of the microphone but I’m interested in the person who’s trying to decide, “Which microphone am I going to believe?” and hopefully draw them in my direction as opposed to the direction of the person who I may be pitted against.

Show Truth and Goodness

Today, many people are wondering not if Christianity is true, but if Christianity is even good. They reason, “If it’s not good, then should I, why to care if it’s true?” Don’t forget that persuasion is always person-relative. While you may not be able to help someone consider the truth of a certain Christian truth claim, you may be able to show them by the tone of your conversation and the way you treat them that Christianity is good.

Dickson notes that this was the approach of C.S. Lewis:

Lewis came to believe that if he could convey the beauty of Christianity to people, it opens them up to the truth…He wanted to convey the beauty of ideas to allow people to open up to the possibility that they’re also true. To want it to be true is a step along the path to knowing it’s true…

He goes on to say:

The Greek word epikeia, which you find in Paul’s letters is translated as “gentleness,” but it really means “humanitarian regard,” that moderate, fair, just character. We trust…the good-hearted person more than anyone else on all topics.

The key to persuasion is if you are someone who is trustworthy, …that moves belief. Aristotle said this ethos is the primary part of persuasion because we believe those who we perceive to be credible and fair-minded far more easily than we do anyone else.

I agree. Our skeptical friends and neighbors are more likely to give Christianity a fresh hearing if we can, through our actions, show them that Christianity is good. I like how Dickson describes goodness as “morally credible, loving, generous, compassionate, humble—things that flow out of the gospel.” Sometimes, just getting someone to want that goodness, to long for that goodness, is a step in the right direction—even if they are not fully persuaded of its truth just yet. As Christian ambassadors, we need to help people see the beauty and goodness of Christianity, in addition to the truthfulness of its claims.

Reflection and Persuasion

I enjoyed putting this episode of the Table Podcast together and getting Bock and Dickson together to discuss a different kind of persuasion. These insights are applicable to both personal discussions and square public conversations. Rather than being primarily concerned about winning a debate, let’s focus on getting people to pause and reflect on the effectiveness of living God’s way. Yes, we should defend the faith with confidence. But let’s also be mindful of our demeanor and the way it affects those who may be watching and listening.

The next time you find yourself operating in “debate mode,” take a step back. Consider these tips and try using a different kind of persuasion.

Natural-ly There Is A Problem With Evil

Atheism, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Alex McElroy

One of the most difficult issues to reconcile in life is the presence of evil. This is the case whether one has a theistic, agnostic or atheistic worldview. The existence of evil is undeniable both in our witness and experience but is evil objective in nature or merely an apparition. Even atheist J.L. Mackie recognized a dilemma. In one book, he writes, “There are no objective values.”[1] Elsewhere, he writes, “We might well argue…that objective, intrinsically prescriptive features, supervenient upon natural ones, constitute so odd a cluster of qualities and relations that they are most unlikely to have arisen in the ordinary course of events, without an all-powerful god to create them.”[2]

This poses a problem for the naturalist or the atheist because whatever evil does exist in people cannot be attributed to anything other than misfiring neurons. Well, known atheist Richard Dawkins has stated, “DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”[3] However, if we are just dancing to our DNA, then no one can ultimately be held responsible for any actions, and evil becomes a term without an ontic point of reference. Ravi Zacharias wrote, “Atheists often blunder into the right by borrowing from assumptions that are not logically deduced from their own worldview. But their opinion is so strong that they straddle the two worlds and make up a bridge because they have reached an unbridgeable chasm, given their starting point.”[4] That starting point of random, unguided natural processes is hardly the building blocks for a moral framework.

Sam Harris, an atheist who is both a philosopher and neuroscientist, has much to say on how humans can arrive at life-sustaining moral standards simply through biological evolution. He writes, “Many people imagine that the theory of evolution entails selfishness as a biological imperative. This popular misconception has been harmful to the reputation of science. In truth, human cooperation and its attendant moral emotions are fully compatible with biological evolution.”[5] First, it should be noted that many scientists, most notably Biochemist Michael Behe, have shown a flaw in the premise being proposed by Mr. Harris in regard to the selfishness of biological evolution. With regard to the underlying theory contained within Harris’ assertion, Behe writes, in Darwin Devolves, about two groups of extended evolutionary synthesis scientists who propose a similar theory:

The first speculates that once master genes and their regulatory networks of connections were in place, perhaps novel complex features could be developed mostly by random changes that accidentally form new signature sequences near various genes….The second group…emphasizes the ease of deploying an array of machinery to different locations, which, like ectopic fly eyes, would generate a lot of variation much more easily than Darwin might have imagined. Maybe that would give selection more to choose from. If all that sounds distressingly vague, I’m afraid that is the gist of the argument…The unanticipated discovery of layers of control – master switches and the stunningly sophisticated genetic regulatory networks they activate – does not make the putative undirected development of life any easier to explain, evo-devo (Evolutionary developmental biology) enthusiasts seem to imagine. It makes it harder. The need for a foreman and subcontractors to coordinate construction does not make it easier to explain how unintelligent processes could make a building out of bricks and wood and pipes and wiring. It shows it to be impossible.[6]

Behe is indicating that an external infusion of sorts, in fact, a number of external infusions would be required in order to advance biological evolution. Who or what could that provide that infusion? If not God, it seems unlikely that unintelligent and unguided natural forces could be responsible for natural evolution, not to mention moral evolution. Additionally, Sam Harris simply assumes that “human cooperation and its attendant moral emotions” would be natural outgrowths of a macroevolutionary process. But that’s a large assumption considering that one component of Darwinian evolutionary theory is survival of the fittest, not survival of the most cooperative.

Mr. Harris goes on to write, “The work of evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers on reciprocal altruism has gone a long way toward explaining cooperation among unrelated friends and strangers…Because moral virtue is attractive to both sexes, it might function as a kind of peacock’s tail: costly to produce and maintain, but beneficial to one’s genes in the end.”[7] Even if we accept Harris’ premise that moral virtue is attractive or beneficial, it still does not allow us to assign an objective value to what morality is in its essence. How are we to know if what we are attracted to in another is being accurately perceived as high moral character? What standard are we comparing their moral virtue to in order to determine where they measure up? How do we define what is most beneficial to us or to humanity at large? These are metaphysical questions that cannot simply be reduced to physical or naturalistic foundations.

In reviewing the works of C.S. Lewis, David Bagget noted, “Moral language today is so peculiar, in fact, that Lewis suggests that this is why many people try to explain it away. Some attempt to reduce moral impropriety to an instrumental matter – as we do with a tree, for our purposes, does not shade us well and is, for this reason, and in this sense, a ‘bad tree.’”[8] Terms such as good, bad, or evil simply lose all substantive value in a purely naturalistic worldview. This does not mean that an atheist cannot be a good person. Of course they can and most of them are morally upright. The issue is not that you cannot be good or do good things if you do not believe in God or the God of the Bible. The issue is that such a thing as good cannot objectively exist if God does not exist. If evil exists, good exists, and if good exists, God exists.

Notes

[1] J.L. Mackie, Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. (Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1977), 15.

[2] Ravi Zacharias & Vince Vitale, Why Suffering: Finding Meaning and Comfort When Life Doesn’t Make Sense. (New York, NY: Hatchette Book Group, 2014)142.

[3] Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life. (New York, NY: Basic Books, 1995)133.

[4] Turek, Stealing From God, ix.

[5] Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. (New York, NY: Free Press, 2010), 56.

[6] Michael Behe, Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution. (New York, NY: Harper Collins, 2019)118.

[7] Harris, The Moral Landscape, 56.

[8] Gregory Bassham, C.S. Lewis’s Christian Apologetics: Pro and Con. (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2015), 127-28.

How to Respond to People who Mock Christianity

Podcast

Podcast: Play in new window

How would you answer these questions?

How do you know what is important in the Bible?
How can I find out if someone is a Christian without sounding confrontational?
How can I deal with coworkers who mock Christianity?
Does design lose its meaning if you’re saying everything is designed?
What do you say to people who claim God is a bad designer?
Should Christians boycott certain businesses?

These are questions sent in by listeners that Frank answers on this show.

While Frank can’t get to all of them if you have a question you can submit it to Hello@Crossexamined.org. Also, check out these resources: the CrossExamined YouTube channel has answers to hundreds of questions, and several others are answered on the CrossExamined app and CrossExamined website.

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

January 20, 2020/by Guest

Putting God on Trial

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

“I can’t believe in a God who would allow so much evil and suffering in the world.”

Have you encountered this challenge? Most anyone who has tried to defend the Christian worldview surely has. The person bringing this challenge will often claim to be atheist, but when you dig in a bit this challenger is more often someone who knows there is a creator but who is deeply offended by the world, and angry at the God who set all this – the carnage, the anguish, the pain – in motion.

In my last post, I restated the traditional Christian response to this problem of evil. God did not create the evil that surrounds us because evil is not a thing. Evil is a departure- a deviation- from the good which God did create, and which God defines. This answer serves a particular purpose: it shows that the Christian belief system is internally coherent. For if God did create evil, he could not be the God described in the Bible because an all-powerful, all-good, and all-loving God could not be the creator of evil.

But, the atheist insists, even if I grant that God did not create evil, He created this universe and everything in it. Isn’t He, therefore, still responsible for all the evil that we see around us? In other words, if God isn’t guilty of the crime of actually creating evil, is He not still liable as an aider and abettor?

C.S. Lewis wrote about those who put God “in the dock.” It seems a natural human tendency to find fault with the way others have acted or decisions they have made. As a criminal prosecutor, I found that I would often slip into this kind of thinking too, silently building a case against God, accusing Him in my inner thoughts of not doing things the way He should have, the way I would have. The created order is filled with so much beauty, so much elegance, so much to admire and to be awed by….yet, we know that something is also very much amiss. Every beautiful thing God has created has been marred in some way. Out of every good in the world, there springs forth, weed-like, much that is bad, much that is evil. Why has God allowed this?

By satisfying the demands of logic, the traditional explanation of the nature of evil helps to make sense of our faith. But notice what it does not attempt to do: it does not seek to defend God, which is, in essence, what this challenge is asking us to take on. Nor does it provide an emotionally satisfying explanation to the one who is suffering, no easy answer to make it all quickly better.

What, then, can the Christian to say in response to this challenge?

Perhaps the answer should begin with the recognition that we need not – that indeed we cannot – defend God. Yes, God is responsible, ultimately. It is His creation, His universe, His set of rules to which both conform. For reasons that make sense to Him, He endowed us with free will, knowing that we would use it in inappropriate ways, in ways that displeased Him and would cause harm to others. True, this answer is not satisfying emotionally. It is instead a logical answer, and while logic has its place, we are not strictly logical beings. We feel, and when we experience evil, we suffer. As beings who love, we grieve when we see those whom we love suffer.

The challenger may argue that a God who allows suffering cannot be loving but is it not the case that suffering may serve a purpose. We grasp this intuitively: we know that hard work can often lead to much gain; we see that the cure of the physician or surgeon may at first be quite painful; we note the agony of labor that precedes the birth of a child. Everywhere in nature, we see the source of the expression “no pain, no gain.” We also know, at a more profound level, that none of this, neither the pain nor the glory, lasts forever. We are on the road to …somewhere…and there are indeed many obstacles, many pitfalls, along the way.

And yet, are we really in a place to put God on trial? With what arrogance would the pot stand in the well to accuse the potter of poor workmanship? How would the robot, constructed to complete a particular job, rightly complain that the tasks to which it is put are not just? That it should instead rule the world into which it was placed.

At present, we see through darkened and distorted lenses. Free will and suffering. These concepts will never make complete sense to us. But as the created and not the creator, perhaps all we can do is remember that they make sense to Him.

Tag Archive for: apologetics

Are Pro-Lifers Who Own Guns Hypocrites?

Guns Protect Life

What About Military Service?

Conclusion

Notes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Cosmic Child Abuse? Answering Moral Objections to the Atonement

Life is Like Football

William Lane Craig Lectures on The Evidence for The Resurrection of Jesus

Introduction:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Sacrifice and Redemption in the Skywalker Saga

Our Redemption

Turn and Live

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Judaism 101 with Dr. Michael Brown

Apologetics and a Different Kind of Persuasion

A Different Kind of Persuasion

Give ’em Pause

Have Conversations, not Debates

Show Truth and Goodness

Reflection and Persuasion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Natural-ly There Is A Problem With Evil

Notes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

How to Respond to People who Mock Christianity

Putting God on Trial

Recommended resources related to the topic:

QUICK LINKS

FEATURED RESOURCES

SUPPORT CROSSEXAMINED