Christianity Archives - Page 33 of 106

Tag Archive for: Christianity

Can Atheism Account for Objective Morality?

1. Does Truth Exist?, Atheism, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

Do objective morals exist? That is to say, are certain actions right or wrong irrespective of what people think? Philosphers and moral scientists have wrestled over the question of objective morality for centuries. Prior to the Enlightenment, objective morality was a given. The foundation for which was the nature of God himself.

Since the Enlightenment, however, brilliant minds have sought to find other explanations for objective morals using only the natural world, and this pursuit has proven to be quite difficult. As a result, naturalism — the belief which denies any supernatural or spiritual realities — has bred scores of moral nihilists. Contemporary atheist Richard Dawkins sums up this view nicely when he writes, “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”[i]

Many skeptics, on the other hand, wish to avoid such a depressing outlook. After all, human experience seems to suggest that some actions are objectively good or evil. Therefore, instead of adopting moral nihilism, other naturalists adopt the view known as moral realism seeking to maintain objective moral values and duties.[ii] But can this view hold up to scrutiny? Have philosophers and scientists been able to ground morality in some place other than God?

In this article, I will demonstrate that theism provides the only basis for objective morality. I will support this thesis in two ways. First, I will evaluate the different explanations naturalists have used to ground morality and show them to be wanting. Second, I will substantiate the claim that theism accounts for objective morals despite skeptics’ objections.

Naturalism and Morality

In Letter to a Christian Nation, Sam Harris remarks, “Questions of morality are questions about happiness and suffering… To the degree that our actions can affect the experience of other creatures positively or negatively, questions of morality apply.”[iii] A self-described atheist, Harris adopts a totalitarian approach which argues that we can ground morality in the pleasure or misery of individuals.

In his more critiqued book, The Moral Landscape, he defines the “good” as that which supports the well-being of “conscious creatures.”[iv] But why, given atheism, should we think that the flourishing of human beings is objectively good? Where, exactly, in the natural world do we learn this objective truth? Harris fails to provide an explanation for this assertion. He simply equates “good” with “human flourishing” without any justification in what amounts to equivocation and circular reasoning.

Is/Ought Fallacy

Harris’s attempt to ground morality in human flourishing fails on at least two additional fronts. First, Harris is guilty of committing the is/ought fallacy. Generally speaking, someone commits the is/ought fallacy when they attempt to make value judgments using science.[v] Science, after all, only explains what “is,” not how things “ought” to be. For example, science tells us how us how to make an atomic bomb. It cannot, however, tell us whether we ought to use it. Harris believes he can prove his point by demonstrating that science tells us how to make life more conducive. But what exactly does this prove?

Of course advancements in science have aided in human flourishing. Science also tells us how to make life more conducive for corn and rabbits. But that does not mean it is morally evil to prohibit the flourishing of corn. Because Harris cannot ground objective morality as the term is philosophically understood, his only recourse is a semantic sleight of hand in which he redifines the word “good” to mean human flourishing. Even still, though science tells us how to promote human flourishing, it does not tell us that we “ought” to promote human flourishing.

Naturalistic Determinism

The second fatal error to Harris’s argument is his commitment to naturalistic determinism. As someone who affirms objective morality, Harris affirms that we “ought” to act a certain way. Yet he rejects the notion of free will at the same time.[vi] He goes so far as to state that free will is merely an “illusion.”[vii] As a naturalistic determinist, Harris holds to the view that every event is the result of a chain reaction which has been causally determined by the laws of physics and chemistry. In essense, humans act in robotic fashion and possess no volitional control over of their actions.

This position is paramount to agreeing with Richard Dawkins when he states, “DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”[viii] We expect Dawkins to make a statement like this since he denies objective morality. We would not, however, expect Harris to affirm determinism since it undercuts his moral argument. After all, he notoriously condemns religious people for their agregious actions. But given Harris’s determinism, can he really blame them? Does he not believe that their actions were spring loaded at the Big Bang and carried out by the inflexible laws of physics and chemistry?

Naturalistic Reasoning?

The problem for Harris’s determinism runs even deeper. For if naturalism is correct, and human beings are mere matter and nothing else, then rational thought becomes impossible. Rationality is, after all, the ability to adjudicate between arguments and evidence. But how do atoms, molecules, and physical laws make concious decisions? Years ago, C. S. Lewis recoginzed this fatal flaw. He remarks, “A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid, that theory would, of course, be itself demolished.”[ix] In other words, if Harris is right on naturalistic determinism, it follows that we have no grounds for even knowing if naturalism is true.[x]

In the end, while Harris’s desire to affirm objective morality is commendable, he simply has no rational basis for his claims. He not only commits the is/out fallacy, he also undercuts his position by categorically denying free will of any kind. For these reasons, Harris’s view has failed to attract many suitors. Naturalists, though, have not bailed on the enterprise altogether. Most naturalists aim to ground morality another way — through evolutionary biology.

Morality from Evolution?

Standard Darwinian evolution asserts descent with modification. This process of natural selection acting on random mutations has been the standard view among naturalists for quite some time. And on the surface, this model seems to contradict our modern understanding of morality. For if Darwin was right, then for millions of years, creatures scratched and clawed their way to the top, sometimes killing and eating each other. We can understand, then, how natural selection explains features such as sexual drive, hunger, and fear since these qualities aided in preservation. But how does natural selection explain the phenomenon of altruism? How does sacrificing one’s self for the good of others aid in survival?

Naturalists typically offer two explanations — kin selection and reciprocal altruism. Kin selection theory suggests that species behave altruistically in ways that benefit the rest of their families at their own expense. For example, a monkey might cry out a warning to her relatives if she sees a leapord coming. This cry results in the leapord focusing its attention on her, decreasing her survivability. This sacrifice, however, ensures that the family genes — the same genes shared by the altruistic monkey — will survive and pass on to the next generation.[xi]

Naturalists also argue that altruism arose through reciprical relationships. In what amounts to “you scratch my back and I will scratch yours,” reciprical altruism is similar to bartering where assymetrical species help each other out by providing services that the other cannot provide for themselves. Bees need nectar and flowers need polinating. Or in some cases, animals need bugs and dirt removed from their fur, so another animal will do it for them when they could be out searching for food or a mate. Natural selection, therefore, favors the species that provide services for other species.

Evolution’s Failure

Even if we granted that evolution explains the rise of altruism, that does not solve the naturalist’s problem for a few reasons. First, as one considers the evolutionary rise of altruism, it becomes clear that altruism — especially on the reciprical model — is performed for selfish reasons. In other words, the theory suggests that species do “nice” things for other creatures only because it benefits them in the long run. But now we are talking about self-centeredness — the exact opposite of altruism.

A second critique of the evolutionary model is that it makes morality arbitrary. That is to say, it reaches ad hoc conclusions about the value of human beings. For if Darwin’s theory is correct, all living species descended from a single-celled organism and now form the different branches on Darwin’s tree of life. With this model in mind, who is to say that humans should be treated differently than crickets, rats, or cows? William Lane Craig refers to this inconsistency as “specie-ism,” in that people are showing unjustified bias towards their own species.[xii] Craig is right on this. Given naturalism and the Darwinian model, humans are just one branch of many. Nothing about Darwinism tells us that we ought to act differently from the other species in the animal kindgom.

Take the black widow, for example, who often eats her male counterpart during the mating process. Or consider male sharks who forcibly copulate with female sharks. Do either of these creatures commit moral evils? If not, why would these same actions be wrong for humans since we all belong to the same tree of life? We can certainly appreciate the secular humanists who wish to maintain that humans are intrinsically valuable, but they have no way of grounding this position given their naturalism. Atheist philosopher Michael Ruse admits as much when he writes, “I appreciate that when somebody says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves… Nevertheless… such reference is truly without foundation.”[xiii]

Evolutionary morality is on even shakier ground when we consider that evolution is, by definition, the unguided process of natural selection. Meaning, if we were to rewind back the time to the very beginning and start over, morality could have evolved quite differently. Human morality could have evolved like black widows and sharks and we would not know any difference.

A third and most damning critique of the evolutiony model is that it cannot even begin to explain why anything is objectively right or wrong. Even if we granted that evolution adaquately explains how species began to act morally, it does not begin to explain why acting in those ways is objectively good. Similarly, naturalists also think that because they can discern morality means that they have solved the problem. Again, William Lane Craig points out this fatal flaw when he exclaims, “I have been astonished at the confusion of moral ontology with moral epistemology on the part of prominent moral philosophers.”[xiv]

In the end, naturalists who attempt to ground objective morals in the natural world fail in their attempt. They might be able to explain the origins of altruism. And they might even know objective morals. But they cannot account for the existence of the moral standard itself and why humans ought to follow it.

Based on the above observations, naturalism cannot ground objective morality. At the same time, however, humans experience a certain “oughtness.” They feel like they ought to love rather than hate, and that they ought to show courage rather than cowardice. These “oughts” are epistemically surprising given naturalism. Yet, they correspond nicely with another worldview.

Theism and Morality

The “oughtness” humans experience fits nicely with a theistic worldview. And while the argument does not hinge on which theistic worldview one embraces, this section will approach the argument from a Christian worldview.

Christians maintain that objective morality is grounded in God himself. Seeing the failings of naturalists to ground morality in the natural world further substantiates the Christian’s claim that the moral law must derive from a different source — namely, a supernatural one.

Dealing with Euthyphro

One popular objection to the Christian position is commonly referred to as the Euthyphro Dilemma. This dilemma was first raised in Plato’s dialogue and goes like this: either something is good because God willed it or else God wills something because it is good.

Notice the dilemma these alternatives raise for the theistic view. For if something is good because God willed it, then it follows that the whatever is good is arbitrary. On the other hand, if God wills something because it is good, then the moral standard exists independent of God.

The problem with this objection, however, is that the skeptic presents the theist with a false dilemma. Meaning, a third option exists which asserts that God wills because he is good. This view argues that far from God’s commands being arbitrary, they are rooted in his perfectly good nature. Or to put it another way, God’s commands are “necessary expressions of his just and loving nature.”[xv] C. S. Lewis was also insightful in this regard. He declared, “God’s will is determined by His wisdom which always perceives, and His goodness which always embraces, the intrinsically good.”[xvi] In the end, the Euthyphro Dilemma is not much of a dilemma after all.

Relativism

Another popular objection to the theist view is that moral truths are relative. Relativists agree that naturalism cannot ground objective morality, but they go one step farther by suggesting that objective morality does not exist at all. To support this claim, relativists point to what they perceive as different moral standards in different cultures. Yet the relativist position fails on multiple fronts.

First, relativists often confuse objective morality with changing behavior. For example, they argue that since Western culture used to think slavery was acceptable, but now it does not, morality then must have changed. This argument, though, is not too different from the is/out fallacy Sam Harris committed. Merely describing the change in human behavior in no way demonstrates that objective morality changed. This view is tantamount to suggesting that the laws of physics changed after Newton because we now have a more enlightened view.

A second objection revolves around moral disagreements. As the argument goes, if there is such a thing as a moral law, why is there so much disagreement on moral issues? Again, the relativists objection is weak here.

Consider the modern debate over abortion. One view believes it is a moral crime since it believes aborition is the murder of an innocent child. On the other hand, those who are pro-choice think abortion is acceptable if that is what the mother chooses. The pro-choice tactic, however, is to redefine what exists in the mother’s womb. They use euphemistic phrases such as “clump of cells” rather than “baby” to justify killing it. What this change in terminology suggests is that both sides agree on the basic moral principle that murder is wrong. One position, though, has changed terminology to justify their view.

This change in terminology is not so different from how the Nazis justified the Holocaust or how Colonial Americans justified slavery. In both cases, they convinced themselves that they were not dealing with human beings of equal value in an attempt to assuage their consciences. So, while on the surface it appears that wide moral disagreements exist among people and cultures, a closer examination shows that root moral issues are pretty similar. Lewis remarks, “If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own.”[xvii] This common understood morality explains why legal codes and religious codes share much in common across all times and cultures.

Image Bearers and Free Will

Given the Christian position, how does one explain this common sense of morality? The answer is rooted in God’s creation of human beings. In the first chapter of the Bible, we read that God made human beings in his image as the peak of his creation (Gen 1:26-27). As image-bearers of God, humans share certain characteristics in common with the Divine. Since Classical Theism asserts that God is a maximally great being, and part of his maximal greatness is his perfect goodness, we are not surprised that humans desire to do good.

Additionally, the perpetual wrestling over ethical issues also coincides with theism. For example, if naturalism is true, humans would simply act upon their strongest impulse brought about by the laws of chemistry in their brain. But humans do not do act this way — or at least they know they should not. Even naturalists recognize we should not act on our strongest impulses when those impulses would lead us to murder, rape, or steal. Yet, this ability to refrain from acting on one’s strongest impulses would be impossible given naturalism. But if God made people as both material and immaterial, it follows that they could adjudicate between competing desires.

While contemplating this very issue, C. S. Lewis suggested, “If two instincts are in conflict, and there is nothing in a creature’s mind except those two instincts, obviously the stronger of the two must win. But at those moments when we are most conscious of the Moral Law, it usually seems to be telling us to side with the weaker of the two impulses. You probably want to be safe more than you want to help the man who is drowning: but the Moral Law tells you to help him all the same.”[xviii]

Lewis recognized that there is more to people than mere physical chemistry. People possess the ability to make volitional decisions contrary to their strongest impulses. And as Lewis suggests, people do so because they are inherantly aware of the moral law. For him, the feeling that we ought to behave a certain way along with the guilt that follows when we fail to meet that moral standard suggests that both a moral law exists, and we were hardwired to live in light of that law.[xix]

Moral Law

These feelings are shared by all people, because all people are made in the image of God, irrespective of their faith. The apostle Paul recognizes as much when he wrote, “For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them” (Rom 2:14-15).

According to Paul, Gentiles — those without the written law — are still accountable for their sin for two distinct reasons. First, God has implanted his moral law within them. And second, he has given everyone a conscience by which they can discern if they are living in accordance with that moral law. It is crucial to distinguish between the two. With respect to the moral law, New Testament scholar Douglas Moo contends, “Paul is almost certainly pressing into service a widespread Greek tradition to the effect that all human beings possess an ‘unwritten’ or ‘natural’ law — an innate moral sense of ‘right and wrong.’”[xx] In other words, the moral law is not a Christian invention, but a concept that was easily discernable by Greek philosophers.

Moo goes on to argue that the conscience is the “a reflective mechanism by which people can measure their conformity to a norm.”[xxi] Thomas Schreiner agrees with this assessment. He argues that to “identify the conscience and law, so that both are understood as the source of moral norms, is mistaken. The conscience is not the origin of moral norms but passes judgement on whether one has abided by those norms.”[xxii] Therefore, the reason people experience “oughtness” is twofold. First, God has implanted his moral law within all people. And second, he has instilled in everyone a conscience which either accuses or excuses their actions.

Therefore, theism gives us a sound foundation for objective moral values. It explains the objective moral standard which exists in our universe — rape is evil — and it explains why people feel as if they ought to act a certain way.

Conclusion

As this article demonstrates, theism provides the only basis for objective morality. Since naturalism fails to provide an objective foundation for morality, the only options remaining are moral nihilism or belief that God grounds morality. Atheists who wish to deny God’s existence, therefore, must resort to radical nihilistic positions, even denying the objective evil of events such as the Holocaust.

Experience tells us, though, that this perspective is unliveable. For if those same relativists had been forced into those gas chambers, they would quickly embrace objective morality. In fact, people can usually discern objective morals based on how others treat them. If someone rapes their daughter or burns down their house, they will say things like, “that’s not right” or “that’s not fair” without thinking through the worldview implications of those statements. While many skeptics assert that our perception of reality is merely an illusion, the best recourse is to adopt the worldview that best explains our experiences.

Footnotes

[i] Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden (New York: Basic Boosk, 1995), 133.

[ii] J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Press, 2003), 492.

[iii] Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation (New York: Vintage Books, 2008), 8.

[iv] Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values (New York: Free Press, 2010), 12.

[v] James Davison Hunter and Paul Nedelisky, Science and the Good: The Tragic Quest for the Foundations of Morality (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2018), 18.

[vi] Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape, 104.

[vii] Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape, 112.

[viii] Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden, 133

[ix] C. S. Lewis, Miracles (), 21-22.

[x] See a more recent development of this argument in Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 227-240.

[xi] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York: Mariner Books, 2008), 247.

[xii] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3^rd ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008), 175.

[xiii] Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwin Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), 268-269.

[xiv] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, 176.

[xv] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, 182.

[xvi] C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, 100.

[xvii] C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 5-6.

[xviii] C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Harper One, 1952), 10.

[xix] C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 8.

[xx] Moo, Douglas, The Epistle to the Romans: The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 150.

[xxi] Moo, Douglas, The Epistle to the Romans, 152-153.

[xxii] Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans: Baker Exegetical Guide on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 123.

Got Doubts? Stop Doing This!

Atheism, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

From working in public apologetics ministry for a few years now, one common mistake I see from Christians struggling with their faith is that they try and prematurely flex their apologetic muscles by spending tons of time listening to atheist YouTubers, podcasts or reading blogs but they don’t get the bulk of the Christian evidences strong under their belt first. When they come across a few things that stump them, they get troubled, anxious, or even set aside their faith altogether. This is falling prey to what the great English logician Richard Whately called “the fallacy of objections.”

Whately defined the fallacy of objections[i] as “showing that there are objections against some plan, theory, or system, and thence inferring that it should be rejected; when that which ought to have been proved is, that there are more, or stronger objections, against the receiving than the rejecting of it.”

I understand that you want to mitigate against your biases by listening to the other side. However, until you yourself can articulate a robust, positive case for Christianity, I don’t recommend that you do that. At all.

If the Bible is correct by describing faith as a “precious” thing (2 Peter 1:1[ii]) and you’re throwing your weak faith into the fires of criticism without understanding the shape of the argumentative landscape first, you’re not being “wise” by trying to minimize your biases, you’re being careless. And no, I’m not saying you should Pascal’s Wager yourself into faith or “lower the epistemic bar”, either. But I will say that you are not performing your duty of inquiry properly and you’re going to end up being another statistic, or worse, if you’re not cautious.

Regarding the Fallacy of Objections, Whately went on to write:

“This is the main, and almost universal Fallacy of anti-christians; and is that of which a young Christian should be first and principally warned. They find numerous ‘objections’ against various parts of Scripture; to some of which no satisfactory answer can be given; and the incautious hearer is apt, while his attention is fixed on these, to forget that there are infinitely more, and stronger objections against the supposition, that the Christian Religion is of human origin; and that where we cannot answer all objections, we are bound, in reason and in candour, to adopt the hypothesis which labours under the least. That the case is as I have stated, I am authorized to assume, from this circumstance,—that no complete and consistent account has ever been given of the manner in which the Christian Religion, supposing it a human contrivance, could have arisen and prevailed as it did. And yet this may obviously be demanded with the utmost fairness of those who deny its divine origin. The Religion exists; that is the phenomenon. Those who will not allow it to have come from God, are bound to solve the phenomenon on some other hypothesis less open to objections. They are not, indeed, called on to prove that it actually did arise in this or that way; but to suggest (consistently with acknowledged facts) some probable way in which it may have arisen, reconcilable with all the circumstances of the case. That infidels have never done this, though they have had 1800 years to try, amounts to a confession, that no such hypothesis can be devised, which will not be open to greater objections than lie against Christianity.”

Richard Whately, Elements of Logic, 9th ed.[iii] (London: Longmans, Green, Reader, & Dyer, 1870), pp. 144-45.

Whately is spot on. The reason why I can read Bart Ehrman books, listen to secular historical Jesus classes online, or watch YouTube counter-apologists and be untroubled isn’t simply because I’m just so biased towards Christianity but because I have, for the most part, firmly in place the bulk of the evidence on the subject. Furthermore, I’m aware that everything doesn’t depend on whether I can answer this or that objection when I happen to stumble on something novel.

For example, over and over again, I have seen arguments against the Gospels be based on an over-reading, an argument from silence, or ignoring the possibility of real, independent access to events etc. I also know that even if I don’t know why Jesus said X or Leviticus says Y, or how to resolve that apparent contradiction, it doesn’t mean that my entire edifice is collapsing. The evidence for Christianity is a lot tougher than that, as Whately indicates. The same kind of thing holds true for many well-established scientific theories. We don’t toss out a good theory based on some counter evidence we don’t quite understand yet.

If you are easily shaken and troubled by pop counter-apologists online (and I don’t care if they have a PhD and have published dozens of books), here’s my advice: Stop listening to them. At least for a season. Learn the positive case for Christianity first. And here I’m not talking about a handful of philosophical arguments for the existence of God and some minimal facts argument for the resurrection.

At this point, I’m sure the skeptics would say that I’m just circling the wagons and saying “indoctrinate” yourself first. But that’s just not true. What I’m saying is this: Don’t act like “if Christianity is true, it can take the heat.” Christianity can take the heat, but an unprepared mind can’t. And investigation of the evidence for Christianity does not mean digging into everything anyone has ever said about or against it and having to give an answer. Skeptics can confidently assert a ton of (ultimately unpersuasive) objections as though they were real problems. But think about your approach to other issues. According to some theories, Jesus was invented by the Romans to pacify the people into being OK with slavery. How thoroughly do you investigate the “hoax” side of that argument? Wouldn’t an good informed atheist who believes in the historicity of Jesus recommend someone uninformed and confused about this issue read a good book or two on the existence of Jesus first before they get too muddled? Of course they would.

Again, once you have the bulk of the Christian evidences in place and you understand what the general argumentative landscape looks like, you don’t need to waste your precious time looking into everything that every dude with an internet connection and some video editing software has said against it. And when you stumble across them, you should be able to see the predictable patterns their arguments fall into.

In this context the words of George Horne, another 18th apologist, has some sage advice:

In the thirty sections of their pamphlet, they have produced a list of difficulties to be met with in reading the Old and New Testament. Had I been aware of their design, I could have enriched the collection with many more, at least as good, if not a little better. But they have compiled, I dare say, what they deemed the best, and, in their own opinion, presented us with the essence of infidelity in a thumb-phial, the very fumes of which, on drawing the cork, are to strike the bench of bishops dead at once. Let not the unlearned Christian be alarmed, “as though some strange thing had happened to him,” and modern philosophy had discovered arguments to demolish religion, never heard of before. The old ornaments of deism have been “broken off” upon this occasion, “and cast into the fire, and there came out this calf.” These same difficulties have been again and again urged and discussed in public; again and again weighed and considered by learned and sensible men, of the laity as well as the clergy, who have by no means been induced by them to renounce their faith…Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of that kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject. And as people in general, for one reason or another, like short objections better than long answers, in this mode of disputation (if it can be styled such) the odds must ever be against us; and we must be content with those for our friends who have honesty and erudition, candor and patience, to study both sides of the question.—Be it so.

George Horne, Letters on Infidelity

As Horne implies, Christians have answered the same tired objections over and over, yet that won’t stop an “exvangelical” with a TikTok or YouTube account from saying it triumphantly as if no one has ever responded to it before. Furthermore, answering objections often takes a lot longer than a short statement of them, even if the objections themselves are based upon “pertness and ignorance.”

And finally, for goodness’ sakes, stop looking at all apologists as defense attorneys or God’s public relations firm doing “damage control.” This is what many counter-apologists have claimed, but it just poisons the well. Maybe consider that at least some apologists are defending their faith after scrutinizing it for years; they are not just trying to defend their predetermined conclusion and soothe their cognitive biases. Don’t fall for this bulveristic, pseudo-psychoanalytical trash. According to the website Logically Fallacious[iv], bulverism is “the assumption and assertion that an argument is flawed or false because of the arguer’s suspected motives, social identity, or other characteristic associated with the arguer’s identity.”

The more apt parallel for a good apologist is to an investigative journalist, reporting for popular consumption the results of a fair and balanced inquiry. These same skeptics often also seem to think that honesty in investigation requires that we start off in disbelief. In response to that, here’s one last awesome quote from another one of those amazing 18th-century apologists, John Leland:

It is not necessary to a just inquiry into doctrines or facts, that a man should be absolutely indifferent to them before he begins that inquiry, much less that he should actually disbelieve them; as if he must necessarily commence atheist, before he can fairly examine into the proofs of the existence of God. It is sufficient to a candid examination, that a man applieth himself to it with a mind open to conviction, and a disposition to embrace truth on which side soever it shall appear, and to receive the evidence that shall arise in the course of the trial. And if the inquiry relateth to principles in which we have been instructed, then, supposing those principles to be in themselves rational and well founded, it may well happen, that, in inquiring into the grounds of them, a fair examination may be carried on without seeing cause to disbelieve, or doubt of them through the whole course of the enquiry; which in that case will end in a fuller conviction of them than before.

A View of the Principal Deistical Writers, 1837 edition, p. 129

Leland hits the nail on the head. If you listen to many of the counter apologists, it’s as if they’re saying that the Christian is obligated, in the name of fairness and honest examination, to set aside their faith while looking into it and that the questioner should spend most of their time listening to their negative case. (And often they themselves cannot give you a steelman argument for Christianity upon request.) But honest inquiry and the acquisition of knowledge can continue while still following Jesus. Setting aside your faith while you are investigating it would be a crazy thing to do if Christianity is true. Consider that you might have a lot more evidence for Christianity than you may realize that you’re just not recognizing.

Finally, If you don’t know what the evidence looks like, ask me or others and I can recommend some resources. Avail yourself of talkaboutdoubts.com [v]and talk to some scholars and experts 1-on-1. Find a community of apologists more experienced than yourself.

Then you can consider diving into the counter apologists’ material, one resource at a time, one objection at a time, rather than overwhelming yourself. Otherwise, consider that you’re probably being like an overconfident fool who, after learning a few fighting moves, tries to jump in the ring with more experienced fighters. You’re going to look foolish and get hurt.

Now again, lest I be misunderstood, I am speaking to less experienced Christians. For the more seasoned believer, I think that we should let the critics speak. Often they are in a good place to discover flaws in our own reasoning, which may be invisible to us. We ignore them at our peril. I believe in that and practice that.

We should be able to identify who the best critics against our view are and regularly seek out what they have to say. It is wise to step outside your echo chamber and recognize that smart people can argue in good faith and yet disagree with you. But I wouldn’t throw a novice a Bart Ehrman or a Sam Harris book and say “sink or swim, dude.” If one is going to read atheist apologists, one should read them with guidance from people who really do know how to answer them. But our highest priority should be showing the untrained believer how much good evidence there is for Christianity.

Footnotes

[i] https://historicalapologetics.org/richard-whately-the-fallacy-of-objections/

[ii] https://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/2%20Pet%201.1

[iii] http://books.google.com/books?id=eLgIAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA144

[iv] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Bulverism

[v] http://talkaboutdoubts.com/?fbclid=IwAR278dE8CFdCYKbsT-bLD3fsnOPHW6jTq0wyIaqDLqbvQ2Ewh658SaJxHYY

Why Most People Would Rather Be Right Than Find the Truth

1. Does Truth Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Mike Taylor

Can we be honest with each other for a minute and admit that being right feels good?

It makes you feel powerful. When you’re right, it implies that someone else is wrong, which feels like you have a higher social standing than the other person. There’s a moment of elevation that happens in our minds when we feel like we’re right.

Most of the time, the facts don’t matter. We’ll throw out research and data for the sake of feeling right. It doesn’t even necessarily matter if we’re right or not just as long as we feel right.

But why is that?

The Science Behind Why Being Right Feels So Good

When you feel as though you’re right or that you’ve won an argument[i], your brain is flooded with adrenaline and dopamine[ii]. This chemical cocktail causes you to feel like you’re on top of the world. We feel in control, dominant, and powerful. That feeling becomes something we can easily become dependent on for self worth. Before we know it, we’re addicted to being right.

This is why some people poke and prod just to get a reaction out of someone. This is why people jump into an argument on social media to bicker over a point that is essentially meaningless. It’s because they’re addicted to the feeling of being right. And in a world where there are hundreds of micro moments where we can feel right on social media, we find ourselves in a digital buffet of vices that feed our addiction.

This is why the feeling of certainty can also become an addiction. Whenever we feel like what we’re doing is not 100% right or 100% certain, then we start missing our adrenaline and dopamine hits because we’re not feeling like we’re “right”. That’s when we’re likely to switch gears or change directions to find that ever-elusive high.

One study[iii] found that “a rush of dopamine accompanies fresh experiences of any kind.” Dopamine is a neurotransmitter that helps us feel pleasure, and anytime we find something new or feel like we’ve won an argument, that dopamine makes us feel important and victorious.

So we switch from one fleeting moment of feeling right, certain, and confident for the next exciting moment rather than doing the hard work of digging in, pushing through conflict, and dealing with the friction of uncertainty. And we wonder why we don’t see progress in our personal and professional lives – but it’s because we’ve become addicted to chasing “right” rather than the pursuit of what’s true.

How to Overcome the Addiction to Being Right

The first step to overcome the desire to be right is to understand what’s happening in your brain. Whenever you get into an argument with someone, your body is automatically sending signals to release cortisol, which is your stress hormone. Cortisol causes your thinking, reasoning, and compassionate side of your brain to go off-line.

When this happens, you go into what you’ve probably heard referred to as “fight or flight“ mode. Your body is in “lizard brain” and its only goal is to survive. It’s in that moment that we begin the hunt for dopamine through some sort of victory. That’s why most people’s reaction to conflict is to fight.

But if you can understand and harness how your body responds to conflict, then you can start to put measures into place that keep you from doing something that damages a relationship.

For example, one of the most effective things you can do when you’re in an emotionally charged situation is to take yourself out of that situation momentarily. You have to do what could be referred to as “emotionally sobering up”.

Whenever you’re in conflict, your brain naturally becomes emotionally drunk, and it can literally feel intoxicating to attempt to shut down the other person’s argument. But now that you know what’s happening, you can take a step away, take a breath, and give yourself the space you need to make a reasonable and compassionate choice rather than fighting for a dopamine hit.

An effective way to bring your thinking brain back online is to bring yourself to the present moment. Box breathing techniques[iv] are particularly helpful to bring your mind to the present moment. You can also take notice of the objects around you or start counting your fingers and toes. The goal of this is to engage the part of your brain that thinks rationally and compassionately so your survival-mode lizard brain can take a break.

Another effective way to bring yourself out of your emotions is to simply read something that isn’t emotionally charged. Take 15 minutes and read a boring article about something you’re mildly interested in. Read part of a chapter in that book you’ve been neglecting. Count to 100 backwards while you brush your teeth. Whatever it takes, do not ruminate on the situation, and don’t formulate potential responses.

Ruminating and dwelling on conflict only feeds your brain‘s desire to be right. Then, whenever you see the person you’ve been in conflict with, all of those built-up scenarios and emotions will overflow on them (and not in the way you pictured it in your mind when you were ruminating) and you’ll be right back in the same unhealthy conflict.

Once you’ve given yourself some space and brought your thinking brain back online, start thinking empathetically. In other words, put yourself in the other person’s shoes without defaulting to putting your desires over theirs.

Think about why they’re so adamant about their position. Chances are, they have a good reason. What were their expectations that were not met? What were your expectations that weren’t met? These unmet expectations are at the heart of all of our conflict, so getting down to that will do wonders for driving healthy conversations going forward.

Next time you feel the need to be right, remember it’s probably your brain craving the comfort of another hit of dopamine. Instead of giving into the craving, give yourself room to sober up emotionally, bring yourself back to the present moment so you’re thinking rationally again, then let empathy drive your thinking going forward.

If you do these things, you’ll find that conflict actually becomes productive, the truth becomes more apparent, and everyone will be better off for it – including you.

Footnotes

[i] https://www.mikeptaylor.com/personal-growth/how-to-win-an-argument/

[ii] https://hbr.org/2013/02/break-your-addiction-to-being

[iii] https://brainworldmagazine.com/the-importance-of-novelty/

[iv] https://www.webmd.com/balance/what-is-box-breathing

Tweets Against Christianity

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Tim Stratton

Scott Clifton is a Hollywood actor who has gained fame as a soap opera star (One Life to Live, General Hospital, and The Bold and the Beautiful). He has also gained the respect of both sides of the aisle in the “God vs. atheism” debate.

Clifton is an ardent, but philosophically inclined atheist who goes by the moniker “Theoretical BS” (TBS). He recently tweeted out an argument against Christianity that left the Church scrambling. Indeed, many Christians did not know how to respond to Clifton’s logically deductive argument. Moreover, and sadly, many Christians who did respond to his tweet, provided reason to place one’s face in one’s palm.

Consider TBS’s tweet raised against the knowledge of God:

I must admit, Clifton provided a good argument for all to consider. It is based upon premises that many Christians affirm. Indeed, Theoretical BS was on his A-game to craft this argument, which, at the least, exposes the inconsistency of many churchgoers.

This led my friend Benjamin Watkins, who is also an avid atheist on Twitter, to Tweet the following:

To be clear, we are “born sick” and offered the cure. Each person is free to take the “red medicine” Christ offers, or to reject his love and grace. With that said, I was disheartened to see the lack of good responses from my fellow Christians on Twitter. I saw Calvinists suggesting that the first premise is false, and that “ought does NOT imply can.”

That’s a horrible move!

Discussing Premise (1)

Think about it: if someone says, “You really ought to fly like Superman and save the woman trapped on the 50th floor of a burning skyscraper.” You would look at him as if he were an idiot. Since you cannot fly like Superman, it makes no sense to say “you ought to fly like superman.” Now, if someone tells the trained lifeguard, “You ought to save the child struggling to keep her head above water in the 3-foot,” we know exactly why that makes sense — because the lifeguard has been trained and *CAN* help the child before she drowns.

Moreover, if you were in a boat and your wife said, “You really ought to walk on water,” you would not take her seriously because you can’t walk on water. However, if Jesus commanded you to get out of the boat and walk on water with Him, the reason why it would make sense for you to get out of the boat and run toward Him is because He would use His divine power to make it possible for you to walk on water. Thus, if Jesus says that you *ought* to walk on water, then it follows that you *can* walk on water.

Yes, the first premise of Clifton’s argument is intuitively obvious and true: “ought implies can.” To deny this premise makes Christians look foolish.

Discussing Premise (2)

Some Christians were trying to reject the second premise: “If Christianity is true, we ought to live without sin.”

Oh my! Whatever you do, do not reject premise (2). Think of all the commands to live a holy life and to avoid sin. Here is a small sampling:

Galatians 5:19-21
Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 13:14
But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts.

Hebrews 12:1
Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us . . .

1 Thessalonians 5:22
abstain from every form of evil.

2 Corinthians 7:1
Therefore, since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God.

1 Peter 1:15-16
But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: “Be holy, because I am holy.”

John 8:11
And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

This list could go on and on, but TBS’s second premise is supported via ample biblical data. Christians ought to avoid sin.

Discussing Premise (3)

Some might try to reject Premise (3) which reads: “From (1) and (2), if Christianity is true, we can live without sin.”

I agree with TBS. That is to say, regenerated Christ-followers can live without sin. Indeed, with the first two premises supported, it makes no sense to deny (3). We can avoid sin. That is to say, through God’s love, grace, and regenerating power, all Christians can live a holy life.

Discussing Premise (4)

This leaves only one premise remaining before we reach the dreaded death-blow of a deductive conclusion, “Therefore, Christianity is not true.” The fourth premise reads as follows:

“We cannot live without sin.”

I was shocked to see so many Christians in the Twitter-verse accept this premise. Indeed, many Calvinists (who affirm exhaustive divine determinism) advance this premise because if God determines all things, then when God determines a Calvinist to cheat on his wife (for example), it is impossible for the Calvinist to do otherwise. I was screaming at my iPhone as I was scrolling through the comments. Indeed, here’s a counter-factual:

Because of the lack of proper responses, IF I had hair, I WOULD have pulled it out!

I could not take it any longer. So, finally, I tweeted my own reply:

Only three “likes”? What’s up with that?

Anyway, because the Apostle Paul rejects the fourth premise, so do I. Indeed, based upon Paul’s words in his first letter to the Corinthians, it is possible for a Christian to avoid any sin. Consider this important passage of Scripture:

1 Corinthians 10:13

No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.

Consider this awesome promise: every time you are tempted to sin, God provides a “way of escape” so that you do not have to sin. Thus, when you sin, do not say that “the devil made me do it,” and whatever you do, do not say that “God determined me to commit this sin.” No! That response is downright blasphemous. Instead, take responsibility for your actions. You chose to fall into temptation, but you did not have to. You could have done otherwise and taken the way of escape God provided.

This also means that you possess libertarian freedom.

Now, some might respond and say that no one has ever gone the rest of his life free from sin. Really? Is that true? What about the guy who only had five minutes left to live and he spent every remaining second of those five minutes praying and praising God? It seems that this person avoided sin for the “rest of his life.”

So, if it is possible for a Christian to resist temptation for five minutes, is it possible for ten minutes? If not, why not? Is it possible for 24 hours? If not, why not? Is it possible for for a week, a month, a year, or fifty years? If not, why not?

It seems that if one grants that a regenerate Christ follower does possess the power to “take the way of escape” for the last five minutes of his life, then asserting that it would be impossible to refrain from sin for any longer period of time is just plain arbitrary and ad hoc. Indeed, if Paul is right, and in every circumstance when we are tempted to sin God also provides a way of escape so that we do not have to sin, then it is possible (it is not impossible) that a Christian who has been transformed by God’s amazing grace can live the rest of his life always choosing the way of escape God provides (again, by His grace).

Discussing the Conclusion

In conclusion, TBS’s conclusion does not follow. This is the case because the fourth premise is false. Therefore, not only does the conclusion not follow, the cumulative case of arguments for the existence of God and the truth of Christianity suggest the exact opposite of what his failed argument concludes:

Therefore, Christianity is probably true!

Thus, it makes great sense to choose to put your faith in Christ alone.

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),

Dr. Tim Stratton

UFOS, Aliens, And Christianity

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By J. Brian Huffling

many people throughout history and across the world have claimed to have seen UFOs and even have experiences with what are normally described as aliens. I’ve always had a casual interest in UFOs, but with the release of three Navy videos and the Unidentified documentary, I became more interested.

It is probably safe to say that most people think that talk of UFOs and aliens is crazy; however, the evidence for such phenomena has been mounting to the point that the existence of UFOs is beyond question. This article will look at a brief history of UFOs, focusing mostly on the U.S., some of the claims people have made, an examination of prominent theories of what is going on, and an overall assessment.

A VERY BRIEF HISTORY OF UFOLOGY (MAINLY IN THE U.S.)

It is popular to begin modern ufology (the study of all things UFOs) with Kenneth Arnold’s sighting of 9 objects flying, according to him, around 1700mph at Mt. Ranier, WA in June of 1947. Such was not actually the beginning of UFO sightings, even in the U.S. There was a massive wave of sightings (a wave of sightings is called a flap) around the country in the late 1890s of “airships.” Further, reported UFO activity (to include abductions) has gone on for millennia. (See Wonders in the Sky: Unexplained Aerial Objects from Antiquity to Modern Times by Jacques Vallée and Chris Aubeck for a good history of ufology. Also, see Vallée’s Passport to Magonia: From Folklore to Flying Saucers for an explanation of how the modern UFO phenomena is very similar to religion and folklore of the past.)

About a month after Arnold’s sighting was the famous Roswell incident where at least one UFO supposedly crashed around Roswell, NM. The Air Force first said it was a “disk” but just hours later said it was a weather balloon. In 1994, the Air Force published The Roswell Report: Case Closed where they reported that what actually fell was a balloon related to the secret project called Project Mogul, which was a way of spying on the USSR’s use of atomic weapons. (The Roswell Legacy: The Untold Story of the First Military Officer at the 1947 Crash Site argues that what fell at Roswell was an actual UFO with aliens and is told by the son of the intelligence officer who was there and allegedly brought some wreckage home to show his family. UFO Crash at Roswell: The Genesis of a Modern Myth is an appraisal from a non-believer.)

Numerous UFO sightings that year led to the newly formed Air Force (formed in September of 1947) to begin a series of special projects to study the issue. The first was Project Sign in 1947, followed by Project Grudge in 1949, and then the famous Project Blue Book in 1952 that lasted until early 1970 (it was announced closed in December of ’69). The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects by Captain Edward Ruppelt, who led Project Grudge and Blue Book from 1951-1953, is required reading for anyone interested in the history of UFOs, especially as it relates to the Air Force, as is The UFO Experience by Air Force astronomy consultant J. Allen Hynek.

There was a flap in 1952 over Washington D.C. that led to the CIA becoming interested. In January of 1953 it held a panel in conjunction with the Air Force, informally called the Robertson panel. It officially concluded that UFOs were not an issue of national security, but it is disputed as to whether the Air Force really gave them the good files to examine. Many other sightings occurred in the 50s and 60s, including the well-known Malmstrom Air Force Base (AFB) incident where UFOs were seen over the nuclear ICBM missile sites when 20 ICBMs went offline. For that account from an eyewitness who served as an officer in the missile silo, see Faded Giant.

In the late 1960s the government gave The University of Colorado a grant to independently investigate UFOs. It was headed by Edward Condon and is informally known as the Condon Committee. It is well-known to have been biased against UFOs from the beginning, at least by the leader, and it recommended Blue Book be shut down, which it was.

Sightings continued through the 70s and 80s worldwide. Pilots in Iran chased a UFO and one in Peru shot at one. All to no avail. (It is reported by Ruppelt that in 1952 a U.S. Air Force pilot shot at one.) One of the most notable cases was the event that happened at RAF Bentwaters and Woodbridge in the U.K. in December of 1980. Several security police and others, including then the Deputy Base Commander, Lt Col Halt, saw UFOs. One claims to have actually touched it. This has been one of the most interesting and controversial cases ever. For a good source on this that was written by eyewitnesses, see Encounter in Rendlesham Forest: The Inside Story of the World’s Best-Documented UFO Incident.

2004 ushered in a new era with the now famous, and aforementioned, Navy videos. In August of 2020, the military started an Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF). In June of 2021, the Office of the Director of National Security provided a “Preliminary Assessment” to Congress. It stated that UFOs (or as the military now calls them, UAPs) are real and in 144 cases, unexplained. In July of 2022, top members of the intelligence community testified before Congress for the first time in over 50 years, also confirming the existence of UFOs and confirming that what the Navy videos show are still unexplained. The government has never claimed they are of extraterrestrial origin. It is well-known that the government is taking UFOs seriously, even if they (reportedly) don’t believe they are aliens.

For an excellent, but very detailed history of UFOs in the U.S. (from one who holds to the extraterrestrial view) see Richard Dolan’s 2 volume UFOs and the National Security State. For a less-detailed but good account from a skeptic’s viewpoint, see Curtis Peebles’ Watch the Skies! For an intriguing and important overview of UFOs as they relate to the military, see Leslie Kean’s UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go on the Record. For an excellent historical source in general, see Jerome Clark’s The UFO Encyclopedia.

THE NATURE OF UFO SIGHTINGS

While most of the above are sightings of objects flying around, hovering, or landed, there are many kinds of sightings or UFO events. Hynek provided the original classification for UFO sightings and that classification was updated to the following:

Daylight Disks: UFOs seen during the day
Nocturnal Lights: UFOs seen at night
Radar Visual: Objects seen on radar
Close Encounters of the First Kind (CE-1): Encounters of around 500 feet
Close Encounters of the Second Kind (CE-2): Encounters that leave some kind of physical effects, such as marks in the ground, trees, or affects on vehicles
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (CE-3): Inhabitants of UFOs are seen
Close Encounters of the Fourth Kind (CE-4): Contact such as abduction
Close Encounters of the Fifth Kind (CE-5): The individual suffers some kind of harm or even death

Certainly one of the most intriguing aspects about UFOs are the reported “alien abductions.” While many, if not most, believe that such abductions (and even sightings in general) are only experienced by “crazy” people, it does not take much research to discover that very sane and respectable people experience. not only sightings of UFOs but also what is usually categorized as “alien abductions.” Such phenomena have been occurring for hundreds of years (again, see Wonders in the Sky and Passport to Magonia).

THEORIES OF UFOS AND ALIENS

THE SKEPTICAL OR TERRESTRIAL VIEW

I’m going to lump the skeptical view together with the terrestrial view since they can both be held simultaneously. That is, some can be skeptical of UFOs in the sense of them being extraterrestrial while arguing for a terrestrial explanation. Indeed, about 95% or so of alleged sightings are explainable via natural means, such as astronomical phenomena, weather, simple misidentifications, and the like. Many are simply skeptical of UFO claims in general for this reason.

Some have tried to explain UFOs as simply being secret technology either had by the U.S. or other nations. It is indeed the case that there are advanced technological systems that causes UFO reports, and the Air Force has actually capitalized on people thinking they are UFOs in order to provide a cover for their own technology. Richard Doty is a famous (infamous?) example of one who has admitted to this happening.

However, it is a difficult pill to swallow that there were aircraft in the 1940s that could travel at speeds and perform aerial maneuvers that even today cannot be duplicated. The intelligence specialists who testified before Congress noted that we do not have any evidence that such technology is possessed either by the U.S. or other nations. Such has led some to another theory.

THE EXTRATERRESTRIAL HYPOTHESIS (ETH)

Undoubtedly the most popular view (other than the skeptical view, which cannot be accepted any longer) is the one that purports that aliens are behind the “flying saucers.” For proponents of that view, see Dolan’s works above, as well as Kean’s. The argument behind this view is that if UFOs are not explained by earthly means, and since they are evidently intelligently operated and even seemingly interact with people, they must be alien in nature. This appears to be a rational position but there are problems with it.

One problem is interstellar travel. Since I am not an astronomer or qualified to navigate this debate, I will defer to Hugh Ross, a former astronomer from Cal Tech, who argues this in his Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men (co-authored with Ken Samples and Mark Clark). I realize there are astronomers who argue that such travel is possible, but Ross makes some pretty convincing arguments to the contrary. In short, Ross argues that the distance is too great and would require multigenerational travel, even from some of the nearest systems. It would also take an incredible amount of energy to travel that far and fast. Further, as Ross notes, space is not empty. Going the required speeds would destroy a space ship if they so much as hit some of the smallest space debris.

Jacques Vallée is arguably today’s leading ufologist and has worked with Hynek in general and in his dealings with the Air Force in particular. Vallée is uniquely trained for his work given his background in astronomy as well as computer information systems. He has the unusual skill set to be able to organize UFO data and has researched them for decades. In the last book of his famous trilogy, Revelations: Alien Contact and Human Deception, he adds as an appendix a paper he delivered at an academic conference against the ETH. He offers 5 arguments against the view. Such arguments include the odd fact that there are thousands if not millions of UFO events where aliens are said to visit Earth and take samples of things like soil. This is strong evidence against the skeptical view, but he argues it is also evidence against the ETH as it doesn’t make sense why aliens would need to have so many visits and samples. Further, the reported means by which aliens supposedly experiment on people are even more rudimentary than our own technology. Another issue is the seeming impossibility of random evolution producing multiple species that have the same basic human anatomical structure with the ability to see and hear the way we do. He argues, as a naturalist, that to expect multiple species to arise from random chance with such similar structures is basically zero (of course, this changes if one holds to theism, as such would allow God to create as many similar species as he wanted). However, Vallée’s main argument against the ETH is that it just doesn’t take into account the history of ufology and the apparent connection to religion and folklore. According to him, the alien view is simply not strange enough.

Another problem with the ETH is the fact that UFOs do things that appear to violate the laws of physics. For example, they fly at extremely fast speeds that cannot be matched by earthly aircraft, perform right angle and 180 degree turns without slowing down, are transmedium, meaning they can fly through space, air, and water without being affected, appear from nowhere and vanish instantly, can change shape and size, and are seemingly impervious to being hit with bullets. (See Lights in the Sky for a good discussion of this.) Even the abduction phenomena exhibits problems with being physical since “aliens” reportedly walk through walls and take their abductees through walls and physical objects. Hynek actually argues for more of a physic (not exactly psychological) view in The Edge of Reality, where he has a fascinating discussion with Vallée on the topic of their physicality. For Hynek, UFOs are fundamentally non-physical but can cause physical effects, much like poltergeist phenomena. Further, there are reports of people being abducted while being watched by other people in the room, indicating that something non-physical is going on.

THE INTER-DIMENSIONAL HYPOTHESIS

Vallée’s preferred view is what he calls the inter-dimensional hypothesis. Vallée holds that UFOs are fundamentally physical, but can move through various space-time dimensions. While he does not use the interstellar argument against the ETH (that I know of), this view would alleviate that issue. The apparent violations of physics are supposedly explained this way, such as the objects appearing and disappearing from and into nothing and being able to change their form. This jibes more with the history of the phenomena, according to Vallée, and better explains the abduction issue. Rather than “aliens” trying to do experiments on humans, he maintains that these beings are ultimately trying to control our worldview. Another aspect explained is the way that UFOs seem to just outpace our own technology enough to be unexplainable. (Lights in the Sky also deals with this.) Before airplanes they were airships. Then flying saucers, etc.

The merits of Vallée’s view are the good points and arguments against the ETH, the historical points and connection to religion. However, it seems to be somewhat ad hoc since such dimensions are apparently debated. While Ross does admit to more than 10 dimensions being needed to explain reality, he notes that per Einstein’s theory of relativity, a person cannot simply jump between various dimensions. If this is true, then Vallée’s view would be, to use Ross’ word, “irrelevant” since it would be impossible.

THE SPIRITUAL OR EXTRA-DIMENSIONAL VIEW

A popular view among Christians is the view that while UFOs are real, they are not physical aliens from another planet. Rather, they are demonic spirits that are attempting to deceive people and draw them away from the truth of the Gospel. Ross calls this the extra-dimensional view. For a long time I wondered why demons would want to make people think they are aliens. Then I discovered two reasons. First, as Vallée argues, whatever these things are, they are evidently trying to control people’s belief system. Well, that’s a pretty good reason for enemies of God to want to appear as aliens. Another and related reason is that much of the UFO phenomena is directly and explicitly anti-Christian—not just anti-religious: anti-Christian. Much of the “teachings” of these beings are specifically against the deity of Jesus Christ and the teachings and truths of the Gospel. Some of their teachings claim that Jesus himself was an alien and was raised back to life by aliens. Indeed, there are many UFO cults.

Vallée himself has a book on this topic: Messengers of Deception. Lights in the Sky also deals with this aspect of the phenomena, as does Ron Rhodes’ The Truth about UFOs and Aliens: A Christian Assessment. A director for a well-known civilian UFO investigation group, Mutual UFO Network (MUFON), Joe Jordan and his co-author Jason Dezember deal with the demonic view in their Piercing the Cosmic Veil: You Shall Not Be Afraid of the Terror by Night. Their title is very apt, for “alien” encounters are reportedly very terrifying. Jordan, as well as other MUFON directors, have noted that “alien abduction” experiences are stopped when the experiencer calls on the name of Jesus. Jordan has hundreds of such examples. (See his website here.) Gary Bates has written about the demonic connection in his Alien Intrusion.

The door to the phenomena is reportedly opened by one dabbling in the occult or new age movement. Often, such a link can be found with the people directly involved in the experiences, and when that door to the occult is shut, the experiences stop. What about children? There are accounts of children having abduction experiences too. However, when people like Jordan do some investigating, it is often found that a parent or other family member have some connection to the occult. However, such is not always the case.

CONCLUSION AND IMPORTANCE

The investigation into what UFOs and aliens are is not a deductive one. In other words, it is not going to be proven beyond any doubt in this lifetime. Rather it is, no pun intended, an abductive one. That is, the truth about the phenomena will likely be what accounts for the data the best, namely, what has the most explanatory power (how well the data is explained) and explanatory scope (how much of the data is explained), and what less ad hoc (made up without evidence). I agree with Vallée that the ETH does not possess the greatest explanatory power or scope. It does not really seem to account for the history, the physical problems, or the anti-Christian themes. The data is well-accounted for with the demonic view. Such a view answers the material problems since the UFOs/aliens are not really physical in nature, but can, as Hynek suggests, cause physical effects. This also accounts for the anti-Christian teachings that are ubiquitous in the phenomena.

Apart from the UFO phenomena being interesting, it is also important. More than just a possible national security threat, there is an existential threat. If the demonic view is correct, then there is, indeed, a cosmic and spiritual battle for our entire belief systems, and thus our souls. Statistically, given the number of sightings and experiences, many people who go to Christian churches have had an experience (although, it can be argued that if people in the church dabble in the occult and new age less, then they won’t have as many doors open).

Often, people turn to new age, occultic, or otherwise anti-Christian sources either for answers to their questions, being lured by their own curiosity of the paranormal, or simply being drawn in by our culture pushing it on us. (An excellent source on this, especially as it relates to children, is Marcia Montenegro’s Spellbound: The Paranormal Seduction of Today’s Kids.) Churches and even apologetic ministries need to spend more time on the dangers of even dabbling in seemingly harmless actions that flirt with the paranormal and other dangerous areas, such as the new age movement. One excellent ministry that does just this is Montenegro’s “Christian Answers for the New Age.” Reasons to Believe (founded by Hugh Ross), Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries with Ron Rhodes, Southern Evangelical Seminary, and of course, Jordan’s ministry are also active in this area.

The UFO topic is an interesting one. I agree with Vallée, Hynek, and Ross that the alien view does not do the best job explaining the data. Given the spiritual nature of UFOs and especially “aliens,” there is a strong argument that such activity is really demonic in nature. If it is the case that the paranormal, occult, and new age are doors to such activity, it is imperative that Christians understand this and that it is clearly taught in our churches and homes. The Bible gives several commands to avoid involvement in such activity. Unfortunately, Christians and churches are easily caught up in the flow of our culture, rather than standing firm in the faith. This is indeed an important issue that deserves attention in the Church as well as in other ministries that teach the truth and importance of the faith.

The Historical Paul Vs. The Legendary Paul?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

by Erik Manning

Skeptical critics argue that Luke wasn’t a traveling companion of Paul’s. Why do they say this? Let’s discuss one reason. NT scholar Uta Ranke-Heinemann asserts that in: “Acts and the epistles there are two Pauls. The historical Paul of the authentic epistles and the legendary Paul of Acts.” ¹

In other words, don’t confuse the colorful Paul of Acts with the actual Paul we read about in his letters. This indicates that Luke didn’t have firsthand knowledge of Paul. He must have lied about being his traveling companion and embellished a bunch of stories. But is the Paul of Acts that different from the Paul we read about in his letters? I’d say no. Not at all.

If anything, Acts showcases Luke’s talent as a reporter. When he portrays Paul’s personality, it’s clear that it’s the same as that in Paul’s epistles. Yet the similarities are subtle and indirect. They surface in an artless way. It’s doubtful this subtle consistency is the result of design or mere chance.

In her book Hidden in Plain View, Lydia McGrew points out a strong unity of personality in Paul’s character from Acts 20 and Paul’s letters.² This is his farewell address to the church leaders in Ephesus. In this speech we see both his genuine love and warm-heartedness. We also see his tendency to be a bit dramatic and emotionally manipulative. I don’t mean that as a slam. Whenever Paul puts on the pressure, it’s always for a good cause.

PAUL THE ‘GUILT TRIPPER’

In saying goodbye to the elders at Miletus, Paul references his own trials and sorrows. He says he’ll never see the elders again, bringing them to tears. (Acts 20:25, 36–38) This is the same Paul who pressures Philemon to free the slave Onesimus by telling him that he “owes him his own life.” (Philemon 17–19). Paul also shows this tendency to guilt trip people in 1 Corinthians. There he goes on about his trials and afflictions. He reminds them that he’s their spiritual father. In other words, he gives them the disappointed dad treatment. (1 Cor 4:8–14).

PAUL’S TOUCHINESS

Another trait of Paul’s is his tendency to defend his blamelessness about money. (Acts 20:33–35.) He seems almost touchy about it. In the middle of his tearful goodbye with the elders at Miletus, he brings up how he worked to pay his own way. Paul’s harps on this theme a lot in his epistles.

In both 1 Thessalonians 2:9 and 2 Thessalonians 3:8 Paul emphasizes that he worked night and day. He says that didn’t want to be a financial burden to the Thessalonians when he was with them. In 1 Corinthians 4:12 Paul stresses that up to the time of writing he is working with his own hands to support himself. And in 1 Corinthians 9:7-18, Paul goes over the top in showing that he’s above reproach in these matters. He teaches that ministers of the gospel have a right to receive offerings. But then he says “I would rather die than allow anyone to deprive me of this boast.” (1 Cor. 9:16) He’s pouring the drama on thick. Paul also comes across very touchy about his apostleship in 2 Corinthians 11–12.

PAUL’S CARE FOR THE CHURCHES

The Apostle Paul also tells the elders in Acts 20:29–32 that after his departure, false teachers will come. He tells them to resist them, remembering how he himself “admonished them with tears.” This is the same Paul we see in his letters who says that the “care of all the churches” comes upon him daily (2 Cor 11:28). It’s the same Paul who rebukes the Galatians for yielding to the pressures of the Judaizers. (Gal 4:16–20) He says that he’s “in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in them.” And he firmly warns the Philippians to “beware of dogs” when referring to false teachers. (Phil 3:2)

PAUL’S RIGIDNESS

Furthermore, Paul is almost annoyingly uncompromising. In Acts 15:36-41 we see Paul getting into a heated discussion with Barnabas over Mark. Mark had deserted them in Pamphylia. Paul wasn’t about to bring him on another missionary journey. It didn’t matter how much Barnabas vouched for him. The two apostles ended up parting company because of Paul’s stubbornness. This is the same Paul who tells the Galatians that he had the cajones to publicly rebuke the Apostle Peter. He’s referring to the time when Peter would no longer eat with the Gentiles when the Jewish brethren from Jerusalem came to Antioch. Paul wasn’t putting up with Peter’s capitulation. (Galatians 2:11-15)

PAUL’S SARCASM

Paul was also one fiery and sarcastic guy. He can lay it on pretty thick at times. This snarkiness is worth quoting in some passages. Paul shows his exasperation over the Corinthians’ fixation with the so-called super apostles. He wrote: “You gladly put up with fools since you are so wise! In fact, you even put up with anyone who enslaves you or exploits you or takes advantage of you or puts on airs or slaps you in the face. To my shame I admit that we were too weak for that!” (2 Corinthians 11:19-21)

Talk about getting punchy. But this is tame compared to what he writes to the Galatians. He wrote to tell them to not submit to the Judaizers who required circumcision for salvation. Paul was not happy that there were people perverting the Gospel and mixing the Law with grace. Paul writes: “As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!” (Gal 5:4-12) Now that’s some razor sharp sarcasm. Lame pun intended.

We see this same mixture of anger and sarcasm from Paul in Acts, and it ties in to a striking external historical confirmation. In Acts 23:1-5, the Jews apprehend Paul and bring him before the Sanhedrin. Paul looks them in the eyes and says he’s served God and kept a good conscience. For this remark, he’s slapped on the mouth at the request of Ananias the high priest. Paul is furious. He says “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!”

In response, those who were standing by said, “Would you revile God’s high priest?” Paul’s response is a bit strange. He says: “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest, for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’”

This raises a natural question – why is it that Paul didn’t realize who the high priest was? Ananias was the son of Nebedinus.³ He was the high priest when Felix’s predecessor, Quadratus, was president of Syria. The historian Josephus reports that Quadratus bound Ananias and sent him to Rome. This was so that he could give an account to Claudius Caesar over some shady business⁴.

Agrippa interceded for Ananias, and so he was able to return to Jerusalem. But Ananias wasn’t restored to his former office of high priest. Jonathan succeeded Ananias. We know this because Josephus refers to Jonathan occupying the office of high priest during Felix’s reign. This implies an interruption in Ananias’ high priesthood.⁵ Josephus tells us that assassins killed Jonathan inside the temple.⁶

After Jonathan’s death, the office of the high priest remained unoccupied for some time. Eventually, King Agrippa appointed Ismael, the high priest⁷. The events in Acts 23 took place during this interval. Ananias was in Jerusalem and the office of the high priesthood remained vacant. So by his own authority, Ananias acted, assumed the role of the high priest. This explains Paul’s words in Acts 23:5: “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest.” This is another difficult detail that Luke gets correct. He doesn’t even take the time to explain the historical backstory in his account of this event. These sources interlock in a way that points to the truth of the narrative we find in Acts.

Some think that Paul is being sarcastic here when he says “I didn’t know he was the high priest.” He is probably well aware that Ananias is not the high priest properly so-called. So when he says “I didn’t know he was the high priest”, the subtext is because he’s not. He’s a usurper. Paul is likely being snide here.

ONLY ONE PAUL

There’s more that could be said here, but I’ll stop for now. The bottom line is that the Paul we find in his uncontested letters is the same Paul we find in the Book of Acts. He’s the same warm-hearted, touchy, guilt-tripping, hot-headed, sarcastic and indefatigable Paul that we find in his letters. These parallels between Acts and Paul’s letters are unlikely to be the result of mere chance. And these correspondences regarding Paul’s character seem so casual and subtle that it’s unlikely they were designed that way. Through such indications, we see the texture of reality, the portrait, and the reportage.

The best explanation is that Luke knew Paul all too well, because he traveled with him. The biblical critics who say there are two Pauls are being their usual myopic selves. There’s only one Paul.

Footnotes

1. Uta Ranke-Heinemann, Putting Away Childish Things: The Virgin Birth, the Empty Tomb, and Other Fairy Tales You Don’t Need to Believe to Have a Living Faith

2. Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View, Kindle Page 156

3. Josephus, Antiquities 20.5.3

4. Antiquities 20.6.2

5. Antiquities 20.8.5

6. Antiquities 20.8.5

7. Antiquities 20.8.8

The Balance of Law and Love

Theology and Christian Apologetics

by Tony Williams

Perhaps you, like me, have had the experience of being stopped by a police officer for a traffic offense such as speeding. I recall well the feeling of burning anger that the officer would dare to stop me, of all people, for barely going 17 miles per hour faster than the posted speed limit. How dare this officer not realize what a great person I am, not to mention how rotten everyone else is!

As he politely wrote me a ticket and told me that I needed to slow down, it was hard not to tell him to go find a real criminal and waste their time, instead of a good and handsome young man such as myself. Needless to say, I was naive to think I was sinless, and the handsome part was probably a stretch too. I was young, though.

Not too much later in life, I found myself in a police officer’s uniform, driving a police car, and stopping cars for doing the very same thing I did on that fateful day when I got a ticket. It wasn’t that my opinion of police in general was low, only police that would believe that I was doing something wrong.

While I immediately enjoyed the job, which included plenty of adventure and opportunities to see the world as it really is, I couldn’t help but feel guilty of hypocrisy when I stopped cars. On top of that, the State of Illinois instituted mandatory seatbelt laws when I was a very young officer. I had never, never worn a seatbelt unless I was on a roller coaster. Now I was supposed to enforce a law I didn’t obey. How could I do such a thing?

And then I handled a few crashes. Then, I handled some crashes with injuries and some crashes resulting in death. I handled more than a few crashes that ended in senseless deaths that were completely avoidable with seatbelts, and often with the combination of speed or other recklessness. It made me understand why we conduct enforcement of traffic laws. It made me understand why laws about speed and seatbelts exist; to save people from crashing, from injuries and from death itself.

When the theory became reality my understanding of law enforcement changed. I found that traffic laws, and all the other laws I swore to enforce, were eventually rooted in protecting people. No matter the law, if you traced it to its source, they all originated in protecting people.

For example, stores are good. When you need stuff you can go there and buy stuff. However, if there is nothing to stop people from stealing stuff from the store, or from robbing the owners of the stuff, how could an owner ever hope to establish a profit. You wouldn’t be able to provide stuff to people.

Without the stores, things get bad pretty quick. Jobs are lost. Deliveries of stuff from other places stop. We are back to foraging for our stuff, which is a pretty tricky thing in 2022. But with laws for retail theft and robbery in place, there is a negative consequence to stealing and robbing. Stores are able to provide stuff to people who need it thanks to the criminal laws that give us a mechanism to dissuade most people from stealing from, or robbing the stores.

As I became better acquainted with the relationship between laws and the relationship to protecting people, I found that my ability to interact with law breakers changed for the better. For example, when stopping a car for speeding or a seatbelt violation after some experiences with traffic crashes ending in serious injuries or death I could quickly explain to drivers not just what law they broke, but I could explain why the law existed in the first place. I could say that I had seen the crashes and injuries and death that come about when people are not obeying laws.

There was a particular street in my city where I would run radar that was a major foot traffic and crossing point for school children and people with disabilities. When I explained to angry or irritated drivers that we have people who aren’t as mentally or physically able to adjust to speeding cars, almost every driver I explained those issues to had a completely different reaction to the stop. Full disclosure, I almost never write tickets. I am a softy. But if I could explain the rationale of the law that led me to the traffic stop, people typically left the encounter less annoyed, and with at least the knowledge that this street is one they should slow down for. It didn’t always work, but I was always willing to write it down for people who had trouble understanding.

Looking back, and with the perspective of my Christian contemplation and study, I realize now that the laws of society need love and love needs the law. If we make traffic laws simply for the purpose of revenue generation by police, no citizen will be pleased. We should expect outrage over the way that these laws would negatively impact the very people who pay taxes for the enforcement of those laws. If there is no clear way that the law benefits society at the individual or corporate level, it is just a disguised tax.

On the other hand, if we just hope everyone drives safely, and we have no laws and no consequences to ensure it, what motive would anyone have to drive safely, other than self -preservation? And the problem with self-preservation and traffic laws is that roads are used for multiple vehicles at one time. You may be the safest driver ever, but if Lenny Leadfoot is late for work and texting about how drunk he is as he eats a burrito in a construction zone, it won’t help you at the four-way intersection that he doesn’t see. And beyond the initial tragedy, there is no redress of grievances for those crashed into by unsafe drivers.

The law without love is simply an instrument of oppression. Love without the law may feel good for a while, but eventually a whole lot of people get hurt.

As we look at how Jesus interacted with the Pharisees, who were the legal scholars of the day, it seems clear He believed they were bound for hell, and leading others to hell. I only say that because He literally said that in Matthew 23:13. (ESV) In fact, the entire chapter is one “Woe to you” after another. The Pharisees were experts at what the law was, but were apparently not experts at why the law was. And I say that with fear and trembling, as I continue to discover the love in laws, especially Biblical laws.

As far as love without the law, in His Sermon on the Mount, Jesus made it clear that He did not come to abolish the law:

¹⁷“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. ¹⁸ For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. ¹⁹ Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. ²⁰ For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matt 5:17-20 ESV)

It seems to me that, like the laws of science, the laws for man from God were devised to ensure his survival and his ability to thrive. Like the laws of physics and mass conspire to keep us from floating into space, or being squashed to the ground, good laws exist to protect man and allow for his survival and ability to thrive.

There must be some type of order because without order, disorder brings about only carnage and death. If I give you permission to do whatever you like to whoever you like because I say I love you, how does that work out for those you may choose to hurt? And if I say I love you so much that I allow you to injure yourself because you hate yourself, am I not agreeing with your inclination to hate yourself? This seems unloving to me.

The law, like gravity, seems inescapable. Love is not a certainty, but if laws are rooted in love, they will provide man the ability to survive and thrive. It seems to me the ministry of Christ was not to change the laws, but rather to bring the law and love back into balance. In dying for sin, on the cross, in our place, Jesus showed that the law must be accomplished, and yet He allowed our escape from the ultimate penalty of the law. We who recognize His motives no longer have the law as a master, but as a way to survive and thrive, not to mention glorify the One who created Heaven and Earth, and cares enough about us to provide a law, and a love that goes beyond our understanding.

My Heavens – Not in the Stars

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Josh Klein

The Four Horsemen of atheism stormed the cultural, philosophical, and spiritual scene in the early 21st Century. Their dogmatic atheistic positions (or even anti-theist depending on who you talked to) were immediately popularized.

The late Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris comprised the crew. They rode their vitriol for religious thought smack into the mainstream, seeking, for what felt like the first time, to proselytize religious folk into converting to atheism. These men were dubbed “The New Atheists” by popular culture and seemed to take the world by storm, often denigrating their opponents as stupid and backwards.

Myth believing simpletons.

Richard Dawkins’ book, The God Delusion, sent ripples throughout Christianity and the religious mainstream as his caricature of God as the “flying spaghetti monster” made the world laugh at and ridicule Christianity, and other faiths, as ignorant at best and malevolent at worst. Daniel Dennett’s take on consciousness sought to wrest away the epistemic belief that religion alone could explain consciousness as a reality going so far as to indicate consciousness is but an illusion, and the late Christopher Hitchens’ work, God is Not Great, sought to expose religion as a poison for the masses that results in horrific abuses of power and violence. But all of these men did not make the waves that seemingly even-handed Sam Harris did.

Sam Harris, with his quiet and unassuming persona, engaged in discussions differently than his cohorts. Hitchens would engage in sophistry and sarcasm, Dawkins with loathsome denigration, and Dennett with condescension. Sam Harris was different. I found the tone of the other three off-putting and their arguments either humorous but unconvincing or intellectual but dull. However, Harris had a way about him that appealed to me. I believe it was his unwavering commitment to objective morality and the honest way he evaluated differing religions that drew me to him. Harris has been honest in his complimenting of what he believes to be Christianity’s positives while simultaneously holding Christians’ feet to the reasonable fire.[1]

I found his style winsome, even if his words were not, and his reasoning levelheaded and unemotive. He was, in a word, convincing. His seminal work, The Moral Landscape, sought to deal with a substantial problem in the atheistic realm. Without God as a moral standard bearer are we left with moral subjectivism?[2] And if so, who is to say that the Nazi’s were, indeed, evil? Or that murder is unjust? The moral argument for the existence of God remains one of the more powerful arguments in favor of theism[3] but Sam rightly understood that embracing moral subjectivism was untenable for the reasonable man, and thus, an effort at advancing objective moral values based on atheism was born. For Sam, a moral landscape could be (he might say ought to be) laid using scientific reason, rationality, and, as he puts it, facts.

“Controversies about human values are controversies about which science officially has no opinion. I will argue, however, that questions about values – about meanings, morality, and life’s larger purpose – are really questions about the well-being of conscious creatures. Values, therefore, translate into facts that can be scientifically understood: regarding positive and negative social emotions, retributive impulses, the effects of specific laws and social institutions on human relationships, the neurophysiology of happiness and suffering, etc.”[4]

Sam’s commitment to objective moral values based on scientific facts intrigued me, and his book laid out what seemed to be a plausible explanation of objective morality. That is, until the reasoning was challenged. Upon further investigation one finds that Sam often smuggles in assumptions about human flourishing to make his argument palatable. While Sam addresses the what of morality he can never quite get to an honest why, as his discussion with Jordan Peterson revealed only a few years ago.[5] What are these objective moral values? Well, they are whatever Sam says they are. Certainly, they could not be grounded in Nazism or Islam. However, one could certainly argue (and both do) that both Nazis and Muslims believe they seek to contribute to the natural flourishing of humanity. Without realizing it, Sam has hitched his wagon to moral relativism by virtue of the fact that scientific facts do not adequately explain human flourishing.

It should come as no surprise that Harris, admittedly on the left end of the political spectrum and extremely vocal opponent of Donald Trump, said this concerning the 2020 Election cycle’s silencing of the Hunter Biden laptop story:

“[It was] a left-wing conspiracy to deny the presidency to Donald Trump. Absolutely it was. Absolutely, But I think it was warranted.”[6]

When pressed by the hosts of the podcast on his statement, one of which had a problem with the idea that a conspiracy ought to be used to deny office to any political candidate, Sam Harris doubled down, likening the conspiracy to that of a room full of scientists getting together to knock an asteroid off a collision course with earth. Some might be stunned that Sam would say such a thing, considering his distaste for subjectivism. In full consideration of his work, however, it is perfectly clear that he feels it necessary to be the arbiter of what is and is not objectively moral. To say it another way, Sam Harris, to himself, is a god.

Sam Harris is a coherent communicator, but his positions are often in conflict. His embrace of objective morality as an atheist is admirable but his assertion that free will is illusory is cumbersome to the argument and seems to stand diametrically opposed to it. If free will is illusory, then how are any agents morally culpable for their actions and how does objective morality fit in? Harris insists that the two are not at odds, but his insistence struggles to hold up to scrutiny. Alone, his arguments seem consistent. Combined, they often run directly at odds with one another. One cannot live life according to the philosophy espoused by Harris in a consistent manner, which is why Sam often indicates that living within the illusion is necessary.

It is in this manner that Sam is both the most and least effective new atheist. Take, for instance, Sam’s openness to the multi-verse theory:

“This is my candidate for the strangest idea that is still scientifically plausible.”[7]

In fairness to Sam, he does not himself espouse the multi-verse there but he seems interestingly open to the idea from a metaphysical perspective. Which, to me, makes his statements concerning the idea of heaven even more perplexing:

“Where is heaven exactly, given that we have multiple telescopes up there beaming back information.” – Sam Harris pic.twitter.com/9mKbBvO3uF

— David Decosimo (@DavidDecosimo) August 18, 2022

As I said on twitter, I used to like Sam Harris. I thought his critiques of Christianity were necessary (even if flawed) and that he was willing to dialogue about faith instead of simply debating it, but Harris has a nasty habit of building theologically ridiculous straw men only to knock them down with a smirk as if he’s accomplished something.

Whether Sam believes it or not, heaven (God’s dwelling place), has never (in the mainstream of the Christian faith) been understood to be in outer space. This critique of the theology of Heaven is meant to denigrate his intellectual opponents as just as ignorant as Grecian theologians believing in a literal Mount Olympus.

This has not been the orthodox understanding of the heavenly realm for millennia, if ever. As Randy Alcorn states:

“The present, intermediate Heaven is in the angelic realm, distinctly separate from Earth.”

Randy is not making this up out of thin air. Though we do silly Sunday School depictions of heaven in the clouds or speak of heaven in human terms as “above” us, this is not reminiscent of the real theology. There is no biblical or theological position that indicates heaven is physically in outer space where telescopes can see. This is not Thor.

One might say, “Sam Harris is a naturalist so he is presupposing that if a heaven exists then it must be in outer space where we could see it.” But this argument fails for two reasons. The first is that when engaging with a religion’s theology you must engage with their intended meaning to a have a meaningful debate. For instance, if I were to debate with a Muslim the nature of Allah, I cannot smuggle in my understanding of the Trinity to define Allah. If I apply my own view of the divine onto Allah then I have done a disservice to the conversation. Sam must interact, not with what he thinks heaven would be if it exists, he must interact with what Christians say that heaven is. He can deny its existence (just as I would with Allah) but he cannot do so based on false premises.

The second reason this defense fails is because of Sam’s already soft position on the multi-verse. If one can see the multi-verse as plausible then how can one so glibly dismiss a heavenly realm as impossible and ascribe the characteristics of this realm to that one? Sam would not do a believer in the multi-verse the disservice of this uncharitable presupposition concerning other universes and so, he does not need to do this disservice to the arguments for heaven either.

Scripture teaches that the current heaven is a place in the angelic realm. This is true in both the Old and New Testaments. Isaiah 6, 2 Kings 6, Daniel 10:20 and John 18:36 all indicate such. More specifically, the martyrdom of Stephen indicates a linking of the realms as well.

In Acts. 7:56, as Stephen is being stoned, he says, “Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God” (NASB). In Daniel 10, Acts 7, and Acts 9 we notice a phenomenon about the current heavenly realm. It can be revealed to specific individuals and hidden from others. Which means, the realm, though physically and spiritually in existence, stands outside our concept of this physical plane.

When Jesus ascends in Acts 1:9 there are many that might say Jesus ascended into heaven. This might mean the physical sky! But it doesn’t. A careful reading of the passage at hand will notice that the writer says, “And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.” This brings back imagery of Isaiah 6 and the glory of God.

In all these instances, the angelic/heavenly realm is not indicated to be in the stars themselves. Sam’s treatment of the matter was shallow and misrepresents, or misunderstands, the Christian doctrine of heaven. In scripture there are two heavens, one represents the sky and stars (the heavens) the other, the angelic realm. The delineations are clear and obvious to even the casual observer. Sam’s unevenness in handling this topic undermines his credibility as a good actor on the philosophical stage and highlights the arrogance of his atheistic belief. In this short interview Sam reveals why his objective morality without God is nonsense and why is objections to Christian theology, in particular, are often not in good faith. And thus, his credibility stands on shaky ground.

Footnotes

[1] https://www.samharris.org/blog/reply-to-a-christian

[2] https://freethinkingministries.com/the-moral-argument-a-short-dialectic/

[3] https://freethinkingministries.com/an-ignorant-objection-to-the-moral-argument-for-gods-existence/

[4] Harris, Sam. “Introduction.” The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, Free Press, New York, 2010, pp. 2–2.

[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jey_CzIOfYE

[6] https://nypost.com/2022/08/19/sam-harris-defends-silencing-the-post-on-hunter-biden/

[7] https://www.samharris.org/blog/the-multiverse-you-you-you-you

How We Got Our Bible: Modern Translations

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

This article will consider the differences among the modern translations.

Translation Theory

Have you ever wondered why Bible translations differ from one another? For example, some say “brothers” while others say “brothers and sisters.” Or some say “he knew her” while others say “he had sexual relations with her.” Why the differences? Two factors explain why.

The first factor is textual. Which Greek or Hebrew text is the base text for the English translation? The TR or the NA? And which textual variant most likely represents the original? Because I already dealt with textual criticism in article six of this series, I’ll simply refer you to that article.

The second factor which explains the differences among the translations is linguistic. Bible translators must ask themselves how they can best transfer the words and ideas from the original languages into English. Should they seek a translation that is more literal word-for-word? Or should they seek a translation that irons out the meaning in a more readable way? Or should they land somewhere in between?

Translations ultimately land somewhere on the spectrum between a more literal word-for-word translation (formal equivalence) and a meaning-for-meaning translation (dynamic equivalence). Formal equivalent translations will give a more literal rendering “Adam knew Eve” (ESV), while dynamic equivalent translations will give the meaning “Adam had sexual relations with his wife, Eve” (NLT). If you’re wondering where your favorite translation lands on the spectrum, I’ve listed some of the more popular translations below:

Linguistic Issues

Currency, Weights, and Measures

Translating currency, weights, and measures is a difficult task. Consider the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant. Matthew 18:24 reads:

“One was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents” (ESV).

“A man who owed him ten thousand bags of gold was brought to him” (NIV).

“One of his debtors was brought in who owed him millions of dollars” (NLT).

The difficulty in translating “talents” (which is the more literal translation) is immediately obvious. The word talent means something completely different in our modern vernacular. The ESV decided to stick with the literal rendering, but at what expense? (no pun intended) Even if someone were to realize talent refers to a currency, they still have no idea how much a talent was worth.

The NIV decided that a literal rendering would not be helpful. But they also decided that giving a literal amount was impossible. Therefore, they went with “ten thousand bags of gold.” How much is ten thousand bags of gold worth? A whole lot! Though no specific amount is given.

The NLT went in an even different direction. While they are similar to the NIV in that they don’t list a specific amount, they decided to translate the currency into American dollars. This decision, however, suggests that they are thinking primarily of an American audience. Why not the British pound?

Another example is Isaiah 5:10.

“For ten acres of vineyard shall yield but one bath, and a homer of seed shall yield but an ephah” (ESV).

“A ten acre vineyard will produce only a bath of wine; a homer of seed will yield only an ephah of grain
(NIV).

“Ten acres of vineyard will not produce even six gallons of wine. Ten baskets of seed will yield only one basket of grain” (NLT).

You can see that both the ESV and the NIV translated the measures in a literal way. In doing so, they tell us exactly what the Hebrew text says. But who knows what a “homer of seed” or an “ephah” is? The NLT, again, attempts to give the meaning by using understandable terms such as “gallons” and “baskets.”

Euphemisms

Every culture has its own euphemisms. “That one bit the dust” or “He’s not the sharpest tool in the shed” would confuse anyone trying to learn English for the first time. If someone were to translate those phrases into another language, should they translate them word-for-word like above, or give the meaning of the phrases?

We find scores of Hebrews and Greek euphemisms in the Bible. Consider Rachel’s words to her father Laban in Genesis 31:35.

“Let it not displease my lord that I cannot rise up before thee; for the custom of women is upon me” (KJV).

“Let not my lord be angry that I cannot rise before you, for the manner of women is upon me” (NASB).

“Don’t be angry, my lord, that I cannot stand up in your presence; I’m having my period” (NIV).

The KJV and the NASB give a more literal rendering of the Hebrew text while the NIV gives the meaning of the euphemism.

Another word, though technically not a euphemism, that Bible translators wrestle over is the word “flesh.” Consider Paul’s words in Romans 7:18.

“For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh” (ESV).

“For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature” (NIV).

“For I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh” (CSB).

I grew up in church, so I am familiar with the term “flesh.” That said, someone picking up a Bible for the first time might be confused by this term. In Romans 7:18, both the ESV and the CSB give the literal rendering of the Greek, while the NIV gives Paul’s meaning.

Grammar and Syntax

Every language has a unique structure. Greek and Hebrew have different structures from English. That said, a literal wooden word-for-word translation would be so unreadable and unhelpful, that even the most formal equivalent translations like the NASB smooth out the sentences into English.

One grammatical issue that Bible translators wrestle with revolves around the genitive case. The genitive is often thought of as the “possessive case” in cases such as “my dog” or “Billy’s house.” Yet, many times, the genitive does not convey possession but functions more like an adjective. The formal translations, however, still tend to translate these genitives as possessives by giving the literal rendering “of.” Speaking of God the Son, Hebrews 1:3 states:

“he upholds the universe by the word of his power” (ESV).

“upholds all things by the word of His power” (NASB).

“sustaining all things by his powerful word” (NIV).

Both the ESV and the NASB give the wooden genitive “of” reading while the NIV smooths out the meaning and shows that power is not a possessive but an adjective modifying “word.”

Gender Pronouns

The final issue we will consider deals with gender inclusion. Hebrew and Greek both used masculine pronouns to describe humans in general. The Greek word anthropos functions this way. And to an extent, we still do this today when we say things like “mankind.” That said, English translations wrestle through translating the masculine pronouns so as to not exclude the female gender. Some translations stay with the literal rendering, while others attempt to give the meaning. Consider Psalm 1:1.

“Blessed is the man” (ESV).

“Blessed is the man” (NASB).

“Blessed is the one” (NIV).

“Oh, the joys of those” (NLT).

“How happy is the one” (CSB).

The more literal reading is “man.” That said, the meaning is gender inclusive.

Different Translations

So, which Bible translation should you use? Well, it all depends on your goal. If you’re looking to give a Bible to a young child, you may consider a Bible on the dynamic equivalence end of the spectrum. If you’re wanting a Bible to read consistently throughout the year, I’d recommend multiple Bibles. The NIV and CSB are nice options as they strike a nice balance between formal and dynamic equivalencies. That said, it’s also nice to have a Bible that gives you a more literal rendering so that you can get a better idea of what the original languages say.

Personally, I consult at least three Bibles when I’m studying a text. I look at both a formal and dynamic translation, as well as one somewhere in-between.

How Mainstream Media Gaslights Christians (and Everyone Else Who Disagrees with Them)

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

by Natasha Crain

I had a revelation last week that, in retrospect, was many years overdue. So overdue that it borders on embarrassing to admit this was a revelation in 2022. Here it is:

Mainstream media doesn’t try to be objective.

Now, before you laugh too hard, let me make a clear distinction: I’ve long known mainstream media is not objective. But I had strangely held onto the assumption that they thought they were being objective and just woefully lacked enough self-awareness to see how crazily biased they were.

What I realized last week is that of course they know how biased they are…whether they’ve ever stopped to acknowledge the changed nature of so-called “news” or not. We’ve simply drifted over time into a land where the unstated new normal is that virtually all news is essentially op-ed.

Perhaps the reason I naively held onto the idea that news is inherently supposed to be objective is that I started out as a broadcast journalism major in college. Way back in the ancient days of 1994, I was taking classes that presupposed every good journalist sought to be objective. Our news story homework assignments would come back to us with the finest of edits, designed to carefully root out any trace of bias. After all, if we ever wanted a shot at working for places as heralded as CNN was at the time, we had to learn how to be…unbiased.

What a crazy thought today.

Not only is mainstream media not trying to be objective, but they’re also openly advocating for specific viewpoints. And not only are they openly advocating for specific viewpoints, but they’re also strategically manipulating public thought.

Psychological manipulation over time in the search for control over people’s thinking is called gaslighting. It’s the process of making someone believe they’re crazy and question their entire view of reality.

Maybe that sounds dramatic, but I don’t think it is. There is a coordinated effort amongst mainstream media sources to achieve a specific type of public influence today—an influence directed toward achieving a uniformity of thought that’s nearly always at odds with a Christian worldview.

While Christians realize this to varying degrees, I don’t believe we’re collectively thinking enough through the implications of just how much this media sea change has affected, is affecting, and will affect both our own worldview and the worldview of those around us.

Consider the significance of the following five implicit messages that mainstream media constantly trumpets in a variety of ways.

1. “Pretty much everyone agrees with how to view issues of cultural importance. If you’re one of the ones who disagree, you’re on the extreme fringe of society. That should tell you something about the accuracy and reasonableness of your views.”

In the early 1980s, there were fifty independent companies that owned the majority of media in the US. But by 2011, just six conglomerates controlled 90 percent of media. The fact that a handful of companies control nearly all media outlets makes it possible to present a unified viewpoint on any issue. It looks to media consumers as though the “authoritative” news voices around them are all aligned with certain viewpoints, but it’s really all coming from the same handful of companies.

Make no mistake: The appearance of unified thought coming from sources people perceive to be representative of culture at large is very powerful—especially when you’re in a worldview minority. As I discuss at length in Faithfully Different, it’s estimated that only 6 percent of Americans have a biblical worldview (accepting core teachings of the Bible). Yes, 65 percent of Americans identify themselves with the label “Christian,” but the vast majority of self-identified Christians hold beliefs in conflict with basic biblical teachings about things such as the existence of objective morality, the reality of heaven and hell, the nature of God, and much more.

If you’re in the 6 percent whose worldview is based on what the Bible teaches, you’re going to feel the pressure of seeing that nearly everyone in culture—including those who identify as a Christian—thinks differently. And media wants to capitalize on that aspect of our humanity that makes us question our beliefs just because they differ from the norm. But remember: There’s no such thing as democracy when it comes to what’s true about reality; numbers will never determine truth.

2. “Here’s the language that’s acceptable to use if you’re going to be an acceptable member of society.”

Beyond the uniformity of viewpoint achievable due to the structure of media ownership, there’s uniformity even at the detailed level of language. That’s because there’s a language guide that has long functioned as the default style manual for mainstream news organizations. It’s called the Associated Press (AP) Stylebook.

The AP Stylebook goes far beyond what words everyone should capitalize in a headline or when to hyphenate; they give viewpoint guidance as well. They recently issued, for example, a guide for coverage on transgender issues.

Ironically, the guide begins, “Journalists on all beats must be able to write about and interview transgender people using accurate, sensitive, unbiased language.” But what follows is anything but unbiased. As a small sampling of the guide, media is told to:

adopt the language “sex assigned at birth” rather than something like “birth gender” or “born a girl,” presumably to emphasize how arbitrary the sex “assignment” decision is;
describe a transgender person using phrasing such as “is a woman” rather than “identifies as a woman,” presumably to emphasize the certainty of a person’s new identity;
avoid terms like “biological male,” which they say are used by “opponents of transgender rights” to “oversimplify sex and gender”; and
not use phrasing that “misgenders people or implies doubt, such as former men’s swimmer or currently competes as a woman.”

And that’s just a small fraction of the content. It’s very clear that journalistic expectations now include using language in a way that accepts and promotes the mainstream secular narrative. The more the public hears carefully curated phrasing designed to subconsciously transform how we view issues, the more those who refuse to use such language will be viewed with resentment. Once again, the idea is that this is where society at large is, and if you’re not there with your words, there’s something wrong with you.

(If you’ve marveled at how mainstream media can euphemistically refer to the intentional killing of preborn babies as “abortion care,” this is the same strategy at work. Transform the language, and you’ll transform how people think.)

3. “These are the subjects that are most important to know about and discuss.”

Every day, thousands and thousands of editorial decisions are made as to what makes the news. In other words, before we even get to the bias in how stories are told, we have the bias of what subjects are even selected to tell.

One study, for example, showed that the major broadcast networks gave three times more airtime to the pro-choice Women’s March than to the pro-life March for Life, despite comparable participant numbers and location. If you had been watching these networks, it would have been easy to assume that the pro-choice Women’s March was far more culturally significant, even if that wasn’t necessarily the case.

I regularly visit the Facebook news tab to track this phenomenon and see what they’re pushing users to consider important. From the looks of it, they really want me to be aware when a celebrity changes pronouns (Demi Lovato this week), when new state abortion restrictions have (allegedly) jeopardized a woman’s health, and that Christian nationalism is a terrifying threat.

Story selection strongly shapes our view of what the “world” is talking about, and that can significantly influence what we believe is most important if we’re not careful. But there are plenty of issues important for Christians that you’ll rarely see discussed in mainstream media. Wins for religious freedom, for example, will likely not see the light of day, or if they do, they’ll be covered negatively. Christians need to take it upon ourselves to stay informed about issues mainstream media won’t discuss.

(For religious freedom issues in particular, I highly recommend following the Alliance Defending Freedom.)

4. “These are the things you need to be very afraid of…and the solutions that will make you safe again.”

Whether it’s Covid, monkeypox, climate change, the loss of supposed “abortion rights,” or the idea that the world is one step from nuclear annihilation, continually perpetuating fear drives ratings and clicks. Frankly, that’s just business. It’s how they make money. But fear is also undoubtedly used strategically to push people to favor desired solutions.

This is a tactic that works with just about anyone—Christian or not—because it speaks to our human nature. We just have to be self-aware enough to recognize it.

When people are scared for themselves, they’re more likely to hand over freedoms to the government to ensure some measure of safety. But the bigger the government control in the name of safety for all, the lesser the tolerance and rights for any who won’t fall in line.

And when people are scared for others, they’re more likely to accept positions that might otherwise be at odds with their own moral knowledge. I’ve read countless comments from Christians, for example, who are afraid to take a stand against so-called gender affirmation surgeries for teens because they’ve been told teens will commit suicide if they aren’t affirmed in a chosen gender. Media sees what fear can drive and continually perpetuates those statistics to sway views. (Abigail Shrier’s book Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters is a must-read on this subject.)

Similarly, many Christians claim to be pro-life personally but don’t support banning abortion because media has made them fear that abortion bans will be responsible for women dying from situations like ectopic pregnancies (this is completely false.)

When people are scared, whether for themselves or others, it gives media a reason to take the presumed moral high ground and demonize anyone who doesn’t support safety. That’s effective because now you’re not someone who simply disagrees—you’re someone who is putting others in either mental or physical jeopardy. Christians on the receiving end of that characterization need to be deeply convicted of the biblical justification for their positions in order to not feel the psychological weight of thinking their views actually hurt others.

(And for the record, I’m not saying that there aren’t things to be legitimately concerned about. I’m specifically talking about how the media elevates appropriate levels of concern to a point where they can leverage crisis-level fear to their benefit and agenda.)

5. “It’s not just us saying these things…look at all these Christian leaders who agree. Trust them even if you don’t trust us.”

Someone not following the news closely might think that Christians are actually well represented in the media. After all, mainstream outlets somewhat regularly feature interviews with or articles about various Christian leaders. CNN, for example, recently featured a lengthy interview with high profile pastor Andy Stanley titled “The evangelical church faces a ‘state of emergency’ over the pandemic and politics, Andy Stanley says.”

But of course CNN was pleased to publish an interview with a well-known pastor criticizing the evangelical church and scolding Christians for taking sides in politics. That’s what they’d like to do themselves, but it’s more effective to have one of our own say it in the hope we’ll question any differing understanding we may have. (The interview was based on Stanley’s new best-selling book, Not In It To Win It: Why Choosing Sides Sidelines the Church, which I discussed the problems with in my last podcast— “Why Christians Must Care about Politics.”)

Similarly, The Washington Post is happy this week to feature the headline, “Clerics sue over Florida abortion law, saying it violates religious freedom.” Of course, they’re going for the shock value of suggesting religious leaders are for abortion as much as anyone else and that it’s actually a matter of religious freedom.

Any Christian writer/speaker/pastor whom mainstream media is happy to feature should take deep stock of why they’re receiving an invitation to the party. It’s not because media wants to genuinely share a Christian view that differs from the norm. It’s almost certainly because your view doesn’t differ from the norm that they want to promote your voice as an example to all those “other” Christians. And if your view doesn’t differ from the norm, it’s probably a good time to consider if the media has already done a really good job of convincing you to think like them.

The other day, my son and I drove by a used bookstore in town, and he noted the sign posted in the front: “Browse books and exchange ideas.” He jokingly said, “That might be the last place for the free sharing of ideas in America.” We laughed at the thought that the final outpost for the welcome exchange of differing views might be this tiny bookstore in our town. But the way mainstream media functions today, it’s not far from the truth that the open exchange of ideas will have to happen in places people very intentionally seek out.

Tag Archive for: Christianity

Naturalism and Morality

Is/Ought Fallacy

Naturalistic Determinism

Naturalistic Reasoning?

Morality from Evolution?

Evolution’s Failure

Theism and Morality

Dealing with Euthyphro

Relativism

Image Bearers and Free Will

Moral Law

Conclusion

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Science Behind Why Being Right Feels So Good

How to Overcome the Addiction to Being Right

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Discussing Premise (1)

Discussing Premise (2)

Discussing Premise (3)

Discussing Premise (4)

Discussing the Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

A VERY BRIEF HISTORY OF UFOLOGY (MAINLY IN THE U.S.)

THE NATURE OF UFO SIGHTINGS

THEORIES OF UFOS AND ALIENS

THE SKEPTICAL OR TERRESTRIAL VIEW

THE EXTRATERRESTRIAL HYPOTHESIS (ETH)

THE INTER-DIMENSIONAL HYPOTHESIS

THE SPIRITUAL OR EXTRA-DIMENSIONAL VIEW

CONCLUSION AND IMPORTANCE

Recommended resources related to the topic:

PAUL THE ‘GUILT TRIPPER’

PAUL’S TOUCHINESS

PAUL’S CARE FOR THE CHURCHES

PAUL’S RIGIDNESS

PAUL’S SARCASM

ONLY ONE PAUL

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Translation Theory

Linguistic Issues

Currency, Weights, and Measures

Euphemisms

Grammar and Syntax

Gender Pronouns

Different Translations

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic: