Tag Archive for: apologetics

Historical Bias, Objectivity, and the Truth of Christianity

Historical Bias, Objectivity, and the Truth of Christianity

,

By J. Brian Huffling

“Historians are biased and choose what they report. As such, history can’t be known.” That’s a typical objection to the ability to know history. If such objections prove that we can’t know history, then we can’t know that Christianity is true since it is known through history and historical claims. In his prologue, Luke says,

“In as much as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:1-4; emphasis added).

The above passage demonstrates that Luke was writing as an historian. Words such as the ones underlined show his desire to write the truth of the events he wanted to convey. So, if history can’t be known, then we can’t know that Christianity is true. Let’s look at a typical objection.

Bias is probably the most popular objection to knowing history. It is claimed by some that historians are biased. It is not always clear what the objection is really getting at, but usually it is something like the historian holds certain views that in some way make his reporting subjective or unfair. For example, an historian may be writing about a religious issue and if he is part of that religion he is likely going to be accused of being biased. The disciples are often said to be biased regarding the events of the life of Jesus, particularly his resurrection. Since they knew him and had a vested interest they must have made up the claims of the resurrection.

Ironically, there are many assumptions (i.e., biases) about the nature of bias. It is more often than not used in a negative way and is equated with subjectivity and falsity. But why should this be the case? Why should the notion of either bias or subjectivity be equated with something being false? People could be biased because of evidence. If the disciples really did see Jesus alive after he was dead, then the reason they were biased was because of evidence and proof. But this bias would not be based on any subjectivity since their knowledge was based on objective and empirical evidence. Further, someone could have a subjective view of something and still be correct. There is nothing about being biased or subjective that guarantees that the belief is false. Such is an assumption in itself.

Consider this popular argument against objectivity:

  1. To be objective one must be free from bias.
  2. No one is free from bias.
  3. Therefore, no one is objective.

This is a valid argument, meaning that the conclusion follows from the premises. But is it sound (i.e., is the argument valid and the premises and conclusion true)? Well, if no one is free from bias that means the one making this argument is not free from bias. But statements like “No one is . . .” is a universal statement that applies to everyone everywhere. But aren’t universal statements objective? What else would ‘objective’ means other than something that is universal and not simply limited to the subjective beliefs of an individual? This whole line of argument is self-defeating. In other words, when using the argument’s criteria, the very argument itself fails. The objector, in this case, is objective in trying to argue that no one is free from bias and that no one is objective. However, the only way to make such universal statements is for the objector to make objective statements. If they were subjective, then they wouldn’t necessarily be universal. If they weren’t universal, then maybe some people aren’t biased. But this contradicts the argument. Assuming the argument holds water because no one really denies that people are biased, it shows that one can be biased and objective. (Note, it is not guaranteed that one is going to be objective and biased, just that it’s logically possible. The objection is thus deflated.)

This raises another question that is rarely asked and usually assumed: What does it mean for something to be ‘objective’? By now it should be clear that it can’t mean free from bias since we’ve just seen that a person can be both biased and objective. So being free from bias is not necessary to be objective (in fact I would agree that everyone is biased in a general sense). So what does it mean? Most people think that it means being detached from a given circumstance so that one can see it as an objective outsider. In his fascinating work Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, drawing on other work on this topic (such as Samuel Byrskog’s Story as History—History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History), Richard Bauckham makes the surprising and unfashionable statement:

“A very important point that . . . for Greek and Roman historians, the ideal eyewitness was not the dispassionate observer but one who, as a participant, had been closest to the events and whose direct experience enabled him to understand and interpret the significance of what he had seen” (page 9).

He further notes that many historians wanted someone who was involved in the events in question because that person would have a vested interest. They wanted someone who was involved and really there.

This counters the usual desire or assumed need for detatchment, but it does not say what objectivity is. Objectivity is arriving at conclusions that are based on evidence and principles that have their foundation in external reality. Everyone can use and measure truth claims based on external (objective) reality. Put negatively; it is the opposite of one making conclusions that arise simply out of one’s subjective mind. Such evidence based on reality and the principles that follow is mind-independent. Since reality is objective, that is, everyone can know it (as long as their faculties are working properly), the conclusions based on reality can also be objective. When one uses universal (objective) principles to ascertain the truth of a conclusion, one can be objective. Such principles are the laws of logic (or being). One such law is the law of non-contradiction. It declares that if two statements are mutually exclusive one must be true and the other must be false. For example, Christianity teaches that Jesus died. Islam counters that Jesus did not die. These statements are mutually exclusive—one must be true and the other false since there is no third option. Thus, they are contradictory. (This is contrasted with statements that can both logically be false, such as “Buddhism is true” and “Atheism is true.” Such statements that can both be false are called ‘contrary.’) Regarding this principle and its application to historical objectivity, Maurice Mandelbaum says,

“Our knowledge is objective if, and only if, it is the case that when two persons make contradictory statements concerning the same subject matter, at least one of them must be mistaken” (The Anatomy of Historical Knowledge, 150).

The law of non-contradiction is based in the nature of reality. It is not just a principle of thought, but of being. A tree cannot exist and not exist at the same time in the same sense. That would be a contradiction. Such first principles of thought and arising out of the nature of reality since something can’t simultaneously be and not be. It is not simply a made-up principle. In fact, it is undeniable since to deny it would require using it.

Thus, if one’s conclusions are based on external and objective reality and evidence, and the principles from such reality, those conclusions can be objective. There is, in a sense, an objective apparatus giving us the possibility of being objective. Again, this is contrasted with something arising only from one’s (subjective) mind rather than from external (objective) reality. There is, therefore, nothing about biases that preclude one from making objective historical statements. Biases do not guarantee subjectivity or falsity.

Back to Bauckham’s point regarding bias, it is often the case that people are indeed biased, but biased because of the evidence. They have seen so much evidence, that they are convinced that what they are saying is true. This, however, is not subjective bias or assumption, but rather the careful examination of objective reality and the evidence that all can investigate.

When looking at historical questions, such as the resurrection, one should not base his conclusions on notions such as the alleged bias of the ones making claims. Rather, one should examine the evidence for the claims to discover their veracity. We can recognize bias in every area and by all people. However, that alone is not enough to show that a person’s claim is false. To be good and responsible historians and investigators, we must follow the evidence.

(I would like to thank Norman L. Geisler for his direction regarding my MA thesis topic which was on this issue, as well as Thomas A. Howe to whom my thoughts and work are indebted greatly.)

 

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

/by
Abortion and The God Molech

Abortion and The God Molech

By Ryan Leasure

History is filled with barbaric cultures. One of the worst, though, has to be the ancient Canaanites. As was customary in that culture, parents offered their newborn children as sacrifices to their god Molech. Most depictions of Molech include large metal statues of a man with a bull’s head. Usually these statues had outstretched arms to hold the baby sacrifices.

During the sacrificial process, the Canaanites would light a fire inside or around the statue to heat up the statue as hot as they could. Then they would place their newborns into the red-hot arms of Molech and watch the children sizzle to death.

During this gruesome event, the Canaanites would play flutes and bang on drums to drown out the sound of their shrieking children. It’s truly awful stuff. No wonder God ordered the Israelites to destroy them.

Molech in The Bible

The Bible mentions Molech or at least references him about ten times. Here are a couple examples:

“Any Israelite or any foreigner residing in Israel who sacrifices any of his children to Molech is to be put to death. The members of the community are to stone him.” — Leviticus 20:2

“They built high places for Baal in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to sacrifice their sons and daughters to Molech, though I never commanded — nor did it enter my mind — that they should do such a detestable thing and so make Judah sin.” — Jeremiah 32:35

You might wonder why the Israelites would be tempted to sacrifice their children to Molech. As was the case with other ancient gods, Molech offered them some kind of benefit in exchange for their devotion. By offering up their children to be burned on the golden statue, the Canaanites believed Molech would cause them and their future children to prosper.

Our Molech Today

I don’t know a single person who hears about the horrors of Molech and doesn’t cringe at the gruesomeness. Brutally murdering babies in the name of Molech for future benefits is evil in the truest sense of the word.

Yet, at the same time, a large number of people today believe this ancient practice would be fine, so long as the baby was still in the womb. Just yesterday, New York legislators passed a law that allows for abortions up until birth. After the vote, this video circulated the internet showing hundreds of people cheering loudly in favor of this decision. It’s honestly one of the most disgusting scenes I’ve ever witnessed.

What kind of sick and twisted mind does one have to have to applaud the killing of unborn babies? These are babies after all. As I watched the video, I couldn’t help but think about the loud drums drowning out the babies’ screams.

“It’s Not as Bad as You Say It Is”

Since this new law allows women to abort their babies right before they go into labor, a woman can literally kill her baby one day and have people cheer for her, but if she kills her baby less than twenty-four hours later when it’s made it outside her womb, she’ll go to prison. It’s mind-blowing.

And let’s not pretend like the babies don’t feel a thing either. More studies than I can count demonstrate that babies at a very early stage can feel pain, not to mention taste food, hiccup, smile, dream, kick, and bond with their mother. So, when the abortion “doctor” injects the baby’s head with poison, know for sure the baby feels it and dies a horrifying death.

But they say, the law doesn’t allow for “any old abortion.” After all, the law says that only if the woman’s “life and health” are in jeopardy may she have an abortion up until birth.

The problem with this is that “health” could qualify for almost anything. It could mean physical health, but it could also mean psychological, mental, or financial health. In other words, it’s so vague that someone could get a late-term abortion for almost any reason. All the woman needs to say is that the baby would cause too much stress in her life because of added financial responsibilities, and she’s got her ticket to an abortion. Plain and simple.

Unborn Babies in The Old Testament

Though anyone with a first-grade knowledge of biology can see that a newborn and a full-term baby are scientifically the same, Christians have extra motivation to reject abortion because of Scripture’s clear teaching on the issue. Take Exodus 21:22-25 for example:

If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely, but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is a serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

In short, no one should ever harm an unborn baby. If they do, the law calls for a strict penalty (life for life, eye for eye, etc.).

It’s interesting to note, that according to Old Testament law, accidentally killing someone did not result in “life for life.” Instead, accidental killers were sent to a city of refuge to stay away from the rest of the population (Num. 35:9-15). Meaning, God had an even stricter warning for accidentally killing unborn babies than people outside the womb.

Are you following the logic? If God had strict warnings against accidentally killing unborn babies, he must despise the fact that we kill them intentionally and then celebrate it to boot. So, when the mayor of New York lit up the World Trade Center in pink to celebrate more murder, we can rest assured that God doesn’t take it kindly. I mean, if that’s not a symbolic middle finger to God, I don’t know what is.

The Unborn Jesus

The birth of Jesus is a familiar one. The angel Gabriel appears to Mary and says that she’s going to conceive and give birth to a son. During her pregnancy, she visits her sister Elizabeth who was also pregnant at the time. Luke 1:41-44 reports:

When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice, she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.”

First, we notice that the text refers to the unborn child in Elizabeth’s womb as a baby (Greek, brephos). It’s the same Greek word used to describe children outside the womb (Lk. 18:15). And we see that this same baby was already able to recognize Jesus’ presence. In other words, he’s not just a lump of tissue.

Furthermore, Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, recognizes that Mary is the “mother of my Lord.” That is, she recognized Mary’s status as a mother despite the fact that Jesus was still in the womb.

While commenting on this text, Christian ethicist John Jefferson Davis writes:

The significant point is that God chose to begin the process of incarnation [in the womb], rather than at some other point, thus affirming the significance of that starting point for human life.1

Davis makes a good point. Since Jesus’ birth was miraculous, God could have chosen to start Jesus’ life at any point. He could have dropped him down from the sky and left him at someone’s doorstep. But instead, God chose to begin Jesus’ life in Mary’s womb demonstrating the value of unborn babies. I think we can all be glad that Mary didn’t have an abortion.

The Irony of Abortion

To date, Americans have slaughtered millions upon millions of unborn babies. Think about all those little innocent, vulnerable people, killed before they were even given a chance. And at the same time, we judge other nations for their less than humane practices. Who are we to talk?

But the greatest amount of irony is that every person in favor of abortion made it out of the womb alive. Every. Single. One. I dare say, they’re all grateful too.

Abortion and The God Molech

Truth is, we aren’t any better than the ancient Canaanites. Instead of sacrificing our children to the god Molech in exchange for future prosperity, we sacrifice our children in exchange for better career paths, financial security, and convenience.

While abortion apologists try to sanitize abortion by using terms like “tissue” instead of “baby” or “end the pregnancy” instead of “killing,” there’s no denying what’s going on when we inject poison into babies’ heads. We’re brutally murdering them. And we’ve done it millions of times. Lord, have mercy on us.

 

Ryan Leasure holds an M.A. from Furman University and an M.Div. from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He currently serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.

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

/by

The Trinity in the Old Testament

Podcast: Play in new window

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

It is often assumed that the doctrine of the Trinity – the idea that there is one being of God that is comprised of three eternal and co-equal divine persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) – is something that is revealed only in the New Testament. While it is certainly true that the expression of the Trinity reaches its climax in the New Testament, few people (Christians and non-believers alike) are aware that one can find evidence of divine plurality – and even of there being three divine persons – throughout the Old Testament as well. Listen to this fascinating episode with our guest Jonathan McLatchie and pay attention to how he reveals the Trinity in the Old Testament.

Keep Frank busy by sending your questions to Hello@CrossExamined.org and don’t miss this episode!

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
What Criteria Do Historians Use to Get To The Minimal Facts About The Historical Jesus

What Criteria Do Historians Use to Get To The Minimal Facts About The Historical Jesus?

,

By Wintery Knight

Have you ever heard Gary Habermas, Michael Licona or William Lane Craig defend the resurrection of Jesus in a debate by saying that the resurrection is the best explanation for the “minimal facts” about Jesus? The lists of minimal facts that they use are typically agreed to by their opponents during the debates. Minimal facts are the parts of the New Testament that meet a set of strict historical criteria. These are the facts that skeptical historians agree with, totally apart from any religious beliefs.

So what are the criteria that skeptical historians use to derive a list of minimal facts about Jesus?

Dr. Craig explains them in this article.

Excerpt:

The other way, more influential in contemporary New Testament scholarship, is to establish specific facts about Jesus without assuming the general reliability of the Gospels. The key here are the so-called “Criteria of Authenticity” which enable us to establish specific sayings or events in Jesus’ life as historical. Scholars involved in the quest of the historical Jesus have enunciated a number of these criteria for detecting historically authentic features of Jesus, such as dissimilarity to Christian teaching, multiple attestations, linguistic Semitisms, traces of Palestinian milieu, retention of embarrassing material, coherence with other authentic material, and so forth.

It is somewhat misleading to call these “criteria,” for they aim at stating sufficient, not necessary, conditions of historicity. This is easy to see: suppose a saying is multiply attested and dissimilar but not embarrassing. If embarrassment were a necessary condition of authenticity, then the saying would have to be deemed inauthentic, which is wrong-headed, since its multiple attestation and dissimilarity are sufficient for authenticity. Of course, the criteria are defeasible, meaning that they are not infallible guides to authenticity. They might be better called “Indications of Authenticity” or “Signs of Credibility.”

In point of fact, what the criteria really amount to are statements about the effect of certain types of evidence upon the probability of various sayings or events in Jesus’ life. For some saying or event S and evidence of a certain type E, the criteria would state that all things being equal, the probability of S given E is greater than the probability of S on our background knowledge alone. So, for example, all else being equal, the probability of some event or saying is greater given its multiple attestations than it would have been without it.

What are some of the factors that might serve the role of E in increasing the probability of some saying or event S? The following are some of the most important:

(1) Historical congruence: S fits in with known historical facts concerning the context in which S is said to have occurred.

(2) Independent, early attestation: S appears in multiple sources which are near to the time at which S is alleged to have occurred and which depend neither upon each other nor a common source.

(3) Embarrassment: S is awkward or counter-productive for the persons who serve as the source of information for S.

(4) Dissimilarity: S is unlike antecedent Jewish thought-forms and/or unlike subsequent Christian thought-forms.

(5) Semitisms: traces in the narrative of Aramaic or Hebrew linguistic forms.

(6) Coherence: S is consistent with already established facts about Jesus.

For a good discussion of these factors see Robert Stein, “The ‘Criteria’ for Authenticity,” in Gospel Perspectives I, ed. R. T. France and David Wenham (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1980), pp. 225-63.

Notice that these “criteria” do not presuppose the general reliability of the Gospels. Rather they focus on a particular saying or event and give evidence for thinking that specific element of Jesus’ life to be historical, regardless of the general reliability of the document in which the particular saying or event is reported. These same “criteria” are thus applicable to reports of Jesus found in the apocryphal Gospels, or rabbinical writings, or even the Qur’an. Of course, if the Gospels can be shown to be generally reliable documents, so much the better! But the “criteria” do not depend on any such presupposition. They serve to help spot historical kernels even in the midst of historical chaff. Thus we need not concern ourselves with defending the Gospels’ every claim attributed to Jesus in the gospels; the question will be whether we can establish enough about Jesus to make faith in him reasonable.

And you can see Dr. Craig using these criteria to defend minimal facts in his debates. For example, in his debate with Ehrman, he alludes to the criteria when making his case for the empty tomb.

Here, he uses multiple attestations and the criteria of embarrassment:

Among the reasons which have led most scholars to this conclusion are the following:

  1. The empty tomb is also multiply attested by independent, early sources.

Mark’s source didn’t end with the burial, but with the story of the empty tomb, which is tied to the burial story verbally and grammatically. Moreover, Matthew and John have independent sources about the empty tomb; it’s also mentioned in the sermons in the Acts of the Apostles (2.29; 13.36); and it’s implied by Paul in his first letter to the Corinthian church (I Cor. 15.4). Thus, we have again multiple, early, independent attestation of the fact of the empty tomb.

  1. The tomb was discovered empty by women.

In patriarchal Jewish society, the testimony of women was not highly regarded. In fact, the Jewish historian Josephus says that women weren’t even permitted to serve as witnesses in a Jewish court of law. Now in light of this fact, how remarkable it is that it is women who are the discoverers of Jesus’ empty tomb. Any later legendary account would certainly have made male disciples like Peter and John discover the empty tomb. The fact that it is women, rather than men, who are the discoverers of the empty tomb is best explained by the fact that they were the chief witnesses to the fact of the empty tomb, and the Gospel writers faithfully record what, for them, was an awkward and embarrassing fact.

There are actually a few more reasons for believing in the empty tomb that he doesn’t go into in the debate, but you can find them in his written work. For example, in his essay on Gerd Ludemann’s “vision” hypothesis. That essay covers the reasons for all four of his minimal facts.

So, if you are going to talk about the resurrection with a skeptic, you don’t want to invoke the Bible as some sort of inerrant/inspired Holy Book.

Try this approach instead:

  1. Explain the criteria that historians use to get their lists of minimal facts
  2. Explain your list of minimal facts
  3. Defend your list of minimal facts using the criteria
  4. Cite skeptics who admit to each of your minimal facts, to show that they are widely accepted
  5. List some parts of the Bible that don’t pass the criteria (e.g. – guard at the tomb, Matthew earthquake)
  6. Explain why those parts don’t pass the criteria and explain that they are not part of your case
  7. Challenge your opponent to either deny some or all the facts or propose a naturalistic alternative that explains the facts better than the resurrection
  8. Don’t let your opponent attack any of your minimal facts by attacking other parts of the Bible (e.g. – the number of angels being one or two, etc.)

And remember that there is no good case for the resurrection that does not make heavy use of the early creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8.

The best essay on the minimal facts criteria that I’ve read is the one by Robert H. Stein in “Contending with Christianity’s Critics“. It’s a good short essay that goes over all the historical criteria that are used to derive the short list of facts from which we infer the conclusion “God raised Jesus from the dead”. That whole book is really very, very good.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Tfx7jC

/by
15 Quotes From Dr. Michael G. Strauss on the Big Bang's Revelation of God's Invisible Attributes

15 Quotes From Dr. Michael G. Strauss on the Big Bang’s Revelation of God’s Invisible Attributes

,

By Luke Nix

The Creator Revealed

In 2018 University of Oklahoma particle physicist Dr. Michael G. Strauss released his latest book. In this short non-technical volume, he introduces the reader to the astrophysical discoveries that reveal the characteristics of the Creator of the universe, hence the title “The Creator Revealed.” He strongly emphasizes the claim of Romans 1:20 that the Creator’s attributes are “clearly seen” in the creation, even by those who wish to deny the Creator’s existence. I gave the book a full chapter-by-chapter review available here, but today I want to highlight fifteen of my favorite quotes from the book.

The Christian and the Life of the Mind

“I think that when we as Christians do not fully investigate the truth of something because we are concerned that it might confront our beliefs, we forget one of the very basic characteristics of the God we serve, namely that he is a God of truth.”

“How can we, as Christians, stand firm when our faith is challenged intellectually? We can do this by learning to love the Lord our God with all our minds; by asking tough questions about God and the Bible and finding good, reasonable answers to those questions; by learning how to properly interpret the Bible in its context and according to its culture…and by understanding that all truth discovered by humans will ultimately reveal the creator of all truth.”

“I have found that the more one studies nature, the more one can see that it reveals God’s personality, to such an extent that many of the writings of even nonreligious scientists clearly declare God’s power and majesty.”

“When we find truth in nature or we find truth in scripture, we see God’s character revealed.”

Does The Big Bang Reveal God’s Invisible Attributes?

The Creator Revealead Quotes 1“If the big bang was God’s method of creation yet we as Christians deny its veracity, then we are building an unnecessary wall between us and other people who accept the big bang but don’t yet know God.”

“Most people already have heard of the big bang and agree with scientists that it accurately describes the origin of the universe. What most people don’t know is that the big bang also reveals the characteristics of the creator, the God of the Bible.”

“The evidence that the big bang was God’s method of creation is compelling for many reasons. For instance, it reveals the very nature of God, just as Romans 1:20 says creation should. It doesn’t just reveal God’s character to those who already believe in him or to those who only look superficially at nature; it reveals the very nature of his character to those who study the universe in depth. It drives people to realize that the creator is a transcendent designer who cares for humanity. It leaves them truly without excuse because they have rejected the creator, not for the record of creation.”

“Modern science and the big bang can be tremendous evangelistic tools when we realize that they reveal the character of God.”

“When we understand how the big bang reveals the person and character of God, we see him more clearly, and this shows his glory, majesty, and wonder.”

Why Do Scientists Accept The Big Bang?

The Creator Revealead Quotes 2“Based on the evidence from both observations and theoretical calculations, the scientific community eventually, and maybe reluctantly, has accepted the idea that the universe appears to have begun about fourteen billion years ago–because there is no other explanation that fits the evidence.”

“The evidence for the beginning of the universe in the big bang has become so powerful and so convincing that scientists have accepted it as true even though the philosophical and theological implications may be repugnant to some.”

“There are some Christians who say that most scientists today have misunderstood the facts of nature. They say that the facts clearly point to a universe created just a few thousand years ago. But such a belief is inconsistent with what Romans 1:20 implies. Paul says that the evidence left by the creator should be clearly visible so that all, even the scientists studying the universe, are without excuse if they fail to see it… [T]his is exactly the case with the big bang.”

“It doesn’t matter when the universe was created, whether it was six thousand years ago or fourteen billion years ago, to the naturalist who doesn’t believe in God, both ideas are equally repugnant.”

“It should not surprise you that the big bang reveals characteristics of the creator that (1) are clearly evident, (2) are apparent even to those who do not accept any kind of deity, and (3) correspond to attributes ascribed to God in the rest of the Bible. After all, that is exactly what Paul [in Romans 1:20] said the evidence should do.”

“An accurate understanding of the big bang and its implications can change lives. Truth has a way of doing that.”

The Creator Revealead Quotes 3

 

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/2R7yRJU

/by

The Right to all Other Rights

Podcast: Play in new window

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

If you don’t have this right, you don’t have any other rights… thank God you are alive and able to read this podcast description which means you are enjoying the right to life. Unfortunately, hundreds of thousands are denied that right every year and millions have been murder in the womb due to the human rights abuse of abortion. As you know Frank does not shy away from delicate or controversial topics so join him in this episode as he unpacks this difficult subject and learn how to address this topic intelligently.

Keep Frank busy by sending your questions to Hello@CrossExamined.org and don’t miss this episode!

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
Philosophy Is for Everyone

Philosophy Is for Everyone

By Colin Burgess

“Philosophy is everybody’s business.” – J. Mortimer Adler.

Aristotle opened his opus on philosophy, The Metaphysics, with, “All men by nature desire to know.” Nothing could be truer; when one begins to ask the ‘why’ questions, one is taking intellectual responsibility for constructing their weltanschauung, or worldview. No longer are they taking their thoughts or beliefs for granted, but are rebelling against their upbringing and are no longer espousing beliefs by means of dogma, adopted as a child, through upbringing and indoctrination, but are making these beliefs their own as they categorically examine them. This is not to say beliefs passed onto us from early childhood are wrong, but those who examine them carefully seek to provide some sort of justification for them. It is by philosophy we can have a discussion with long-dead thinkers, like Plato, Marx and the Apostle Paul, and as we represent their views, as accurately as possible, we can see what they were saying as though they were sitting right in front of us. By carefully doing this we can abandon the politics and religion of our parents, or examine them further and make them truly our own.

Often it is said that children are the best philosophers. Perhaps this is because they ask the most honest and uncensored questions. As we grow older our thoughts tend to reach a state of entropy, and we no longer seek justification for beliefs but are content to think only as much as necessary to get through our daily routine, and our minds begin to atrophy. Too often we let celebrities, politicians, clergymen, and newscasters tell us what to think, rather than learning, for ourselves, how to think, as we eat our TV dinners. Is this what Socrates meant when he said, “The unexamined life is not worth living?” He didn’t mean to say that those who don’t examine their thoughts should kill themselves, but that those who do not live an examined life are living without intent, they are basically marking time, waiting to die.

Maybe we will wake up from our intellectual slumber long enough to seek justification for defending certain social views we hold, or at election time when we defend our voting decisions to ourselves, our family and friends, but then once the dust has settled, many of us are too busy or content to fold our hands and resume life as normal. Surely this is not because of stupidity, many of these people are our doctors and lawyers, or highly skilled people in the trades. Perhaps it is because we are not in a “food for thought” economy, no one has given me a penny for my thoughts, so we do not pursue the art of ordering our thoughts simply because there are bills to pay and our children are hungry, and in the absence of a philosophy factory being built there is little chance many of us, except the chosen few, will ascend to the heights of academia where we will pay them a penny for their thoughts. Some may fancy themselves philosophers or have taken a module or two in philosophy, as part of an academic requirement, but many see philosophy as being difficult, or even boring.

Many have a misunderstanding of what philosophy is, without even realizing we are all philosophers even if we aren’t acquainted with the terminology; many think philosophy has to do with scratching our flea ridden beards, sitting around and pondering obtuse questions which have no ultimate answer. While such has been the case in the history of philosophy, this is certainly not the normative. While there is no consensus in the discipline of philosophy on many issues, philosophers seek to deal with very real issues which affect our society today, such as in the fields of ethics and medical research, there are political philosophers which examine political ideas and their effects on society. The discipline of law is built on philosophy, and many lawyers are required to study this, so they may reason through a set of premises and formulate a well-reasoned argument. In the sciences philosophy functions as a tool for defining what science is and how we ought to think about the world being studied.

One doesn’t have to do philosophy out of thin air, many philosophers today are standing on the shoulders of giants, and we can see how thinkers in the past dealt with similar issues facing us today, saving us the effort of reinventing the wheel, and allowing us to pick up where they left off.

To put philosophy in a nutshell, it can be summed up in 4 major periods, the ancient philosophers, the pre-Socratics, the Socratics, and the Medieval philosophers. All of these philosophers dealt with their experience of the world, and if one reads a tome on the history of Western Philosophy, they can get a comprehensive picture, after the fact, how they sought to wrestle with issues of their time. These philosophers, ranging from Aristotle to Nietzsche, wrestled with issues pertaining to metaphysics (what is real), epistemology (theory of knowledge), ethics (how we ought to behave), existentialism (who we are) and logic (how we ought to think). How one answers these questions will determine their views on God, politics and many other aspects of life, and if one opens up an introductory text to the philosophy, they will eventually see similarities in their views or thoughts to how the ancients thought, to some degree.

This is not to defend any particular view of ethics, metaphysics or religion but is to defend and encourage the art of thinking carefully and ordering our thoughts and becoming more aware of our beliefs, so they may be held with a greater degree of intentionality and justification and not taken for granted.

For those who want to briefly examine philosophy without committing to an expensive book on the subject, Douglas Groothuis has written an excellent and concise book summarizing the most famous philosophers and their famed sayings, in “Philosophy in Seven Sentences,” and for those wishing to further explore, I found ‘Philosophy for Dummies’ to be very informative and accessible. While Bertrand Russell has written an excellent history of western philosophy, Anthony Kenny has written a “New History of Western Philosophy,” which covers more contemporary philosophers as well as older ones.

 

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3gm5JkR

/by

Why Everyone Believes in Borders

Podcast: Play in new window

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

Do you have locks on your doors? How about on your car? Got a fence so your kids can play safely? The truth is everyone believes in secure borders. In fact, life would be impossible without them. As long as human nature is what it is—bent toward evil—borders will be necessary.
Frank skillfully discuss this extremely difficult topic and help you navigate thru this issue with some clear and helpful insights.
Also, during the last section of this episode, he responds to a question from a listener related to a Bible Study she attended where they told her basically she doesn’t have to give reasons for the truth of Christianity. Yikes! Yes, we know; unfortunately, there are still preachers, teachers, and pastors that don’t get it, and then when 75% of their youth leaves the faith when they go to college, they act surprised. Make sure to listen until the end. God bless!

Keep Frank busy by sending your questions to Hello@CrossExamined.org and don’t miss this episode!

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
Lowder’s Comments to My Assessment of His Debate with Turek

Lowder’s Comments to My Assessment of His Debate with Turek

, ,

By Jacobus Erasmus

In 2016, Jeffery Jay Lowder[1] debated Frank Turek on the topic Naturalism vs theism. See here:

In early 2017, I wrote two articles in which I assess Lowder’s opening statement (see here and here). It was brought to my attention that Lowder recently made some comments to my assessment (see the comment section here).

Lowder’s Comments to My Assessment of His Debate with Turek

I do not usually respond to comments on blogs because (1) it takes too much of my time and (2) I think that my responses will not change many minds. Nevertheless, occasionally it seems worthwhile to make such a response. I wish to take the opportunity in this post to make some remarks about Lowder’s comments in order to remind us how to engage with those that disagree with us. Let me begin by making some general remarks about how (I think) we should engage with an opponent.[2]

First, we should occasionally remind our opponent that we are not criticizing them but a specific view or argument. This implies that we should not attack our opponent personally, that is to say, we should not criticize their personal attributes, such as character, appearance, intelligence, or moral standards. Of course, nor should we physically attack our opponent, nor throw stuff at them, nor give them a wedgie[3] (you get the point). However, it is important to (now and then) make it clear to our opponent that we are not criticizing them even if they attack us personally.

Second, we should occasionally remind our opponent that we value them. As Christians, we believe that every person is created in God’s image and, thus, has tremendous value and worth (Genesis 1:26). This implies that we should treat our opponent with respect and in such a way that they can see we value them. We should not, of course, treat our opponent as if they are less valuable than us; for example, do not talk to your opponent as if they were an earthworm, or blob, or ogre. Furthermore, we should occasionally tell our opponent that we value them as this act shows that we value them. Doing so would also give our opponent an ‘awww-how-nice-of-you’ feeling. I, for one, would feel very warm in my heart if my opponent told me that they value me (I might even give them a hug, but a man hugs, of course).[4]

Moreover, if we truly value our opponent, then we will defend them when relevant. For example, if somebody attacks Lowder personally, and if I am aware of it or in the vicinity, I will defend Lowder. I will be very angry with Lowder’s attacker and I might even give them a wedgie. So, Lowder, if you are reading this, please know that I value you!

Finally, we should occasionally ask our opponent to be patient with us. We all make mistakes and no one is perfect. Thus, it will be beneficial if we remind ourselves that we are not an inerrant, unique snowflake that the world revolves around. And then, once we are humbled, we should ask our opponent to please be patient with us as we interact with them because we might make a blunder here and there. If we do this, then perhaps our opponent will have more respect towards us.

Now, with those general remarks out of the way, let us look at Lowder’s comments. On Sunday, December 30, 2018, 11:04 PM,[5] a person with the username (or real name?) Bogdan Taranu[6] made the following comment to Lowder’s post:

I don’t know if you’re aware of this but Jacobus Erasmus over at Free Thinking Ministries critiqued the case for Naturalism you made during your debate with Turek in a two-part analysis. This was back in 2017. The relevant links are at the end of this comment.

The part I found most interesting is about your claim that Naturalism is intrinsically more probable than Theism. Basically, there are two types of modesty: linguistic and ontological. The former is about the number of claims a hypothesis asserts, while the latter is about the number of entities a hypothesis asserts (a hypothesis is more modest than another if the former asserts the existence of fewer entities – objects, events, properties – than the latter). Linguistic modesty seems to allow one to rig the process of inference to the best explanation.” More to the point linguistic modesty allows us to „define our hypotheses such that they make as many assertions as we want, and then we can choose as the most modest the hypothesis that makes the least number of claims”. This means the theist can say that Theism asserts only that “God exists” while holding that Naturalism asserts several things – thus making Theism more modest than Naturalism.

I would like to know what you think about the above criticism…

Lowder then posted several comments in response to Bogdan. Let us look at them piece by piece. Lowder says,

I’m flattered he found the opening statement worthy of a detailed reply.

Here is a good lesson for all of us: If someone writes a detailed response to your argument, that does not necessarily mean that your argument is, or that they think it is, worthy of a detailed response. In many cases, it is not the argument per se but, rather, the splash or effect generated by the argument that justifies one writing a response to the argument. Consider, for example, some of Richard Dawkins’ objections to theism. His objections are so bad that I (as well as several other scholars) feel embarrassed for Dawkins.[7] His objections are not worthy of a detailed reply. Nevertheless, the influence of his arguments does seem to justify the responses that scholars have offered since many laypersons get moved by the emotional tone of Dawkins and fail to see his reasoning errors.

However, Lowder’s opening statement is worthy of a detailed reply. Lowder is no Dawkins. Indeed, I wish that Lowder had Dawkins’ prominence as Lowder is far more reasonable than Dawkins.

Lowder continues,

It will come as no surprise to anyone that I disagree with him on virtually every point, but more important is the fact that I don’t consider his point about “linguistic modesty” to be an accurate or even charitable representation of my argument.

When we say that someone does not offer a charitable interpretation of an argument, we usually (and should) mean that they have not offered a lenient or tolerant interpretation of the argument. For example, suppose that some sentence is ambiguous and could be read in either a strong, reasonable sense or in a weak, unreasonable sense. A charitable interpretation would be to understand the sentence in the strong, reasonable sense. Lowder, then, is accusing me of not being charitable or accurate in representing his argument. Fair enough. But why, exactly, am I being uncharitable? Lowder continues,

In fact, my points about coherence and modesty show that naturalism (as I have defined it) and supernaturalism (as I have defined it), are equally ontologically modest, whereas theism (as I have defined it) is ontologically less modest than naturalism.

This does not explain how, exactly, I am being uncharitable. We are not talking about how Lowder defines naturalism, supernaturalism, and theism but, rather, with his definition of ‘intrinsic probability’ and ‘modesty’ as these are the definitions he relies on to argue that naturalism is more intrinsically probable than theism. Now, in his opening statement, Lowder explains that the ‘intrinsic probability of a hypothesis is determined entirely by its modesty and coherence’. And what does he mean by ‘modesty’?

Intrinsic probability is determined by modesty, coherence, and nothing else. By “modesty,” I mean a measure of how much the hypothesis asserts. The more a hypothesis claims, the more ways there are for it to be false and so, before we start looking at the evidence, the less likely it is to be true.

Now, I interpret the above quote as talking about linguistic modest, which refers to the number of claims (or propositions) a hypothesis asserts. Am I being uncharitable here? I do not think so. I cannot see how else to interpret the quote.

Lowder continues in his recent comments,

I think he’s barking up the wrong tree.

Is this not a cute saying? Barking up the wrong tree! Nice. Let us see if I can use this saying somewhere later in this post. He continues,

If I were trying to defend theism (or Christian theism) against my opening statement, I would concede the first contention (from my opening statement), but try to minimize the impact of the point about intrinsic probability by arguing that theism is not significantly less intrinsically probable than supernaturalism and/or argue that the evidence favoring theism over naturalism “swamps” its intrinsic improbability.

I sure hope that Lowder would one day be defending Christian theism. We could surely use someone as articulate as him on our side! Lowder, please, please, come over to our side. Lowder continues,

I stand by what I wrote: I don’t think Erasmus has accurately or even charitably represented my view. Here is one of many examples. He writes: “Since naturalism is the view that physical reality is all that exists…” Except that is precisely NOT how I defined naturalism in my opening statement. I understand that many naturalists do define naturalism in that way, which is why I spent precious speaking time in my opening statement to offer nuanced definitions of my terms. And in every speech after my opening statement, I made it very clear that I was NOT defending the view that physical reality is all that exists.

Uhh, so there is a section in my post in which I use the term ‘naturalism’ slightly different to how Lowder defined the term. Why did I do this? I am not sure. After re-reading my post, I think I just made a mistake. The important point, however, is that the meaning of my paragraph does not change when I use Lowder’s definition. My paragraph would then read as follows:

“Since naturalism is the view that the physical exists and, if the mental exists, the physical explains why the mental exists, most versions of naturalism affirm that physical reality is eternal in that either (i) there exists one universe that has existed for an infinite number of events, or (ii) there exists a multiverse that comprises an infinite number of universes.”

Indeed, we can even leave that part of the sentence out, as it does not seem to be relevant to my argument:

“Most versions of naturalism affirm that physical reality is eternal in that either (i) there exists one universe that has existed for an infinite number of events, or (ii) there exists a multiverse that comprises an infinite number of universes.”

I think Lowder is barking up the wrong tree (huh, I used the saying. Lowder, you have to give me credit for this at least). He is focusing on my definition of naturalism when he should be focusing on the central point or argument that I am making. Lowder continues,

I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine why Erasmus has failed to show that theism is more modest than naturalism.

But I am the reader, and I cannot see where I went wrong here? He continues,

Here’s another example of where I think Erasmus is being quite uncharitable. He writes: “Indeed, it seems to me that theism wins here. Since naturalism is the view that physical reality is all that exists, most versions of naturalism affirm that physical reality is eternal in that either (i) there exists one universe that has existed for an infinite number of events, or (ii) there exists a multiverse that comprises an infinite number of universes. Either way, this version of naturalism asserts the existence of an infinite number of events or universes.” This is doubly uncharitable. First, he’s attempting to measure the intrinsic probability of one hypothesis, naturalism, by measuring the intrinsic probability of that hypothesis conjoined with an auxiliary hypothesis–his (i) or (ii). But that’s an apples to apples-plus-oranges comparison.

Lowder sure likes to use the word ‘uncharitable’. However, once again, I cannot see how I am being uncharitable. I think it is clear in my paragraph that I am talking about some versions of naturalism, not conjoined hypotheses. I have spoken to naturalists who claim that physical reality is all that exists, and when asked what they mean by ‘physical reality’, they refer to an infinite (or at least very large) multiverse. Others define physical reality as an infinitely old universe. These are single hypotheses or versions of naturalism. Moreover, as Lowder acknowledges, a hypothesis can have multiple claims. Thus, I am referring to versions of naturalism that make these claims; they are not hypotheses conjoined with auxiliary hypotheses.

He continues,

Naturalism, as I’ve defined it, isn’t committed to either (i) or (ii). If a naturalist subscribes to either (i) or (ii), then that would be the result of some factor which is extrinsic to the content of naturalism. For example, a scientist, who could be a theist or a naturalist, might posit a multiverse in order to explain such puzzling phenomena as the so-called “cold spot” … But, if they do, they’re appealing to a posteriori information which is by definition irrelevant to intrinsic probability.

Lowder’s bare-bones-super-skinny-desperate-for-flesh definition of naturalism, of course, might not be committed to either (i) or (ii) depending on what he means by ‘physical reality’. However, I was discussing more substantial and (as I see it) common versions of naturalism. As I see it, as soon as a naturalist posits a multiverse or an infinitely old universe, that forms part of their naturalism because it alters their understanding of ‘physical reality’. So, for example, if Lowder believes in a multiverse, then he will understand ‘physical reality’ to include a multiverse and his view of naturalism will affirm a multiverse. Well, this is how I see things anyway. You are free to see things differently.

I will end here. Lowder does make a few more remarks (I believe that what I have already said applies to most of his other remarks) and he might make further comments after this writing (I wrote this early on the 03 January 2018). This was enjoyable and pleasant. I enjoy reading about Lowder’s ideas, and I hope he will be more active on his blog in the future.

Notes

[1] Don’t you just like the name ‘Lowder’? I would not mind having that name. It rolls nicely off the tongue. But I can think of some awkward situations that the name can get you into. For example, since it sounds like ‘louder’, can you imagine someone who is struggling to hear you ask, ‘Please talk louder’?

[2] I readily admit that I have not always followed the advice I present here. I have made mistakes. But I am trying. Moreover, please feel free to disagree with some (or all!) of my remarks. I am simply explaining how I see things.

[3] Definition of wedgie: ‘The condition of having one’s clothing stuck between the buttocks, often from having had one’s pants or underwear pulled up as a prank’ (https://www.wordnik.com/words/wedgie).

[4] What is a ‘man hug’? It is a type of hug that has several characteristics that distinguish it from a normal hug: (1) The hug is performed by a man. (2) While performing the hug, the man tenses or flexes his arm, shoulder, and chest muscles as to not come across as squishy. (3) The hug is performed for a very short duration, usually under one second.

[5] Yes, you should be impressed by my precision.

[6] Let us just agree that the name ‘Bogdan Taranu’ is unusual for us Westerners.

[7] When I say that I feel ‘embarrassed for Dawkins’ I do not mean this in a derogatory or demeaning or belittling sense. Rather, I mean that I truly feel embarrassed or sympathy for him. Let me try to clarify this somewhat. When I watch a Mr. Bean or Johnny English movie, I feel embarrassed for the main character because they do things in the story that I would be too embarrassed to do, and part of me wishes that the character would not have behaved in such a silly manner. It is this same feeling I have towards Dawkins. When I see Dawkins I see Mr. Bean. In fact, I have a suspicion that Dawkins is Mr. Bean undercover.

 

Jacobus Erasmus (Kobus) Dr. Jacobus Erasmus is the author of the book “The Kalām Cosmological Argument: A Reassessment”. He is currently a researcher at North-West University, South Africa and a computer programmer. He received his Ph.D. in philosophy from North-West University and was awarded the Merit Prize in 2015 by the university’s School of Philosophy for superior performance for his doctoral dissertation. Dr. Erasmus also holds an Honours Degree in IT. His main research interests include Natural Theology, Philosophy of Religion, and Metaphysics. www.JacobusErasmus.com

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2FqYof7

/by
Book Review God's Crime Scene for Kids

Book Review: God’s Crime Scene for Kids

,

By Luke Nix

Introduction

Several years ago, cold-case homicide detective J. Warner Wallace wrote the book “God’s Crime Scene” where he details his investigation, as an atheist, into the evidence for God’s existence. In the book, he explains that investigating the universe for an outside cause is quite similar to the investigation of a death scene. If the evidence at the scene can be explained by “staying in the room,” then an outside cause (murder) can be reasonably removed. Likewise, if all the evidence within the universe can be explained by “staying in the room” of the universe, then an outside cause (God) is not a reasonable conclusion. In both cases, though, when evidence requires an outside cause, then the conclusion cannot be avoided. You can read my chapter-by-chapter review of “God’s Crime Scene” here.

Book Review God's Crime Scene for Kids

“God’s Crime Scene” is the second book in a trilogy that includes “Cold-Case Christianity” and “Forensic Faith.” Because of the popularity of this series, Wallace and his wife adapted the content of the books to a younger audience: kids! Today’s review is the second in the kids’ series: “God’s Crime Scene for Kids.“

The Story

In this second story, the young cadets find themselves investigating a new mystery: the source and purpose of the contents of an old box found in one of the cadets’ attic. Detective Jeffries takes the cadets through a new series of investigative principles, giving them new tools to apply as they investigate. Detective Jeffries, like he did with the previous mystery of the skateboard, uses the principles to guide the cadets through an investigation of ultimate concern: the purpose and cause of the universe. The cadets use the contents of the box to determine if they must look outside the box for a cause or if the explanation exists in the box; likewise, they use the contents of the universe to determine if they must look outside the universe for its cause or if the universe is sufficient to explain its own contents. As the investigation into the box, its contents, and possible explanations progresses, Detective Jeffries asks the cadets eight specific questions about the universe’s contents and possible explanations:

  1. Was the universe an inside or outside job?
  2. Who or what is responsible for the universe’s being here?
  3. Does information require an author?
  4. Is there evidence of an artist?
  5. Are humans more than just the “stuff” of the universe
  6. Can humans really make choices?
  7. Is “right” and “wrong” more than just a matter of opinion?
  8. Can an all-powerful and all-loving God exist with the evil in this universe?

Just as in the first mystery, the cadets simultaneously build their case for the source and purpose of the contents of the old box and the same for the universe. As each question is asked and possible explanations are considered, the possible explanations are narrowed down until only one for each remains reasonable given the contents of box and the universe.

The Case-Maker’s Academy

The Wallaces designed the book to not just be read but to be interactive. They bring the kids into the story by providing the Case-Maker’s Academy online for the kids to follow along with the story’s cadets as they go through the investigations. Once completed, the kids receive their own certificate they can show to their friends.

Reviewer’s Thoughts

As with the first book in the series (Cold-Case Christianity for Kids), the Wallaces did another masterful job of taking the content of a more advanced book and presenting it in an entertaining and easily understandable way for our children. I can’t wait to get my kids into this book (really, the whole series). No doubt, this book will help spark many conversations about God and the universe, and the Wallaces made it easy to find answers, for even those beginning to become familiar with this material, by having the content follow the order of the original “parent’s” edition (God’s Crime Scene). Just as I highly recommended the first book, I highly recommend this one as well. Now, on to the third in the trilogy- Forensic Faith for Kids, but something tells me there is no need for you to wait for a review… just go get it!

 

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/2rWOUAg

/by