Tag Archive for: apologetics

Don’t Buy “The Science Guy”

Don’t Buy “The Science Guy”

, ,

By Bob Perry

Bill Nye, “The Science Guy” used to host an enjoyable and informative TV program for kids. In the last few years, however, Bill Nye has entered into a different realm. Apparently, he fancies himself an arbiter of all truth; the man who can quite literally save the world. But if you have any interest whatsoever in seeking that truth in a coherent, consistent, intelligent way, please watch this two-and-a-half-minute video. As you do, think about what he is saying. And don’t just focus on his defense of Evolution. Listen to his method of reasoning. It really is beyond me how someone who is considered a scientific sage could ever deliver such a rambling string of nonsense. But he doesn’t stop there. He goes on to admonish anyone who dares to disagree with him. And if you do, he wants you to shut up and leave the education of your children to real scientists… like him.

The Actual Bill Nye

There are a few facts you should know about Mr. Nye that are directly applicable to the content of this video. For starters, one would think that the media’s favorite “science guy” would be … Oh, I don’t know … an actual scientist. In fact, given the topic of this video, we might assume that our “science guy” would have some kind of background or advanced degree in the biological sciences. Bad assumption.

Bill Nye has nothing of the kind.

Mr. Nye’s education consists of a B. S. in Mechanical Engineering from Cornell University. While he was a student there, he took an astronomy class from Carl Sagan. Thus ends the list of Bill Nye’s scientific credentials.

After college, Nye was hired by the Boeing Aircraft Company in Seattle, Washington. There, he developed a hydraulic pressure resonance suppressor. But that wasn’t what gained him his notoriety. His real fame came after he won a Steve Martin look-alike contest and started doing stand-up comedy in Seattle nightclubs in 1978.  Since then, he has received two Honorary Doctorate Degrees. But these weren’t awarded for scientific work. They were conferred on him for giving a couple of college commencement addresses after he became “Bill Nye, The Science Guy.”

You can’t make this stuff up.

Ridicule Is Not an Argument

I want to be fair here. Just because Bill Nye’s resumé as a “science guy” is lacking, it doesn’t mean we should dismiss him out of hand. We need to look at his arguments. But we also need to recognize the difference between an argument and an assertion. Anyone can make assertions. But no one should accept those assertions unless they are supported by evidence, logic, and sound reasoning. Mr. Nye gives none of these. He simply offers a diatribe that completely collapses when you take the time to think about what he’s saying. So, let’s look at Mr. Nye’s case.

What Does He Mean by ‘Evolution’?

The “science guy” starts off by lecturing us about how ridiculous it is to not believe in “evolution.” The problem is, he never defines what he means by the word. Does he mean that species change and adapt to the environment? If so, I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a single person who doesn’t believe that. But there are several other definitions of evolution. Which one must we accept?

Let’s assume that Mr. Nye subscribes to the most comprehensive definition of evolution. This is what I refer to as Big ‘E’ Evolution. It’s the idea that all life is the result of a purposeless, materialistic process that began by a random accident. That process can account for every imaginable life form, from the first self-replicating, single-celled organism to you and me.

Let’s break down his argument.

Truth Doesn’t Depend On Geography

First, he offers us this:

“Denial of evolution is unique to the United States … we are the world’s most advanced technological society … people move to the United States because of our general understanding of science.”

This first assertion is baseless and demonstrably false. I know of plenty of folks who live all over the world who do not accept ‘Evolution.’ They do so because they have not seen any credible evidence to support the most comprehensive view of evolution Mr. Nye subscribes to. But let’s say Mr. Nye is correct. Let’s pretend the only people who don’t believe in Evolution are Americans. What does this prove?

Nothing.

Where someone lives does not determine the truth content of what they believe. And the claim that people immigrate to the United States because of our general understanding of science is ridiculous on its face.

Denying Evolution Holds People Back?

But what of Bill Nye’s second assertion? Here, he claims that:

“When you have a portion of the population that doesn’t believe in Evolution, it holds everybody back.”

How, exactly, did Mr. Nye come to this conclusion? My undergraduate education is in Aerospace Engineering. I learned how to design airplanes and then how to fly them. I don’t accept Evolution. So how is it that I am “holding everybody back”?

To show the absurdity of it, let’s turn this one around. Suppose I claimed that those who do accept Evolution are holding everybody back. Would that be a valid argument against Evolution? Not in the least.

Misapplying Metaphors

So far, Mr. Nye’s comments have only demonstrated some flaws in basic logic. But then he takes things further and detonates a suicide vest on any trust we should have in him as a “scientist.”

“Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science … [Not believing in it] is analogous to doing geology and not believing in tectonic plates … you’re just not gonna get the right answer. Your whole world is just gonna be a mystery instead of an exciting place.”

Whatever one thinks of the concept of Evolution, there is one fact about it that we all agree on. Evolution is a process that explains the emergence and diversity of life on Earth. It is a noble attempt to explain how life emerged from the chemical elements that existed on the early Earth. It is a theory about how those chemicals combined and interacted with one another to produce complex biological systems that live and grow and reproduce.

The heart of Evolution is a process, not the parts that are used by the process.

So, let’s look at Mr. Nye’s comments in that light. He mentions tectonic plates. Tectonic plates are enormous slabs of rock in the Earth’s crust that slide and rub against one another to cause earthquakes. Geology is the study of the process that moves those plates around. So, Mr. Nye is confusing the plates with the process that moves them. He doesn’t seem to understand that he is equating completely non-analogous categories of things. Parts are physical things. But the processes that act on those things are something completely different. It seems to me a “science guy” would comprehend the difference.

A “Complicated” World

Building on his last point, Bill Nye begins his transition to questioning the character and motives of those who disagree with him;

“Once in a while, I get people who don’t really — who claim — they don’t believe in evolution. My response is, ‘Why not?’ Your world just becomes fantastically complicated when you don’t believe in evolution.”

Notice that Mr. Nye believes that no one could really disbelieve in Evolution. They only “claim” to do so. And he never offers any examples of the responses he receives to his “Why not?” question. Who is he asking? Why does he dismiss them? We can’t really know how to evaluate their answers unless we know the actual reasons they are giving. The fact that Mr. Nye doesn’t accept their responses is hardly a reason for us to reject them. After all, we’ve already demonstrated that his reasoning in support of Evolution is flawed.

But there’s another question. Why would someone’s rejection of Evolution make their world “fantastically more complicated”? Once again, the conclusion does not follow.

Using Young Earth Creationist Logic

Mr. Nye’s next point is pretty fantastic all by itself. And let me be clear. I am not taking a stand one way or the other about the age of the universe here. I am simply pointing out how Mr. Nye is using the same logic as a young earth creationist when he says this:

“Here are these ancient dinosaur bones … radioactivity … distant stars … the idea of deep time … billions of years … if you try to ignore that your worldview just becomes crazy.”

Here, Mr. Nye says that rejecting Evolution is the equivalent with believing in a young universe. Or, conversely, believing in an old universe means that you accept Evolution. But, once again, he is confusing categories.

Evolution is a theory about biology. The age of the universe comes from the study of cosmology. These are completely different areas of study! All one would have to do to show that Mr. Nye’s assertion is false is declare themselves to be either an “old universe, non-Evolutionist,” or a “young universe Evolutionist.” Voila!

This is the same false equivalence most young-Earth creationists use against those of us who believe the universe is old. I wonder how Mr. Nye would react if someone pointed out to him that his thinking is exactly like the young-Earth creationists he abhors.

Questioning Your Parenting

Finally, Bill Nye makes it personal. He wants you to know that if you disagree with him, your status as a parent is in question:

“I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world that is completely inconsistent with the universe, that’s fine … but don’t make your kids do it … because we need them … we need engineers who can build things and solve problems …”

Once again, Mr. Nye demonstrates his failure to understand basic logic when he ties belief in Evolution to our ability to produce “engineers who can build things and solve problems.”

It seems fairly obvious that one can be a perfectly competent airplane designer and not have any opinion about Evolution. In fact, a highly competent engineer can be completely ignorant about the concept of Evolution. Mr. Nye proved that himself when he designed a hydraulic pressure resonance suppressor for Boeing.

But beyond that, Mr. Nye has stepped out of a scientific critique (if you could consider him to have ever been inside one). In his arrogance, he assumes he has the right to tell you what you should be allowed to teach your children.

The Totalitarian Impulse

This is the totalitarian impulse. It’s a mindset that thinks some people can determine what other people should be allowed to think. Those of us who honor scientific objectivity, free thought, and academic tolerance need to recognize this kind of talk when we hear it. People who think like this are the most intolerant kinds of people in the world. They are destroying the concept of free thought in the academy. It is intellectual dishonesty writ large. And it can become dangerous for those who don’t think the “right way.”

Mr. Nye insists that you need to believe in Evolution. If you don’t, you must be overcome because our society needs “… scientifically literate voters and taxpayers.”

Be careful what you wish for, Mr. Nye. If scientific literacy suddenly became a prerequisite for voting, it looks to me like a certain “science guy” would have to stay home on election day.

 

Bob Perry is a Christian apologetics writer, teacher, and speaker who blogs about Christianity and the culture at: truehorizon.org. He is a Contributing Writer for the Christian Research Journal and has also been published in Touchstone, and Salvo. Bob is a professional aviator with 37 years of military and commercial flying experience. He has a B.S., Aerospace Engineering from the U. S. Naval Academy, and a M.A., Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. They have five grown sons.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/30bWkij

/by
How Standard Evangelical Books on Biblical Interpretation Are Undermining the Bible(1)

How Standard Evangelical Books on Biblical Interpretation Are Undermining the Bible

By J. Brian Huffling

When one thinks about apologetics, he usually thinks about such disciplines as philosophy, history, archaeology, etc. There is one area; however, that is relatively undeveloped in the practice of apologetics, and yet it is ripe for the work: literary studies. I am not talking about what genre the gospels happen to be, or if the saints in Matthew 27 were literally raised, or any such argument that has been popular as of late. I am talking about theories in English and literature that dramatically influence the field of hermeneutics (how we study the Bible). One of my majors in grad school was Biblical Studies, and I have taught Bible Study Methods at the BA level, and Hermeneutics and Advanced Hermeneutics at the grad level. In doing so, I have read many books on the issue of biblical interpretation and have scoured many resources for my classes. While there are many issues I could talk about, such as deconstructivism, postmodernism, etc., the issue that seems to come up a lot in standard textbooks is the role of the interpreter and how he either uncovers or imparts meaning to the biblical texts. In this article, I will talk about two books that are standard for evangelical studies on biblical interpretation, and why I think they are undermining the objective meaning of the text.

The Books and Their Claims

The first book is Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, revised  and updated edition, by William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard Jr. (There is a newer 3rd edition.) In general, this is a very good book, which is why it is used by many Bible colleges and seminaries. I even use it. Many pastors have been taught using this book. The principles that the authors teach that we should use for interpreting our Bibles are very good. So what’s the problem?

The problem is what they say about the role of the interpreter and the nature of bias, presuppositions, and preunderstanding (the body of knowledge the reader brings to the text). They state:

“No one interprets anything without a set of underlying assumptions. When we presume to explain the meaning of the Bible, we do so with a set of preconceived ideas or presuppositions. These presuppositions may be examined and stated, or simply embraced unconsciously. But anyone who says that he or she has discarded all presuppositions and will only study the text objectively and inductively is either deceived or naïve.” (143)

It is certainly true that we all have biases, etc. However, the startling claim these authors make is since we have biases, we can’t study the Bible objectively. Unfortunately, and per usual for these kinds of books, the notion of “objectivity” is left undefined and unclear. They later deny that such biases leave the reader bereft of objectivity; however, they do not explain how he can be objective since they have seemingly taken it away via the role of biases and presuppositions. Such is especially the case given this statement:

“The preunderstanding and presuppositions of the interpreter contribute enormously to the results of the interpretive process. We might even say they determine the results.” (197)

If the preunderstanding and presuppositions determine the interpretive results, then it is not clear at all how the reader can be objective. We wouldn’t discover the truth or meaning of the text; we would determine it.

The other book is The Hermeneutical Spiral, revised and expanded, by Grant Osborne. Like the previous work, this book is generally very good when it comes to interpreting the Bible. However, in the appendix, Osborne espouses a dangerous view, namely, the sociology of knowledge. He states:

“The sociology of knowledge recognizes the influence of societal values on all perceptions of reality. This is a critical factor in coming to grips with the place of preunderstanding in the interpretive process. Basically, sociology of knowledge states that no act of coming to understanding can escape the formative power of the background and the paradigm community to which an interpreter belongs.” (505)

Basically, what this means is that one’s culture is “formative” in how one knows, and it influences one’s “perceptions of reality.” In other words, the way in which one knows is at least somewhat determined by his culture. Different cultures will produce different perceptions of reality. What does this mean for the biblical interpreter? He answers this question clearly:

“A close reading of the text cannot be done without a perspective provided by one’s preunderstanding as identified by a “sociology of knowledge” perspective. Reflection itself demands mental categories, and these are built on one’s presupposed worldview and by the faith or reading community to which one belongs. Since neutral exegesis is impossible, no necessarily ‘true’ or final interpretation is possible.” (516, emphasis added)

Some people will find this shocking while others will express agreement. Evangelicals who hold to the idea that we can (and must) be able to know absolute truth should find this kind of assertion by a leading evangelical very scary. If true, we would not be able to claim to know the truth or the meaning of the biblical text, if there even is any.

Evaluation

One wonders how the authors of these books think that their meaning can be grasped. If what they say is true, we could never know the meaning of their books! Such claims made by these authors are hopelessly self-defeating. Further, it is simply an assumption that biases are always necessarily wrong, or that subjectivity entails falsehood. But this has never been demonstrated. Presuppositions are not inherently bad or wrong, as the authors of Introduction to Biblical Interpretation seem to imply when they argue for a certain set of presuppositions in order to interpret the Bible, such as believing in the supernatural.

Introduction to Biblical Interpretation claims that we can still have an objective understanding of the text, but they don’t offer a method for giving that objectivity to the reader after they took it away in the name of bias, presuppositions, and preunderstandings. We are thus left in subjectivity. Or are we? While the above authors do not tell us how to overcome the interpretive problems brought on by the interpreter, there are ways of explaining how an interpreter can simultaneously be biased and objective. After all, aren’t the authors of the above books biased and yet trying to pass off their text as objective? Surely. So how can they do that?

In his Objectivity and Biblical Interpretation, Thomas A. Howe explains how this is possible. (See also my article on objectivity and historical knowledge.) As mentioned earlier, authors like those above rarely define what they mean by “objective.” I am in agreement with Howe that a proposition is objective if it can be verified or falsified by external, mind-independent evidence that is also based on (objective) first principles. In other words, something is objective when it is based on extra-mental evidence that by definition, is not subjective, or merely in one’s mind. Further, propositions can be evaluated by the use of first principles, such as the principles of non-contradiction, identity, and excluded middle. (For more discussion on these, see my article on logic.) Such laws of logic are based in the being/existence of things in the external world. For example, the principle of non-contradiction says that something can’t simultaneously be and not-be. In other words, something can’t be a tree and not a tree at the same time and in the same sense. Such laws are not just made up. They are not just rational constructs. They are metaphysical and based in and reducible to existent things in reality. These principles are objective because they are based on objectively existing things in the world.

These principles can be applied to everyday issues, such as interpreting a written text. It is obvious that the authors of the cited works think that their readers can read books objectively. Otherwise, why write them? And why have principles to follow if there is really no use since we can’t be objective or know the true meaning of the text? Being an objective interpreter of the Bible is possible. We simply use language and interpretive principles according to our everyday, commonsense way. There is no great barrier to objectivity, whether it be bias, presuppositions, preunderstandings, or a sociology of knowledge. The very knowing process built into our human nature and the way we use language ensures that an objective understanding of the Bible is indeed possible.

 

J. Brian Huffling, PH.D. have a BA in History from Lee University, an MA in (3 majors) Apologetics, Philosophy, and Biblical Studies from Southern Evangelical Seminary (SES), and a Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from SES. He is the Director of the Ph.D. Program and Associate Professor of Philosophy and Theology at SES. He also teaches courses for Apologia Online Academy. He has previously taught at The Art Institute of Charlotte. He has served in the Marines, Navy, and is currently a reserve chaplain in the Air Force at Maxwell Air Force Base. His hobbies include golf, backyard astronomy, martial arts, and guitar.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2NuvG2F

/by

The Unseen Realm

Podcast: Play in new window

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS

Join Frank as he interviews Dr. Michael Heiser about his book Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible. But beware: your view of the Bible may be rocked as a result of this interview! This is only Part 1. Part 2 is next week. Check out Dr. Heiser at www.DRMSH.com and on his Naked Bible podcast.

If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at  Hello@CrossExamined.org.

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

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

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

 

/by
The Problem with Christian Celebrity

The Problem with Christian Celebrity

By Robby Hall

The backlash against Lauren Daigle for her comments on homosexuality sparked debate amongst Christians who both defend and critique her.

John Crist, a Christian comedian, recently posted a video on his Instagram feed condemning those who judged her for her comments. Crist seemed to be unaware that he himself was judging other Christians for their behavior.   The thing is the church should make judgments on truth.  The New Testament constantly warns us of false prophets and teachers.  The apostle Paul tells us that “We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.”  If a brother errs, we take them aside lovingly to correct them.  But what about someone like Daigle or Crist?  Do Christian celebrities have a larger responsibility to adhere to sound teaching or to speak the truth?  First, we should make a sober judgment against ourselves to see if we were in the same position, would we do any different.  Secondly, we shouldn’t confuse the act with someone’s salvation.  Each of us is a work in progress, and the point of the Gospel is that we as human beings, are constantly missing the mark.  This is why Christ came and died on a cross.

That being said, we can rightly judge actions that have larger impacts on public perception of the Gospel and the Church and correct those actions if need be.  When Jesus warned us “not to judge lest you be judged,” He wanted us to not judge hypocritically.  Paul put it this way in Romans “Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another, you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things.  We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. 3 Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God?… While you preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?” Romans 2:2-3, 21&22

We tend to look to the famous for our theological marching orders.  However, this is a mistake.  Those like Daigle should be careful to place themselves under authoritative teachers, but we should be doing the same.  Celebrities can fall into the popularity trap and so begin to follow the path of Progressive Christianity[1]

We must strive as the Church to read the Bible, understand it’s history, proper hermeneutics, orthodox theology, and a good apologetic.  We also must not set up celebrities to fulfill a role they never were meant to.  If we show a brother their error, it is out of love and their edification and shouldn’t be to tear someone down.  But we shouldn’t look to a celebrity for our biblical instruction as they are in the entertainment business which is always a dangerous road for anyone to navigate and it shouldn’t surprise us when one fails in some fashion, but rather we should respond in prayer, grace, and truth.  Not every so-called Christian celebrity fails in this fashion as there are many who have a solid biblical understanding.  But we should be able to rightly divide the truth for ourselves by delving into God’s word and putting ourselves under solid, orthodox teachers and allow the truth to change us through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Note

[1] 5 Signs Your Church Might be Heading Toward Progressive Christianity http://bit.ly/2X1Kntn

 

Robby Hall is in the Secure Access industry for Information Technology. He has been married for 3 years and has just welcomed his first child, Bridget. He is graduate of the Cross Examined Instructor’s Academy and leads apologetics small groups at his local church.

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

/by
Blinded by Science

Blinded by Science?

, ,

By Terrell Clemmons

Don’t Be; That’s Just the New Atheists Masking Their Faith Choice

In the November 2006 cover story of Wired magazine, Gary Wolf thoughtfully gave ear to some of atheism’s most aggressive voices and labeled the movement that they lead “New Atheism.” Envisioning a brave new world in which science and reason overcome religious myth and superstition, New Atheists labor to purvey a comprehensive worldview that explains who we are and how we got here (Darwinian evolution), diagnoses our most urgent ill (ancient superstitions about God), and, most importantly, prescribes a cure for that ill (eradication of religion).

In the same month that Wired reported on New Atheism, Time magazine artfully depicted the science and religion quandary with a combination double helixÆrosary on its cover. The title, “God vs. Science,” might have led a casual reader to expect a story about a theologian opposing science, but the article actually covered a debate between two scientists. Geneticist Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, and biologist Richard Dawkins of Oxford University weighed in on Time’s questions about science, belief in God, and whether the two can peaceably coexist in an intellectually sound world-view. Collins said they can; Dawkins said absolutely not.

Recent battles over textbooks in America lend credence to the notion of science and religion as perennial foes, and ABC News, reporting on a survey of atheism among scientists, casually commented that “the clash between science and religion is as old as science itself,” as if that’s what everybody with any gray matter already knows. But historians of science reveal a different story, one that is more in line with the view of Dr. Collins.

In his course Science and Religion, Lawrence Principe, professor of the History of Science and Technology at Johns Hopkins University, meticulously untangles the historical accounts of events commonly bandied about as proof that religion suppresses science, such as the trials of Galileo and John Scopes. Principe teaches that, contrary to irreligionist lore, the two disciplines were generally viewed as complementary until a little more than a century ago.

Principe identifies two late-19th-century publications as the origin of the idea of warfare between science and religion: A History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science, written by skeptic scientist John William Draper in 1874, and A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, published in 1896 by Andrew Dickson White, first president of Cornell University. It is noteworthy that both writers seemed to want the church to back off; Draper wrote at the request of a popular science publisher, and White in response to criticism that he had received for establishing Cornell as the first American university with no religious affiliation.

Principe reveals that the premise of both books—that science and religion have occupied separate camps throughout history, and that religion has always been the oppressor of science—is unfounded, calling Draper’s book “cranky,” “ahistorical,” and “one long, vitriolic, anti-Catholic diatribe,” while White’s is “scarcely better.” Still, he credits the two sub-scholarly works with crystallizing in the popular mind the image of ongoing, intractable warfare between science and religion. Today’s New Atheists echo and amplify their war cries.

Are We Talking Science or Faith?

Skeptics ardently defend their right to reject religious dogma and make up their own minds about ultimate reality. Certainly, atheists, scientific or not, are free to adopt whatever belief system they choose, but can they legitimately claim science as the basis for atheism? Put more simply, has science disproved God, as the irreligionists maintain?

A closer look at Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins sheds light on that question. The most significant difference between the two scientists is not that one believes in biblical creation and the other in Darwinian evolution. Both affirm Darwinism. The salient distinction is that Collins allows for the possibility of God, whereas Dawkins does not.

But it wasn’t always so. The fourth son of two freethinkers, Francis Collins, was homeschooled until age ten. His parents instilled in him a love for learning, but no faith, and the agnosticism of his youth gradually shifted into atheism as his education progressed. He was comfortable with it, discounting spiritual beliefs as outmoded superstition until he began to interact with seriously ill patients as a medical student. When one of them, a Christian, asked him what he believed, he faced a rationalist’s crisis. “It was a fair question,” he wrote in The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. “I felt my face flush as I stammered out the words ïI’m not really sure.’” At that point, Collins realized that he had never seriously considered the evidence for and against belief.

Determined to practice authentic, what-are-the-facts science, Collins set out to investigate the rational basis for faith. Reluctantly, he found himself feeling “forced to admit the plausibility of the God hypothesis. Agnosticism, which had seemed like a safe second-place haven, now loomed like the great cop-out it often is. Faith in God now seemed more rational than disbelief.”

In contrast to Collins’s rational inquiry and personal struggle over the question of God, Richard Dawkins, the de facto spokesman for scientific atheism (think Madalyn Murray O’Hair with a Ph.D.), lays out his case for unbelief without struggle or reservation. In chapter four of The God Delusion, titled “Why There Almost Certainly Is No God,” Dawkins introduces his “Argument from Improbability,” and though the chapter waxes long, its reasoning distills to something like this:

  1. The universe we observe is highly complex.
    2. Any creator of this complex universe would have to be even more complex than it.
    3. It is too improbable that such a God exists; therefore, there almost certainly is no God.

The first two statements qualify as acceptable premises, but the conclusion that Dawkins reaches simply does not follow from them. This isn’t legitimate reasoning. It’s rationalization—that is, finding some plausible-sounding explanation for arriving at a conclusion that he has already chosen.

Dr. Dawkins is certainly free to choose to disbelieve, but his conclusion was not derived through scientific or rational means. Rather, it hints at an underlying personal, philosophical faith choice to disbelieve. Ernst Mayr, one of the twentieth century’s leading evolutionary biologists, made a similar observation when he analyzed reasons for disbelief among his Harvard colleagues. “We were all atheists. I found that there were two sources,” he said. One group “just couldn’t believe all that supernatural stuff.” The other “couldn’t believe that there could be a God with all this evil in the world. Most atheists combine the two,” he summarized candidly. “The combination makes it impossible to believe in God.”

Former atheist and biophysicist Alister McGrath concurs, noting that most of the unbelieving scientists he is acquainted with are atheists on grounds other than their science. “They bring those assumptions to their science rather than basing them on their science.” Dawkins’s rationalization, as well as the observations of McGrath and Mayr, reveal the choice to disbelieve for what it is—a personal, philosophical choice made apart from reason or scientific inquiry. I call it a “faith choice” because it involves choosing a foundational presupposition concerning a realm about which we have incomplete (but not insufficient) knowledge.

A Choice of Faith

Francis Collins’s conclusion, that the God hypothesis is not only plausible but compellingly supported by evidence, flatly controverts New Atheism’s premise that faith constitutes an irrational belief without evidence. It also reveals that the real conflict isn’t one of science versus God. It’s a conflict between those who allow and those who disallow the possible reality of God.

Polemicists will continue to clamor for converts to their side on the question of God because between the poles live thoughtful, educated people—not necessarily working scientists, but people who value science. Some believe in a supreme being called God, and others haven’t made up their minds. It is these theological moderates that New Atheism seeks to recruit with pithy epigrams such as “God vs. Science” and “My beliefs are based on science, but yours are based on faith.” What believers need is a calm, judicious counter-strategy when New Atheism advances under the guise of science, one that can transform verbal sparring into illuminating dialogue. Let me give you an example of what I mean.

My friend Dana has known Sam for decades. Over the years, Sam has peppered her with questions about her faith. Despite feeling intimidated—Sam is a highly respected leader in their community—she has answered as best she could and maintained their friendship. One evening over dinner in her home, Sam turned his questions on her teenagers, essentially asking them, “Do you really believe all that stuff and why?” Dana allowed them to speak for themselves for a while before intervening.

“Sam,” she started agreeably, “you and I have discussed this many times. I’ve told you what I believe and why, and you’ve told me all of your reasons for not believing.” Then she posed a question that she had never put to him before. “What if there really is a God, but you just don’t know about him? Are you willing to consider that possibility? Are you willing to ask him if he’s out there? Something like ïGod, I’m not even sure if you’re there, but if you are, would you show yourself to me?‘”

Dana let her question hang in the air. The teenagers likewise waited for Sam to break the silence. “No,” he finally said. “I’m not willing to do that.” And he hasn’t brought the subject up since.

Dana gently—but powerfully—pierced the facade of scientific skepticism with one question: Are you willing? It is not a question of scientific reasoning, but a question of choosing, of making a personal faith choice that, once made, establishes the starting point for one’s reasoning. Atheism isn’t founded on science or reason any more than theism is based on faith devoid of reason. The atheist, too, has made a faith choice. He has just chosen differently.

The Eternal Conflict

The “eternal conflict,” as it’s called, is not really between religion and science; after all, the two got along quite amicably before the twentieth century. No, as the following quotations indicate, the real quarrel has always been between those who believe that science and religion are at odds and those who do not.

“A legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”

—Albert Einstein

“It is… Idle to pretend, as many do, that there is no contradiction between religion and science. Science contradicts religion as surely as Judaism contradicts Islam—they are absolutely and irresolvably conflicting views. Unless that is, science is obliged to change its fundamental nature.”

—Brian Appleyard

“Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here. The two windows give different views, but both look out at the same universe. Both views are one-sided, neither is complete. Both leave out the essential features of the real world. And both are worthy of respect.”

—Freeman Dyson

“Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish.”

—Pope John Paul II

“When religion was strong and science weak, men mistook magic for medicine; now, when science is strong and religion weak, men mistake medicine for magic.”

—Thomas Szasz

“Science is an effort to understand creation. Biblical religion involves our relation to the Creator. Since we can learn about the Creator from his creation, religion can learn from science.”

—PaulæH. Carr

“There is more religion in men’s science than there is science in their religion.”

—Henry David Thoreau

“Science makes major contributions to minor needs. Religion, however, small its successes, is at least at work on the things that matter most.”

—Oliver Wendell Holmes

Science as Religion

One needn’t speculate about whether science is a religion for Darwinists such as Richard Dawkins. In a 1997 essay published in The Humanist, Dawkins tackles this question directly, arguing that his onetime tendency to deny that science is a religion was a tactical error that he has since repudiated. Instead, he writes, scientists should “accept the charge gratefully and demand equal time for science in religious education classes.” The reason? Well, according to Dawkins, whereas science is a faith “based upon verifiable evidence,” religion “not only lacks evidence,” but “its independence from evidence is its pride and joy.” Thus, science is the only religion worth imparting to future generations.

Rather than delineate the evidence that makes science outclass “any of the mutually contradictory faiths and disappointingly recent traditions of the world’s religions,” however, Dawkins chooses instead to describe what science might someday do for a society that religion does today. Chiefly, this amounts to inspiring in people an awe for “the wonder and beauty” of the universe in the same way that God currently inspires awe in religious believers. Indeed, as far as Dawkins is concerned, “the merest glance through a microscope at the brain of an ant or through a telescope at a long-ago galaxy of a billion worlds is enough to render poky and parochial the very psalms of praise.”

But here is where the evolutionary biologist gets himself into trouble. Yes, science has given us access to astonishing truths about the hidden nature of the universe, and yes, all that it has definitively revealed is based on incontrovertible evidence. It is also true, however, that most religions in the world do not posit faith claims in opposition to such breathtaking factual findings. Rather, religion lacks evidence at precisely those points where science does as well.

The faith that is the “pride and joy” of religious believers is in an invisible God who created the world and still interacts with it. The faith of Darwinian scientists is in the power of evolution to create the world and then continue to adapt it. There is no conclusive evidence for either of these faith claims, which is why some have accused science of being a religion in the first place, as well as why Dawkins must hawk the replacement value of science instead of citing the “verifiable evidence” that makes science superior to conventional religion.

All this is to say that Dawkins is correct to concede that science is a religion for him, but wrong to contend that this particular religion accomplishes something that others do not. When it comes to the significant questions of life—Where did we come from? How did we get here? Why are we here? —Science’s answers prove to be as faith-based as those of even the most fundamentalist religious sect. That science might successfully fulfill the function of religion is thus hardly reason enough to warrant a switch.

 

Terrell Clemmons is a freelance writer and blogger on apologetics and matters of faith.

This article was originally published at salvomag.com: http://bit.ly/2J9O9vV

/by
7 Independent Lines of Evidence for God's Existence

7 Independent Lines of Evidence for God’s Existence

,

By Luke Nix

Introduction- Why Is God’s Existence So Important?

One of the most heated debates in any setting is the existence of God. If God exists, then He is the foundation for objective morality. One’s view of morality governs their thinking in everything from politics to workplace interactions, from scientific research to everyday behavior. If God exists, then there are objective behavioral boundaries which should never be crossed. If God does not exist, then no such objective boundaries exist, and anyone may behave however they wish in any situation without concern for the violation of some objective standard (that is not to say that relative/cultural/legal standards cannot be violated- but that is a topic for another time). If we do not examine this question carefully, we risk believing what is false about reality and morality, and such false beliefs will necessarily lead to behaviors that are not in keeping with reality and morality. This means that many of the political and ethic debates opposing people have come down to whether or not God exists.

Presenting A Cumulative Case for God’s Existence

Numerous lines of evidence and philosophical arguments have been presented over the centuries for God’s existence. All of them come together to create a powerful cumulative case. Much like a detective’s case for the guilt of an accused murderer, multiple independent lines of evidence are presented that all point to the guilt of the accused. If such a method is valid for discovering the truth behind the claim that a murder took place and for the specific identity of the murdered, then the same method is also valid in determining the truth behind the claim that God exists and the identity of this God.

God’s Crime Scene

One of my favorite books that takes some of these arguments and presents the cumulative case comes from cold-case homicide detective J. Warner Wallace. In his book “God’s Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines The Evidence For A Divinely Created Universe.” Wallace presents seven independent lines of evidence that all point to God’s existence in the same way that he would present multiple lines of evidence to a jury for the guilt of an accused murderer. The lines of evidence he presents are summarized in these quotes from the book:

Does God Exist

  1. The Beginning– “The Standard Cosmological Model, accepted by physicists today is grounded on the foundational premise that the universe came into being from something beyond the space, time, matter, and energy of our universe.”
  2. Signs of Design– “The totality and interconnected nature of our galaxy’s unique backstory, along with its rare circumstances and unlikely conditions, overwhelmingly indicate design.”
  3. Consciousness– “In order to think rationally about our thoughts, we must have the freedom to do so, but this freedom is unavailable if the laws of physics and chemistry are controlling our thoughts.”
  4. Law and Order (Morality)– “Naturalism cannot adequately explain the existence of objective moral truths or objective, transcendent personal obligations.”
  5. The Origin of Life– “With each passing year, the level of complexity and interaction at the cellular level has become more apparent and more difficult to explain.”
  6. Free Will– “Choice is a feature of design and a reflection of intelligent agency. Designers make conscious choices between options. Their designs often reflect these decisions, especially when other options are available.”
  7. Evidence of Evil– “True evil requires a source of transcendent righteousness, a source for goodness that transcends the universe and everything in it.”

Wallace concludes by stating that as a detective, who must follow the evidence where it leads, “I believe God exists because the evidence leaves me no reasonable alternative.” If the objective standard of morality exists (God), then that standard is what must be used to judge ethical and political positions.

Conclusion- Prepare for Your Ethical Discussions With Objective Evidence For God’s Existence

If you find yourself involved in discussions of an ethical or political nature or just want to be able to more critically evaluate the political and ethical claims of others, I highly recommend that you pick up a copy of Wallace’s book to help establish a foundational point on which to begin evaluation and discussion. While not comprehensive on the case for God’s existence, it is one of the most accessible and engaging books on this topic, and it should not be passed up by anyone serious about investigating the truth of reality and morality.
For more great books on God’s existence, check out the many books that I have reviewed on this blog, and for the topic of ethics and politics, specifically, please check out my Top 5 Recommended Books for diving into those details.

 

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

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Xz6qvS

/by

Mama Bear Apologetics

Podcast: Play in new window

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS

If you get between a mama bear and her cubs, you’ll be in big trouble. Frank interviews Hillary Morgan Ferrer, who joined up with other mama bears, to show you how you can protect your cubs from the trouble generated by the false ideas that are celebrated in our culture. These include:

Self-Help Culture: the false belief that we are capable of fixing all of our own problems

Naturalism: the false assumption that natural laws alone govern order and complexity

Emotionalism: the irrational faith that our emotions can define objective truth and reality

Moral Relativism: the dissonance of accepting all beliefs as equally true

Progressive Christianity: omitting difficult theology in favor of a more politically correct version

Don’t miss Frank and Hillary’s discussion about the five words that our culture has redefined, confusing our children to the point that they are leaving Christianity and making other dangerous choices.

To get the full benefit of this podcast, you really need to get a copy of Mama Bear Apologetics. It’s a guidebook for parents and mentors who want to help kids gain critical thinking skills needed to reject cultural lies but may not know how to address every alternative viewpoint a child will face.

Official Site: Mamabearapologetics.com

If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at  Hello@CrossExamined.org.

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

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

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

/by
Can We Know Anything about the Historical Jesus

Can We Know Anything about the Historical Jesus? Yes, and It’s Much More than You Think!

,

By Brian Chilton

In 2000, I made the difficult decision to step away from my faith. I entered into what I call theistic-leaning agnosticism, one step removed from pantheism. I believed that some kind of God could possibly exist. However, I didn’t know that a person could know if that God really did exist and most certainly could not know anything about the historical Jesus of Nazareth. These doubts were brought on the claims of the Jesus Seminar who held that less than 14% of the sayings attributed to Jesus were actually his own. The Seminar claimed that the rest of the sayings were inventions from the apostles. Couple the Seminar with PBS’s show From Jesus to Christ, which claimed that the Christ of faith evolved over time from the Jesus of history, then one could see why I needed some serious answers. When I asked Christian leaders about how I could know if Jesus was accurately portrayed in the Gospels, I was met with scorn and hostility. Add to that the nepotistic hypocrisy I often saw, then stepping away from the faith was pretty easy.

However, everything changed in 2005. I was introduced to the writings of Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, William Lane Craig, and Gary Habermas. This past week, my journey came full circle. I had the honor to have one of my apologetic heroes, Gary Habermas, once again as a professor. The class investigated the New Testament creeds, which is the material in the New Testament that predates the New Testament writings. It is thought even by skeptical scholars that many of these creeds date to no later than 35 AD when Paul met Peter and James in Jerusalem (Gal. 1:18-20). The NT creeds tell us much about the historical Jesus because this information is located at ground zero. The creeds tell us about the message of the earliest church, which in turn came from the historical Jesus of Nazareth. So, what can we know about the historical Jesus of Nazareth from these creeds?

Creeds Tell Us about the Nature of the Historical Jesus. As fascinating as it is, the creeds provide us with high Christology. In fact, the earliest church had the highest Christology. This decimates the claims that the church evolved the nature of Jesus from a prophet to a divine God-man over time. For instance, consider the Philippians hymn. The Philippians hymn notes that Christ Jesus “existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be exploited. Instead, he emptied himself by assuming the form of a servant, taking on the likeness of humanity” (Php. 2:6-7a, CSB). The sermon summaries of Acts, all thought to be extremely early, denote the deity of Jesus as one who “has been exalted to the right hand of God” (Acts 2:33, CSB). Don’t forget about the Colossian’s creed where Christ is said to be the “invisible God, the firstborn over all creation” (Col. 1:15, CSB and see following Col. 1:16-20). One may say, “Okay, but this shows the church’s theology, not the historical Jesus of Nazareth.” In response, one must note that there is no historical presence of evolutionary development, not even legendary development. The earliest church held an extremely high view of Jesus. Therefore, Jesus of Nazareth must have taught something about his divine nature, backing them up with miraculous works.

Creeds Tell Us about the Life of the Historical Jesus. While the majority of the creeds focus on the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, the creeds do provide details pertaining to the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. The creeds note that Jesus was born a descendant of David (Acts 13:23; Rom. 1:3). Jesus was noted to have been a Nazarene (Acts 2:22; 4:10; 5:38). Jesus of Nazareth performed numerous miracles (Acts 2:22; 10:38) and fulfilled several Messianic prophecies (Acts 2:25-31; 3:21-25; 4:11; 10:43). From the creeds, the researcher begins to see a similar pattern of Jesus of Nazareth’s life that is portrayed in the biblical narratives concerning him.

Creeds Tell Us about the Death and Resurrection of the Historical Jesus. The majority of the creeds are based around the earliest kerygma of the church—that is, the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Most notably, 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 denotes the resurrection appearances of Jesus, even stating that 500 people witnessed the risen Jesus at one time (1 Cor. 15:6). The sermon summaries of Acts also provide the same formula in that Jesus lived, died, and rose again. The Acts 13 sermon summary even gives a nod to the empty tomb. For Paul’s early message stated that “When they had carried out all that had been written about him, they took him down from the tree and put him in a tomb. But God raised him from the dead, and he appeared for many days to those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses to the people” (Acts 13:29-31, CSB). The creeds denote the numerous witnesses who saw the risen Jesus. They sometimes provide details that other sources do not, such as Simon Peter’s private interaction with the risen Jesus (Lk. 24:34; 1 Cor. 15:5) and James’ private meeting with the risen Jesus (1 Cor. 15:7).

The early creeds are impressive in what they tell us about the historical Jesus of Nazareth. Some will skeptically hold that since the creeds speak of the miraculous and the divine that they must be thrown out. However, such attitudes show more of an anti-supernatural bias than they do a quest for historical truth. At the very least, these early creeds tell us what the earliest church believed about Jesus. At the most, the early creeds give a fascinating description of whom Jesus was, is, and forever will be. Even if we did not have the New Testament, the creeds would tell us everything we needed to know about the historical Jesus of Nazareth, who is the Christ of faith! The creeds tell the life-changing truth that Jesus has risen. Will you allow this truth to transform you?

 

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University and is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has been in the ministry for close to 20 years and serves as the Senior Pastor of Westfield Baptist Church in northwestern, North Carolina.

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

/by
Are the Gospels “hopelessly contradictory”

Are the Gospels “hopelessly contradictory”?

,

By Erik Manning

Critics of Christianity love to compile long lists of alleged contradictions in the gospels to shake the faith of unsuspecting church-goers. One of the more famous of these critics is Dr. Bart Ehrman. Ehrman studied at Princeton under Dr. Bruce Metzger, a respected intellectual heavyweight, and a devout Christian. Sadly, Bart later lost his faith and has since written five best-selling books that are critical of Christianity. Bart’s a force to be reckoned with and is viewed by the media as an authority on the NT and the historical Jesus.

According to Ehrman, the gospels don’t just have minor variations but are “hopelessly contradictory.” But is Bart’s verdict on the gospels warranted?

First of all, how do we define a contradiction?

A real contradiction would occur when two claims contradict each other when one of them must be false, and the other true. For example, the Quran says that Jesus was not really crucified. The four gospels say otherwise, and both can’t be right. The Quran and the Gospels are hopelessly contradictory.

But we know that sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction. We have cases in history where two events have appeared to be contradictory, but those contradictions were only apparent.

For example, who made the public proclamation of the Declaration of Independence in the old State House in Boston on the morning of July 18, 1776? Many accounts said that this proclamation was made by William Greenleaf, while others said that it was by Col. Thomas Crafts. But history now tells us that Mr. Greenleaf suffered from a weak voice. He first read the Declaration while Col. Crafts repeated it in a loud voice for all the crowd to hear. The seeming conflict disappears.

The more historical approach is that you can often resolve apparent contradictions through unstrained harmonization. That’s not a hopelessly unresolvable contradiction. Moreover, what if there is a contradiction that’s inconsequential to the main details of the story related?

Historical examples of this sort can be multiplied. To give one example: There was an embassy of the Jews sent to oppose the execution of Claudian’s order to place his statue in their temple. Philo says this happened in the fall. Josephus says it happened during spring. Both were contemporaries, yet no serious historian doubts that an embassy was sent or that the order was given.

It would take an entire series of posts to address all of Bart’s complaints of contradictions, but let’s pick on a few and see if they are as damning as Ehrman makes them out to be.

Jairus Daughter – Dead Already or Very Sick?

When asked on his blog if there was a “slam-dunk” contradiction that would be impossible to defend, Bart’s reply was this: “I don’t have one that is a slam-dunk. But there are dozens that are pretty good. Here’s one: Jairus came to Jesus to ask him to help his daughter: was the girl dead already and he wanted Jesus to do something about it? Or was she very sick and he wanted him to heal her before she died? (See Mark 5:21-43 and Matthew 9:18-26) I don’t see how it could be both!”

If you read those passages side-by-side, Bart looks like he has a point. But if we look deeper at Matthew’s account compared to Mark’s, we notice that it’s a lot shorter. Matthew tells us the story in just 8 verses, Mark takes 22. Here’s a list of omissions in Matthew’s version:

  1. Jairus is a ruler of the synagogue. Matthew calls him a ‘ruler.’
  2. The crowd following Jesus and pressing him.
  3. The second stage of the story where someone comes and tells him that his daughter is dead.
  4. Jesus takes Peter, James, and John with him.
  5. Jesus takes the girls’ parents into the room with him to raise her.
  6. Jesus’ direction to give her something to eat.
  7. Jesus’ command to keep silent.

That’s a lot of details left out, but Matthew does include the most important parts of the story: Jairus’ daughter died, Jesus said she was sleeping, people laughed Jesus to scorn, and Jesus raised her.

Reducing a piece of literature in terms of time or length to include only its necessary elements is a literary device called compression. Ancient writers used it all the time. As do many modern authors. Matthew has to intimate somewhere that the daughter is dead and not just sick. He shows this in the short summary of Jairus’s interaction with Jesus’ intentions, rather using his exact words.

Furthermore, according to Bible commentator G.A. Chadwick, Matthew’s phrase “has died even now” (ἄρτι ἐτελεύτησεν) is very close in meaning to Mark’s “at the point of death” (ἐσχάτως ἔχει).

A worried dad of a sick daughter might say “she’s dead by now” and mean what we’d convey by saying, “she’s at the point of death.” Jairus knew that his daughter was at death’s door when he went looking for Jesus. He may have used words to express that his worst fears already came to pass. Both explanations are plausible.

So after taking a deeper look, this isn’t a hopeless contradiction at all. This was supposed to be Bart’s go-to, and it’s pretty weak sauce.

Was Mary alone at the empty tomb, or were other women with her?

Let’s give Bart another shot. Here’s a quote from his debate on the resurrection with William Lane Craig:

“Who went to the tomb on the third day? Was it Mary alone, or was it Mary with other women?”

Here’s the text in John that Bart is referring to: “On the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark. She saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb.” (John 20:1)

The other three gospels all include other women (Mt. 28:1, Mk 16:1, Lk 24:1,10).

John said that Mary Magdalene came to the tomb, but he doesn’t say others were not present. All we need to do is read the next verse, and we see that she had company. “So she went running to Simon Peter and to the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said to them, “They’ve taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they’ve put him!” (John 20:2)

Wait for a second! Where did “we” come from? Mary Magdalene’s words say that there were others present. John reporting this implies that he’s well aware that there were other women at the tomb. As Greg Koukl says, “never read a Bible verse.” This feels like some hoodwinkery is going on here. But let’s give Bart another shot.

Did John contradict himself about the order of Jesus’ miracles?

Quoting Ehrman: “In John’s Gospel, Jesus performs his 1st miracle in ch 2. When he turns water into wine, (a favorite miracle on college campuses) and we’re told that ‘this was the first sign Jesus did’ (John 2:11) Later in the chapter we’re told that Jesus did ‘many signs in Jerusalem.’ (John 2:23) And then, in chapter 4, he heals the son of the centurion, and the author says, “This was the second sign that Jesus did. (John 4:54) Huh? One sign, many signs, and then a second sign?” (Jesus, Interrupted pp. 8-9).

Bart apparently thinks John can’t count. But Dr. Ehrman selectively cut off the last part of the passage in John 2. Let’s quote it in more detail: “this, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee…” Now let’s read John 4:54 for ourselves: “This was now the second sign that Jesus did when he had come from Judea to Galilee.“

Jesus did one sign in Galilee, then many signs in Jerusalem and then the second sign in Galilee. This is not a contradiction at all. It feels like Bart is trying to fleece an unsuspecting audience.

Reading with charity or suspicion?

If you’re a historian, you ought to not adopt a hermeneutic of suspicion, but rather use the principle of charity. According to literary theorist Rita Felski, a hermeneutic of suspicion is “a distinctively modern style of interpretation that circumvents obvious or self-evident meanings in order to draw out less visible and less flattering truths.”

That’s a nice way of saying you’re looking for trouble in the text. As a writer of 5 best-sellers, you’d expect Ehrman to understand what compression is. As a former seminarian who has studied at Princeton under Metzger, you’d think that he’d know better than to quote verses out of context seemingly order to score rhetorical points. But that’s what these contradiction lists are often mostly made up of.

They sound impressive, but when you actually read the text for yourself and use a little charity towards the text, they’re not all that hard to resolve by using a little common sense. There’s nothing hopelessly contradictory happening here.

Alleged contradictions in the gospels don’t have to be the boogeyman that Christians go out of their way to avoid. If anything, studying them out for yourself should increase your confidence in the gospels. You’ll often find that the critics have to resort to apparent dishonesty and glossing over obvious explanations in order to make their case.

Now that doesn’t mean that there are not some apparent contradictions that might be more challenging. This is why I purposely went after Bart’s favorite one first. If you’re willing to do your homework and tap into some resources out there, you’ll find that there are some very good explanations available if there is one that’s been troubling you.

Let me point you to a great resource: I’m indebted to Dr. Tim McGrew for much of the examples and explanations shared here. Tim has a 2-part series on YouTube where he addresses many more alleged contradictions in the gospels. He goes over many more in great detail. Just consider this post an opening act and Tim’s videos the main attraction. These examples, when examined in detail, show that the gospels are not even close to being hopelessly contradictory.

Alleged Contradictions in the Gospels by Dr. Timothy McGrew

Alleged Contradictions in the Gospels (part 2) by Dr. Timothy McGrew

 

Erik Manning is a former atheist turned Christian after an experience with the Holy Spirit. He’s a freelance baseball writer and digital marketing specialist who is passionate about the intersection of evangelism and apologetics.

/by

Is morality bad for business?

Podcast: Play in new window

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS

According to 180 CEOs, it is… at least the morality based on God’s Good nature. They claim that abortion bans go “against our values and [are] bad for business.” They claim abortion bans are a ban on “equality.”

What do they mean by equality?
What do they mean by bad?
What standard are they using to make such assertions?
Was banning slavery bad for business?
Are we supposed to base moral decisions on economic results?

Join Frank and as he unpacks this hot issue and shows why you shouldn’t be a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. He also addresses a difficult question from a listener about believing in a God who allows so much evil.

If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at  Hello@CrossExamined.org.

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

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

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

/by