Tag Archive for: Christianity

Human Nature According to Darwin – A Christian Response

Human Nature According to Darwin – A Christian Response

,

By Ken Mann

The following is was delivered as a plenary session at a Biola on the Road conference in April 2017 at Faith Bible Church in Houston Texas.

Introduction

Charles Darwin. Evolution. Perhaps no other man and no other idea have had a wider influence on western culture. Since On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection was first published in 1859, how we perceive our world and ourselves has been transformed. For those who have embraced Darwinism, humanity and every other living thing are the end products of a natural process. There is no Creator. There is no purpose. There is just survival. Humanity is a cosmic accident.

Since as early as 1888, scientists and academics have asserted that Darwinian evolution is a fact as certain as gravity. The momentum behind Darwin’s theory strengthened in the 20th century to the point that nearly every aspect of human behavior and culture has been subjected to an evolutionary explanation. Today, scientists who are merely skeptical about evolution risk losing their jobs if their views become known.

In the face of such an onslaught, what should a Christian think? In my own experience, I was always convinced that evolution was false. Not because I knew anything about it. Rather, I was certain of the existence of God and the reliability of the New Testament. I believed I had adequate justification to believe in a literal Adam and Eve, in the Fall, and in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

But for many years I was plagued by an internal conflict. Setting aside evolution, I have always loved science. Since studying physics in college, I have adhered to the adage that science is “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” Despite the myriad of apparent conflicts between science and religion, I suspected that Psalm 19:1, the heavens declare the glory of God, meant that the study of creation was compatible with the Christian worldview.

Then in 2010, I enrolled in the Science and Religion program at Biola. During my first year, I took a class that focused on Darwin. At the time, Darwin seemed like the Mt. Everest of a “Science and Religion” program. Looking back on it now, this subject embodied everything that made the program so valuable. The tools I learned and the confidence I gained have transformed my Faith.

I always rejected evolution not because I understood the science, philosophy or history that surrounds it, but because I trusted God more. Today, I know the reasons why Darwinian evolution is not fact, and I should emphasize, none of them are based on Christian doctrine.

That might alarm some of you so let me explain. There are many myths and distortions about the relationship between science and Christianity. Perhaps the worst is that science and Christianity are in hopeless conflict, that the Christian church has been an impediment to science since Galileo. In reality, the foundations of modern science, the assumptions that made science possible, come from the Christian worldview. The pioneers of modern science were all committed Christians, most of whom saw science, in the words of Kepler as “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”

In other words, science and Scripture are merely two sources of revelation. There is the “book of nature” and the “book of Scripture.” These two “books” cannot contradict each other because they have the same author, God. When they seem to contradict, something has gone wrong with our understanding of Scripture, nature or both.

Since Galileo’s confrontation with the Catholic Church in the 17th century, there have been conflicts between doctrines promoted by the Church and the conclusions of science. In Galileo’s time, almost everyone accepted an earth-centered view of the cosmos that originated with the Greeks and had later become sanctified using certain passages from the Old Testament. Galileo questioned the conventional wisdom of his time and advocated an idea that would not be widely accepted for another century.

In the 19th century, Charles Darwin also challenged widely accepted ideas about God’s role in creating the world. Since then Christianity has been challenged by variety conclusions based on his writings.

How should we deal with these challenges? The first and more important step is to understand them. We shouldn’t run away from something that attacks our Christian worldview. We should run toward it. Engage, learn, and trust that God is sovereign.

As we engage with Evolution today, I want to reassure you that we are not going to wander off into the tall grass of the biological sciences. We are not going to talk about the Prevalence of Functionally Significant Glutathione S-Transferase Genetic Polymorphisms in Dogs. (That is the subject of a research project my daughter, a biochemistry, cell, and molecular biology major, has been working on since last summer.) Not because the science isn’t important, but because it takes a lot more time than we have available today. Further, there are far more obvious problems with Darwinian evolution.

It is assumed that Darwin’s theory was the triumph of science over the myths of religion. It is claimed Darwin was not influenced by religion; he studied nature and “discovered” how it really worked. Based on his empirical observations he proposed an idea that explained how life developed via natural processes without the direct intervention of a creator. In reality, Darwin had certain assumptions about God and how He would create that was inconsistent with what he found in the natural world. In short, Darwin was convinced his theory was true because his God would not have created the world as we find it.

My highest priority this morning is to be understood; therefore I want to be clear what I am talking about. I also want to inform, which means some of what I share might be challenging and new to some of you. I would ask for your patience as we go along. I will be around to answer questions and the substance of this talk, along with a list of some relevant books, can be found on my website under “resources.”

I am going to cover two things this morning. First, I am going to discuss some terminology that is foundational to this subject. Next, we will consider the theological ideas that were at work in the 19th century and still influence public perception of the relationship between science and Christianity.

Terminology

Whether you are engaging with someone with a different worldview or simply trying to learn more about a subject, navigating terminology is a crucial task. You have to be aware of words you haven’t heard or seen before. Whether I am reading or in conversation, I am always alert to such words. If I am reading, I will stop and look up the word. In conversation, it is difficult but still just as important to interrupt and ask the other person what a word means. If they can define the term for you, your conversation has been enhanced. If they can’t, you may or may not be able to continue. Regardless, it is important to prevent either side of a conversation from assuming what certain words mean.

Evolution

So what does the word evolution mean? That depends on the context and the intention of the author. Just on this subject, there are actually six different definitions that are routinely used. Only one definition is in view this morning, but if you read articles or blogs on evolution, you may encounter one or more of these definitions. You may even find authors who use the word in one sense, then later switch to a different meaning later in the same article.

  • Change over time. To quote the Screwtape letters, “…to be in time means to change.” The study of nature frequently entails discerning what has happened in the past from the evidence we can examine today. Clearly, no one is going to disagree with this definition.
  • Change in the distribution of different physical traits within a population. This refers to a field within biology known as population genetics. It studies the genetic composition of biological populations, and the changes in genetic composition that result from the operation of various factors, including natural selection.
  • Limited Common Descent. “The idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.” The best-known example of this is the finches encountered on the Galapagos Islands. Today there are many examples of different species that probably have a common ancestor.
  • The mechanism of limited common descent, natural selection acting on genetic mutations. Darwin’s theory had three premises: organisms varied, variations could be inherited, and all organisms were under pressure to survive. Those variations that enhanced survival were passed on to other generations. Again, in a limited sense, such variation is observed, and it is plausible that survival could select certain traits over others.

None of the definitions so far are controversial. However, the next two are where most of the disagreements occur.

  • Universal Common Descent. This definition of evolution asserts that every organism is descended from a single original organism. As controversial as this may sound, it is not the final word on what most scientists believe is meant by evolution.
  • “Blind Watchmaker” thesis.
    The term “blind watchmaker” was coined by Richard Dawkins in the title of his 1986 book, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence for Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design. Dawkins was ridiculing an argument made by William Paley published in 1802. Paley argued that the existence of a watch implies the existence of a watchmaker. Whereas a rock merely implies the processes of geology over time.
    This definition of evolution is that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material process. This process is completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.
    Or more succinctly, “Molecules to men by way of chemistry and physics.”

This final definition is what really drives the conflict of worldviews between materialism and Christianity. It goes by a couple of other names: “Darwinism” or “neo-Darwinism.” (The later term is a more technical and specific in that it refers to the integration of Darwinism and the science of population genetics in the middle of the 20th century.)

While you should always press for definitions, when you hear Darwin’s name or evolution invoked in a discussion about human origins or the development of life, you can be confident that the “molecules to men” idea is usually what is meant.

Science

The term science needs not so much a definition as a lot of warning labels. Being that it is in the title of my major, it will come as no surprise that I have developed some opinions on the subject. I am going to limit myself to two ideas.

First, science cannot be constrained by a specific detailed definition. There is no definitive list of criteria that says, “that is science, but this other field is not!” In other words, specific examples of science (e.g., physics, biology, and paleoanthropology) seem obvious, however, coming up with a list of criteria that separates astrology from astronomy, for example, is harder to do. Most everyone is going to agree that simply studying the movement of the stars and planets does not make astrology a science.

Second, beware of an inflated view of science as a source of knowledge. The view known as “scientism” asserts that the only things that can be known are from the natural sciences. It is a tactic designed to give the guy in a lab coat, as opposed to a theologian or a philosopher, a privileged status that ends the discussion. It is also a self-refuting concept because there is nothing we can learn from science. However you define science, that demonstrates scientism.

Theology

Theology is the study of the nature of God. I believe that the Bible is the best source for theology. But we can also learn something about the nature of God from other disciplines, such as science and philosophy.

Human Nature

Now that I’ve defined Darwinism, I should also touch on the term human nature.  Obviously, this is a subject as vast human experience. An entire conference could be devoted to addressing this subject. How you define, human nature is determined by your worldview. One may approach this question from a scientific, philosophical, or theological perspective. For my purposes this morning I simply want to address the crucial differences between human nature according to Darwinism and human nature according to Christian theism.

From the perspective of Darwinism, human beings and every living thing is simply the end result of a blind, unguided physical process. In other words, we are merely animals. The process of natural selection has been invoked to explain nearly every aspect of human culture and behavior. Many of these explanations are simply unsubstantiated stories, but they have captured the imagination of many. From religion to sexual infidelity, to altruism there is an evolutionary story for everything about human nature.

Darwinism denies the possibility of the soul; it makes no room for the existence of the immaterial. As a consequence, one must come to grips with the idea that everything we do, everything we think, everything we feel is not evidence of our soul, but is merely the output of a physical process.

According to Darwinism, the difference between human beings and every other animal is a matter of degree, not kind. Let me illustrate what I mean by these two words with an example.

Steph Curry and Russell Westbrook are reputed to be among the best point guards playing in the NBA right now. The difference between them is a matter of degree.  However, if we were to compare Curry or Westbrook to a basketball, we would have to say the basketball is a different kind of thing.

Since we are just animals, it shouldn’t surprise you that ethical decisions about humans and animals are a bit different for the Darwinist. Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics at Princeton University, popularized the term speciesism, which refers to privileging members of a particular species over others. In other words, it is not always wrong to kill human beings under circumstances such as severe mental or physical handicaps. Some environmentalists have seized upon this idea to argue that the death of a logger or the economic destruction of a community are acceptable when weighed against the safety of a type of animal.

The Christian view of human nature is radically different. In addition to being grounded in Scripture, it is also consistent with our experience and deepest intuitions.

According to Christianity, human beings are unique in creation, a completely different kind of creature from every other animal. We are physical creatures. We are similar to other animals in many ways. Yet we also have an immaterial nature, a soul if you will. I have always been fond of this passage from the Screwtape Letters:

Humans are amphibians— half spirit and half animal… As spirits, they belong to the eternal world, but as animals they inhabit time. This means that while their spirit can be directed to an eternal object, their bodies, passions, and imaginations are in continual change, for to be in time means to change. (p. 37).

I would quibble with Screwtape to the extent that we are not “half spirit and half animal” rather we are embodied souls. Our soul completely occupies and animates our bodies. Our soul can also exist apart from our bodies, but a human body cannot continue without a soul.

The most essential aspect of human nature, what makes us unique, is found in the phrase the “image of God” first mentioned in Genesis 1:26-27.

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

To briefly unpack this phrase, if we consider the Hebrew words used here for “image” and “likeness” and Greek word (eikōn), it would seem that God created us to be similar but not identical to Himself.

Consider just three ways we are similar to God.

  • We are spiritual. Part of our nature is an immaterial soul or spirit united with a physical body.
  • We are personal, that is to say, we are self-conscious and rational beings. We have a mind, will, and emotions.
  • We have the power to choose. Sometimes referred to as free agency, we have the capacity to deliberate and make choices.

Finally, no discussion of the Christian view of human nature would be complete without considering the Fall. As unique as we are, as much as we were created to be in fellowship with God and with each other, the most certain and painful fact is that something is horribly wrong.

Darwinism and the materialist worldview it supports must deny our daily awareness of evil. In ourselves, in our culture, even to some extent in creation itself, we are constantly confronted with the results of human rebellion.

Christianity explains the existence of evil, our embrace of and revulsion from it; and it offers a solution in the person and work Jesus Christ.

Theological Foundations of Darwinism

In Matthew 16, Jesus asked His disciples, “Who do you say that I am?” This is the most important question anyone will ever answer. Understanding who Jesus is and what He did is an essential step to trusting Him as your personal savior.

That question is just as relevant if God the Father asked it. What you believe about God has a profound effect on every aspect of your life. Our perception of reality, how we choose to live, how we choose to solve our problems, everything about us is ultimately effected by our view of God.

This is no less true in science. For as long as people have tried to understand nature, their beliefs about what or who created the world has impacted how they comprehend nature.

In the 19th century, there were several trends in theology that set the stage for Darwinism. Consider one example. It was argued that it would demean God to believe every animal species was a unique act of creation. Rather, God would be a wiser and more capable creator if the capacity to create species by some natural process was built into creation. This view also downplayed or dismissed other things God did like miracles in the New Testament. This was sometimes referred to as “Greater God Theology.” Ideas like this and others we will now consider motivated Darwin to reconcile what was observed in nature with the theology of his day.

Natural theology and the ‘theory of creation’

The idea that God created is not really controversial in Christianity. It’s right there in the first verse, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Now a tremendous amount of words have been written about this verse and all that it means, however, no one doubts that central phrase, “God created.”

In the 18th and 19th century the perspective of creation was that from the motion of the heavens down to the myriad of animals and plants that occupy the earth, all of creation was a perfect, harmonious system that reflected God’s wisdom and benevolence. Starting in the 17th century a variety of theologians and scientists advanced the idea that evidence for God could be found in the study of nature. Known as “Natural Theology,” this field reached its peak in the works of William Paley at the beginning of 19th century. Natural theology argued, some would say brilliantly, that evidence for design could be found in nature.

However, there was a significant flaw in Paley’s perspective. Paley believed that God’s purpose in creation was the happiness of His creatures. Creation was idealized in such a way that God’s benevolence, wisdom were seen everywhere. Allow me to read a quote from Paley’s book Natural Theology:

It is a happy world after all. The air, the earth, the water, teem with delighted existence. In a Spring noon or a summer evening, on whichever side I turn my eyes, myriads of happy beings crowd upon my view. The insect youth are on the wing. Swarms of new-born flies are trying their pinions in the air. Their sportive motions, their wanton mazes, their gratuitous activity, their continual change of place without use or purpose, testify their joy, and the exultation which they feel in their lately discovered faculties. A bee amongst the flowers in spring is one of the most cheerful objects that can be looked upon. lts life appears to be all enjoyment, so busy, and so pleased: yet it is only a specimen of insect life.

In short, the Natural theologians claimed nature demonstrated God’s wisdom and goodness but they ignored His providence, judgment or use of evil.

The problem of Natural Evil

The problem of evil is something that has harassed Christian belief for a long time. If you haven’t heard that phrase before, it refers to the tension that exists between the obvious instances of evil we find in the world and the characteristics typically attributed to God. It is sometimes put as a question: “How can God be benevolent and omnipotent and yet allow the evil we experience in the world?”

Most discussions of this topic make a distinction between moral evil and natural evil. Moral evil is simply what people have been doing since Adam and Eve rebelled in the Garden. Natural evil, broadly speaking, is anything in nature that causes death or suffering. This could include everything from earthquakes, to disease, to all the horrible things animals do to each other.

Darwin, like other naturalists, did not see happiness and joy in creation. He saw death, suffering, and waste that he could not reconcile with Paley’s “happy” creation. He was particularly bothered by the suffering and death found in the animal kingdom. One particular example was a type of wasp that lays its eggs into the body of a caterpillar. After hatching, the larva starts consuming the host while it is still alive.

Darwin’s solution, consistent with greater God theology, was that God did not create the parasitic wasp or any of the other natural evil in the world. Rather, God created a system of natural laws which resulted in the world he studied. In a letter to Asa Gray (an American botanist) Darwin summarized his view this way. “I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance.”

To put it another way, God directly acting in creation was rejected in order to make the existence of natural evil comprehensible to human beings. If God did not directly create each individual species but merely created the natural system that resulted in the species we have today, then God is not directly responsible for natural evil.

“Nature is not perfect.”

A second aspect of natural theology to which Darwin objected is that all of the creation reflected God’s perfection. Of course, what is meant by perfection was apparently open to a wide variety of interpretations. For Darwin and many others since it has been the claim that many things found in nature are poorly designed.

Perhaps the most popular example of bad design in nature is the vestigial organ. When an organ or structures are no longer needed, it is “vestige” of the evolutionary process. It was needed in an ancestor species, but evolution has yet to remove it. In 1895 a German anatomist published a list of 86 vestigial organs in the human body. I am not aware of a single credible example today. Vestigial organs are not evidence of evolution. They are a combination of assuming evolution is true and ignorance of a particular organ’s function.

A more modern example of a claim of bad design is known as “Junk DNA.” This term was originally coined in 1972. When research first began into how DNA worked, the first thing discovered was the correlation between certain sequences of DNA bases (“rungs” on the DNA ladder) and the production of certain amino acids (20 different organic molecules that makeup proteins). The function of vast regions of DNA outside of these “protein coding,” upwards of 98% of the human genome was dismissed as “junk” until about five years ago. The Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project began publishing results demonstrating that vast regions of the “junk DNA” in the human genome are being used.

Similar to vestigial organs, ignorance combined with an acceptance of evolution, resulted in the conclusion that subsequent research has proven wrong. In short, the existence of “Junk DNA” something that was once dogma is now becoming another failed prediction of Darwinism.

Theological Naturalism

A third theological idea that motivated Darwin and many others in the 19th century has to do with how God acts in creation. In order to make this clear I have to make a distinction between primary causes and secondary causes. An event which is caused by God and impossible by any other means, a miracle, is an example of primary causation. Something that occurs in accordance with natural law is an example of secondary causation. For example, the parting of the Red Sea as the Jews fled from Egypt was primary causation, the deaths of the Egyptian army caught when the water was released was secondary causation.

For many theologians and scientists since before Darwin down to the present day, science is not possible if God acts in the world. If primary causation is possible, then it is impossible to know the difference between an event caused by natural law and an event caused by God. In order to study nature, to understand the structure of “laws” that govern it, we must assume that God never acts in creation.

The net effect of this view does not deny that God was the creator of the universe, it simply means there is no evidence that He did. Of course, that is not the worst of it. If God has not done anything since the moment of creation, the incarnation and the resurrection of Jesus could not have happened.

Perhaps the simplest way to sum up this view is that God cannot be trusted. If He is capable of acting in creation, He is capable of tricking us. Science would become the “study” of the whims and unpredictable behavior of an omnipotent being.

Naturalism asserts that everything arises from natural properties and causes; supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted. For theologians in the 19th century, this meant that God acted in creation through the laws he created. They argued God was greater, glorified more if He did not intervene in creation. Dr. Cornelius Hunter refers to this as theological naturalism because theological reasoning motivated it.

Today the default position of science is a view known as methodological naturalism. This is the idea that when you are doing science, you can only consider natural causes. The actions of an intelligent agent cannot be considered. God does not act in creation. From there, it is a short trip to atheism, where God does not exist.

But let me emphasize this point–the origins of naturalism that motivated Darwin and have become dogma within science today were philosophical. Naturalism was not a conclusion of science; it was a starting point.

Conclusion

Human nature according to Darwin, how should the Christian respond? First and foremost, when confronting an opposing worldview, you must understand what it believes and why. By exploring some terminology and its theological foundations, I’ve given you an introduction into the worldview of Darwinism.

I provided a summary of some of the ideas about God and his role in creation that motivated Darwin. Since On the Origin of Species was published down to the present day, Darwinism has relied on a perception of God that cannot be found in Scripture. Either God is absent from creation and cannot intervene, or He is incompetent because nature is full of “bad design.” Evolution is accepted as true because a distorted view of God and creation seems to be false.

This is not merely about science. It is not merely about religion. It is an example of how assumptions about God, religion if you will drive the process of science. Darwinism is not fact. Darwinism is less of a science than it is a theological viewpoint that claims empirical support from science.

Human nature according to Darwinism, including its denial of the soul and denial of human uniqueness, is not learned from various scientific disciplines. It is implied by the science and therefore it is accepted because Darwinism is accepted. However, if Darwinism is false, then whatever it claims about human nature is also false.

Time did not permit addressing the evidence used to support and critique Darwinism. What I can say in terms of a summary is that the evidence for Darwinism is only compelling if you are already convinced it is true. On the resources page on my website, today’s talk is available along with a list several books that cover today’s material in more depth. I would also encourage you to check out the books that focus on the scientific critiques of Darwinism.

I would like to leave you with some questions to ask someone who believes “molecules to men by way of physics and chemistry” is the best explanation for the vast diversity of life we find.

  1. What is the evidence for evolution?
  2. What is the Christian view of creation?
  3. How did life originate?

Each of these questions, depending on the responses you get, could be followed up with two questions. (1) What do you mean by that? (2) How did you come to that conclusion? These two questions from Greg Koukl’s Columbo technique seek clarification and evidence that will help you understand the other person’s perspective better.

It has been my prayer preparing for today that the summary I would offer here would encourage believers. It is also my prayer that you would leave today motivated to learn more about this subject and others that will be discussed today. As Christians, we are heirs to a tremendous heritage of thought that I fear has been abandoned. We worship a Being that created all things, sustains all things, and knows all things. Our trust in God should not be limited to our salvation. God is sovereign over everything. He is sovereign over every domain of human knowledge. He is sovereign over every lie that could deceive.

Don’t run away from a challenge. Engage, learn, and trust that God is sovereign.

/by
Gotham City And Nazareth Are Not In The Same Category

Gotham City And Nazareth Are Not In The Same Category

,

by Ryan Leasure

As a child, Batman held the ranks as my favorite superhero. Unlike other superheroes who could fly, see through walls, or turn into green giants, Batman fought crime in Gotham City by more conventional means. He was a great fighter, used cool gadgets, had a killer suit, and drove a sweet car. In this way, Batman was more realistic than his superhero counterparts. Now suppose I truly believed Batman was a real person. After all, I had seen him on the movie screen and at the occasional Halloween party. My friends, however, thought I was ridiculous and tried to dispel this notion from my brain. Yet, no matter what they said, I remained convinced of his existence.

Until one day, my friend suggested to me that we go visit Batman in Gotham City. This sounded like a grand plan to me. I wasted no time packing my bags — with all my Batman t-shirts — and began daydreaming about hanging out with Batman. One final step remained. I needed to purchase plane tickets to Gotham City. So I pulled out my laptop, and began searching for the next plane ticket to Gotham City, except, I couldn’t find any! I searched vigorously for hours, but alas I came up empty.

My friend, who was sneakier than I thought, used this opportunity to explain to me why I couldn’t find a plane ticket — Gotham City doesn’t exist. In order to prove him wrong, I quickly googled Gotham City’s location, only to find that it was nowhere to be found. After all these years of thinking Gotham City was where New York City is located, I became dejected. The writing was on the wall. If Gotham City isn’t real, then Batman probably isn’t real either.

IS NAZARETH A REAL PLACE?

For years, Jesus mythicists have argued that Nazareth — like Gotham City — was fictitious. The argument goes, if Nazareth didn’t exist, then Jesus didn’t exist either. After all, the gospels repeatedly claim that Jesus came from Nazareth (Mk 1:24; Jn 1:45). Prove Nazareth didn’t exist, and you can prove Jesus didn’t exist either. Skeptics make this claim based on the fact that the Old Testament, Jewish historian Josephus, and the Jewish Talmud never mention Nazareth. Surely, the argument goes, these three major sources would have mentioned Nazareth if it was a real place. What are we to make of this claim? Was Nazareth a real place? Yes, and there’s proof.

ARCHAEOLOGY

In 1962, archaeologists discovered an Aramaic tablet in Israel which listed twenty-four different priest families and their locations. One priest family’s location was, you guessed it, Nazareth.1The traditional dating of this list goes back to the year AD 70, thus indicating that Nazareth was a real place in the first century.

Furthermore, more archaeological discoveries provide further evidence for Nazareth’s existence. Within the town itself, archaeologists excavated two houses in 2006 and 2009 — homes that match a typical home in first-century Rome. Inside the homes, they found doors, windows, a spindle, and cooking pottery.

Additionally, archaeologists uncovered first-century tombs right outside the town. This fits with Jewish customs which forbade burying dead bodies inside the town. Also, within the tombs, archaeologists discovered pottery which they date to the first century. The evidence is so conclusive, that expert archaeologist Jack Finegan states, “From the tombs… it can be concluded that Nazareth was a strongly Jewish settlement in the Roman period.”2

NAZARETH! CAN ANYTHING GOOD COME FROM THERE?

Based upon the digs, scholars suggest that ancient Nazareth was a small hillside village of about sixty acres, with a maximum population of  500 people. This fits nicely with Nathanael’s derogatory comment in John 1:46 when he asked, “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” One would think that if you were inventing a religious hero, you would give him a more prominent hometown. The gospel writers had no motivation to make up this detail about Jesus.

DECREE FROM CAESAR

Perhaps the most important discovery from ancient Nazareth is a marble slab measuring 24 inches by 15 inches. Archaeologists date this slab to the first half of the first century — probably during the reign of Emperor Claudius (AD 41-54). On this tablet is a decree from Caesar himself stating that if anyone steals a body from any of the tombs, they will suffer capital punishment. Bear in mind; we’re talking about Caesar, the most powerful man in the world, and a small rural village of 500 people thousands of miles away. What would compel Caesar to care about grave robbers in Nazareth? This would be the equivalent of the President of the United States addressing a grave robber in a small rural town in North Dakota.

It appears Caesar had heard stories about Jesus of Nazareth rising again from the dead. He had also probably heard that Jesus’ disciples stole his body from the tomb. Lost in the shuffle were the exact details that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead in Jerusalem.

We know for certain that Claudius was aware of Christianity because he expelled all Christians from Rome in AD 49. Suetonius — a second-century Roman historian —  writes that Claudius “expelled from Rome the Jews constantly making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus.” Luke also reports this event in Acts 18:2. Apparently, the Christian preaching that Jesus was the promised Messiah caused an uproar among the Jewish community. Think of how this radical claim would have caused dissension. The Jews had held to a strict monotheistic faith for thousands of years, and now suddenly, some of their own were claiming that Jesus of Nazareth is Lord! Perhaps violence was involved. It’s difficult to know for certain, but it was significant enough to cause Claudius to remove them all from his city.

WHAT DOES THIS PROVE?

Unlike Gotham City, Nazareth was a real town in the region of Galilee in first-century Rome. Archaeology confirms its existence several times over. Not only have we found ancient homes, pottery, and tombs, we also know that Caesar wrote a special decree to the people of Nazareth not take bodies from tombs lest they be put to death. It’s probable that he wrote this proclamation in relation to the story that Jesus rose again from the dead.

These archeological finds don’t necessarily prove Jesus’ existence, but they corroborate the gospels’ claims that Jesus came from Nazareth. For more on how we know Jesus was a real person, you can check out an article I wrote here.

Skeptics continue to cast doubt on the gospels, and more specifically, Jesus of Nazareth. Yet, archaeology continues to confirm the accuracy of the biblical narrative. Based on the archaeological finds discussed above, I think we can confidently say that Jesus coming from Nazareth is not fake news.

Tell me what you think in the comments below.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Iz7AjH

/by
Theistic Foundation of Science, part 2

Theistic Foundation of Science, part 2

, ,

By Ken Mann

Think Week: The Foundations of Science Found in Christian Theism, 2

Five Explanations

In this post, we will begin to consider how the presuppositions of science described in the previous post can be explained or grounded. Recall that these presuppositions cannot be discovered or defended via any kind of scientific process. Rather they form a foundation that makes science possible.

In order to explore how to explain or ground the presuppositions of science, we necessarily turn to the question of worldviews. For the sake of space, I am going to contrast Christian theism with naturalism. By naturalism, I mean the view that everything that exists is physical. Immaterial things such as souls, consciousness or numbers do not exist. This would also exclude the existence of immaterial minds.

Let’s consider three of the presuppositions.

A Real World

In contrast to other religious systems (e.g., Hinduism or pantheism), Christianity teaches that the creation is real. Human beings were created as both physical and spiritual beings that must interact with the reality of their physical existence.

For the naturalist, this is not a strange idea, in fact, one definition of naturalism is simply that physical reality is the only reality.

An Orderly World

The Christian perspective as to why creation is orderly is based on three things. First, there is a single, transcendent creator. Creation is not filled with multiple, immanent, and competing gods.

Rather, all of reality is the unified and coherent product of a single mind. Second, the order of nature rests on the character of God. Since God is revealed to be reliable and unchanging, it is reasonable to expect creation to be the same. Third, God is the divine legislator. If God were the source and foundation of morality, why wouldn’t He also be the source for the “laws of nature.”

It is important to note that the very idea of “laws of nature” or even that creation should be orderly and predictable was unknown until the Middle Ages. Scholastic thinkers wrestling with how to integrate Aristotle’s views of creation with the Bible concluded that laws govern nature.

Further, they believed while God was the author of such laws, He was not constrained by them.

Nancy Pearcey makes the following observation: “The order of the reasoning here is important.

The early scientists did not argue that the world was lawfully ordered, and therefore there must be a rational God. Instead, they argued that there was a rational God, and therefore the world must be lawfully ordered. They had greater confidence in the existence and character of God than in the lawfulness of nature.”[1]

A Continuing World

The following passage by David Hume is a powerful description of the problem of induction, the process by which we infer that the future will be like the past.

For all inferences from experience suppose, as their foundation, that the future will resemble the past, and that similar powers will be conjoined with similar sensible qualities. If there be any suspicion that the course of nature may change, and that the past may be no rule for the future, all experience becomes useless and can give rise to no inference or conclusion. It is impossible, therefore, that any arguments from experience can prove this resemblance of the past to the future; since all these arguments are founded on the supposition of that resemblance.[2]

From the naturalist perspective, there is no answer to this issue other than the mere hope that the world will continue and that the “course of nature” will not change. However, the Christian theist turns to the doctrine that God sustains creation. Everything continues because God chooses for it to continue.

In the next post, we will consider the last two presuppositions, An Understandable World, and An Expressible World.

Biography

Carlson, Richard F., Wayne F. Frair, Gary D. Patterson, Jean Pond, Stephen C. Meyer, and

Howard J. Van Till. Science & Christianity: Four Views. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2000.

Collins, C. John. Science and Faith: Friends or Foes?. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2003.

DeWeese, Garrett J. Doing Philosophy as a Christian. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011.

Deweese, Garrett J. Philosophy Made Slightly Less Difficult: A Beginner’s Guide to Life’s Big

Questions. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2005.

Gould, Stephen Jay. Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. New York, NY: Ballantine Books, 1999.

Hume, David. “The Project Gutenberg eBook of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.” http://www.gutenberg.org/files/9662/9662-h/9662-h.htm (accessed April 14, 2015).

Moreland, J. P. Christianity and the Nature of Science: A Philosophical Investigation. 2nd ed.

Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1999.

Moreland, J. P., and William Lane Craig. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. IVP Academic, 2003.

Numbers, Ronald L. Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion. 1st ed.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009.

Pearcey, Nancy. The Soul of Science: Christian Faith and Natural Philosophy. Wheaton, IL:

Crossway Books, 1994.

Stark, Rodney. For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-

Hunts, and the End of Slavery. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004.

Notes

[1] Nancy Pearcey, The Soul of Science: Christian Faith and Natural Philosophy (Wheaton, IL:

Crossway Books, 1994), Kindle Locations 221–223.

[2] David Hume, “The Project Gutenberg eBook of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding,” http://www.gutenberg.org/files/9662/9662-h/9662-h.htm, (accessed April 14, 2015).

/by
The Postmortem Appearances To The Disciples

The Evidence For Jesus’ Resurrection, Part 5: Fact (3) The Postmortem Appearances To The Disciples

,

by Evan Minton

This is part 5 in a series of blog posts detailing the wealth of historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. In the last 2 parts of this blog post series, we saw that the evidence that Jesus died by Roman crucifixion is overwhelming to the point that even atheist historians say that it’s an indisputable fact. Then, we saw 10 pieces of historical evidence pointing to the reality of Jesus’ empty tomb which was found by a group of His women followers the Sunday following His execution.

However, if we just stopped there, we wouldn’t have enough evidence to justifiably infer that Christ had gloriously returned to life. After all, an empty tomb by itself, says nothing. An empty tomb can be explained in a dozen different ways. But, Jesus’ death by crucifixion and His empty tomb aren’t the only minimal facts in need of explanation. The minimal facts in need of explanation are:

1: Jesus died by crucifixion.

2: His tomb was found empty the following Sunday morning.

3: The 12 Disciples Believed The Risen Jesus Appeared To Them

4: A Church Persecutor named Saul Of Tarsus converted on the basis of what he believed to be an appearance of the risen Jesus. And

5: A Skeptic named James converted on the basis of what he believed to be an appearance of the risen Jesus.

In this blog post, we will look at that third minimal fact. There is evidence that Jesus’ 12 disciples had experiences that they perceived as postmortem appearances of the risen Jesus.

Reason 1: The Early Creed Cited In 1 Corinthians 15. 

The first piece of evidence in favor of postmortem appearances I want to look at is Paul’s list of appearances in 1 Corinthians 15. Most scholars of all theological stripes agree that Paul is citing an early creed in verses 3-8 and that this creed dates to within five years of the crucifixion of Jesus. They also believe that Paul received this creed from the apostles Peter and James just a few years after his conversion. If these scholars are right, this provides us with powerful evidence that the disciples experienced postmortem appearances of Jesus. But what does the creed say? How do we know it’s a creed? How do we know it dates to within five years of the crucifixion and how do we know Paul got it from Peter and James? Let’s look at the reasons why historians have reached these conclusions.

This is what the creed says: “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.  Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last, of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.” – 1 Corinthians 15:3-8

How do we know that this a creed? Maybe this just doctrine that Paul is teaching in his own words. Scholars have come to believe that this is a creed on the basis of the following reasons:

1: Paul Alerts Us That He’s Not Writing In His Own Hand Here.

In verse 3, Paul says outright that his words are not his own. He writes “For what I received, I passed on to you as of first importance.” Paul essentially says “I received this information from someone else. I received it from someone else. It’s not a list of things I came up with. Now, I’m going to pass on what I’ve received to you.” So, he’s outright telling us that the information he’s about to cite is something he himself received and is about to pass on to his readers. Additionally, “received” and “passed on” were typical terms used by rabbis who were passing along holy tradition.

2: The Language In Verses 4-7 Are Non-Pauline

Scholars have pointed out that wording of verses 6-7 of 1 Corinthians 15 is not characteristic of Paul. It’s not the way he usually writes. The word choice and grammatical style in this passage are unique to the Pauline epistles. “The Twelve,” “The Third Day,” “He was raised,” and the calling of Peter by his Aramaic name, “Cephas.” These are not phrases Paul is known to use. This implies that Paul is quoting something rather than teaching resurrection facts in his own words.

3: Parallelism Is Apparent In The Text.

Parallelism is a type of wording that was commonly found in oral traditions. The purpose of parallelism was to aid memorization. Parallelism involves writing several lines that go by the pattern of the first line being long followed by a short line followed by another long line and then another short line. Long sentence, short sentence, long sentence, short sentence. When you examine 1 Corinthians 15, this is exactly what you find.

“Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,” (long)

“and that He was buried” (short)

“and that He was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures” (long)

“and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve…” (short)

“After that, he appeared to more than 500 brothers and sisters at the same time, most of

whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.” (long)

4: The Repeated Use Of The Phrase “And That” Suggests This Is A Creed

Just as Parallelism was a wording style to make memorization of creeds easier, putting a common repetitive phrase in creeds also helped aid memorization. In this case, the repetitive phrase is “and that.” Depending on the English translation, you’ll sometimes just see the word “that,” but “and that” is what’s found in the Greek.

“and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.” 

For these reasons, we have good grounds for affirming that the material cited in verses 4-7 are part of a creed. Paul received the creed somewhere and then proceeded to cite it to his Corinthian readers. What this means is that the material in 1 Corinthians 15:4-7 predates the actual writing of 1 Corinthians, which virtually all scholars date to around 55 A.D.

But how much earlier does this material date? Well, first of all, it certainly has to predate Paul’s first visit to the Corinthian church. Why? Because in verse 3, he uses the past tense “I passed on to you.” “For what I received, I passed on to you.” In the latter part of that sentence, Paul uses the past tense of “pass.” This implies that the information he’s about to cite in his epistle is information that he already cited to the Corinthians. And since he “received” this creed from someone else, this means the creed predates even Paul’s first visit there.

If this were as far back as we could go, it would still be extremely early information since the creedal data would date no later than 20 years after Jesus’ death.

But, as I said earlier in this blog post, most scholars believe that Paul got this creed directly from the apostles Peter and James, just five years after his conversion. In Galatians 1, Paul is recounting his conversion from skepticism. He describes how he persecuted the church (verses 13-14) that God revealed his son to him (verses 15-16), and then he says that he went away into Arabia and then went to Damascus (verse 17). Paul then writes “Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.” (verses 18-19). This seems like the most likely place and time for Paul to have received the 1 Cor. 15 creed. First of all, two of the explicitly named individuals that appear in the creed (Peter and James) are also the two individuals Paul was talking to. Secondly, As New Testament Historian Dr. Gary Habermas pointed out; “Paul’s use of the verb historesai (1:18), is a term that indicates the investigation of a topic.[1] The immediate context both before and after reveals this subject matter: Paul was inquiring concerning the nature of the Gospel proclamation (Gal. 1:11-2:10), of which Jesus’ resurrection was the center (1 Cor. 15:3-4, 14, 17; Gal. 1:11, 16).”[2]

These seem like very good indications that this is indeed when and where Paul received the creed. In that case, the information in the creed dates to within just a few years of Jesus’ death! By the principle of early attestation, this makes 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 extremely reliable material. This is because there was no time whatsoever for legend or embellishment to creep in. The apostles were proclaiming that Christ rose from the dead within decades of His crucifixion!

The creed cited in 1 Corinthians 15 dates back so early, well within the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses, that anyone curious about whether or not Paul was telling the truth could have traveled over to Jerusalem and interviewed the people mentioned in the creed to see if they really did believe Jesus appeared to them. If Paul were lying about these people and they really hadn’t seen Jesus, the cat would have been out of the bag, and the resurrection would have been exposed as a falsehood. Given how fragile a faux resurrection would be in this case, the best explanation is that the twelve disciples, James, and 500 people actually did have postmortem Jesus experiences.

In fact, some have argued that Paul is essentially daring the Corinthians to interview these people if they are in doubt by mentioning that “some of them are still living, though some have fallen asleep.”[3] It’s as if Paul is saying “If you don’t believe that Jesus appeared to these individuals, go talk to them yourselves! Some of them have died, but others are still around to affirm what I’ve said.” That’s a pretty gutsy move on Paul’s part if these people hadn’t actually witnessed the risen Jesus. It could be so easily falsified, so easily undermined. The best explanation is that Paul’s creed was telling the truth.

Reason 2: Paul Had Direct Contact With The Twelve Disciples And Affirmed That They Claimed Jesus Rose From The Dead 

As I said earlier, most scholars believe Paul got the 1 Cor 15 creed from Peter and James when he visited with them just a few years after his conversion, and I gave some of the reasons why scholars have come to those conclusions. But let’s say you disagree with the scholars. Let’s say you don’t think that the two arguments which are given in favor of a Paul receiving the creed during the trip mentioned in Galatians 1:18-20 are sufficient. Nevertheless, the creed still dates to no later than 50 A.D, just 20 years after the resurrection. The creed could have been received two years or 20 years, but no earlier and no later. So my arguments above still stand that this is an early source within the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses who could have falsified the postmortem appearances if they hadn’t occurred.
Secondly, even if Paul didn’t receive the creed in the Galatians 1 trip, we still know that he had firsthand contact with the original twelve disciples and were therefore in the perfect position to know what they believed.

Paul makes two trips to Jerusalem. The first trip occurs five years after his conversion (Galatians 1:18-20), and the second one takes place more than 14 years after (Galatians 2:1-2). Paul makes two trips, and he’s there at +5 years and +18 years after the cross. Both trips are very early, and he talks to the eyewitnesses. What are they discussing? The gospel. In 2:2 he specifically says “I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.” In other words, Paul is essentially saying “I just wanted to double check and make sure that I’m preaching the same message as my fellow apostles are. I just want to be absolutely sure that we’re on the same page and that I’m not wasting my time here. I gave them the gospel I preached and wanted to cross-reference it with the one they preach.” What was the result of such an inquiry? Paul says in 2:6 “They added nothing to my message.” Then he said “On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. James, Cephas, and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.” (verses 7-10)

Probably the best thing Paul contributes to our case is interviewing the other eyewitnesses and giving us the data. Paul said that he and the other apostles preached the same message. In Galatians 1 and 2, he’s talking with the twelve disciples and in Galatians 2:6-10, he affirms that what he’s teaching is what they’re teaching. If the disciples were not claiming that Christ had risen from the dead and had appeared to them that would not be the case. Also, in 1 Corinthians 15:11, just after citing the creed, he basically says “I don’t care if you go to them, I don’t care if you go to me, we are preaching the same message about Jesus’ appearances.”
Reason 3: The Disciples Of The Disciples Affirmed That They Preached Jesus’ Resurrection
The early church fathers lived and wrote in the first, second, third, and fourth centuries.

When you investigate the writings of these guys, you find that some of them had physical contact with the apostles. Given this fact, just as we can trace the disciples’ teachings back to them through Paul, we can trace the teachings of the disciples back to them through the church fathers!

The early church father Clement (c. 30– 100) wrote to the Corinthian church in 95 AD. Around 185, Irenaeus gave us some extra info about this Corinthian epistle. Irenaeus wrote:  “Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing, and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone, for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brothers at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians.”[4] Around 200, the African church father, Tertullian wrote, “For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter.”[5] According to Irenaeus and Tertullian, Clement engaged in fellowship with the apostles. Clement writes of their belief in the resurrection thusly; “Therefore, having received orders and complete certainty caused by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and believing in the Word of God, they went with the Holy Spirit’s certainty, preaching the good news that the kingdom of God is about to come.”[6] Clement said that the apostles believed in the resurrection of Jesus! If he knew the apostles (as Irenaeus and Tertullian say he did), Clement would be in the best position to know whether or not they were truly teaching that Christ got out of His grave. Irenaeus wrote that Polycarp (c. 69– c. 155) knew the disciples. He said: “But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles.”[7]

Irenaeus wrote a letter to a person named Florinius. In this letter, Irenaeus also talked about Polycarp. Unfortunately, the letter that Irenaeus wrote to Florinius was annihilated by the sands of time, but while the letter itself is gone, the early church historian Eusebius quoted a portion from it; “When I was still a boy I saw you in Lower Asia with Polycarp when you had high status at the imperial court and wanted to gain his favor. I remember events from those days more clearly than those that happened recently… so that I can even picture the place where the blessed Polycarp sat and conversed, his comings and goings, his character, his personal appearance, his discourses to the crowds, and how he reported his discussions with John and others who had seen the Lord. He recalled their very words, what they reported about the Lord and his miracles and his teaching— things that Polycarp had heard directly from eyewitnesses of the Word of life and reported in full harmony with Scripture.”[8]
Given the fact that Polycarp knew the apostles personally, he would have been in the best position to know what the disciples believed. Polycarp mentioned the resurrection 5 times in his letter to the church in Phillipi.

So, through Polycarp and Clement, we can trace the claims of the resurrection right back to the disciples themselves.

“But!” the skeptic may object “Just because the disciples were claiming that Jesus rose from the dead, that doesn’t mean that He actually did. Maybe the disciples were making the whole thing up! Maybe they were lying about having seen the risen Jesus”. I have never found any attempt by non-Christians to make the disciples out to be bald face liars very convincing. This is because church history is unanimous in claiming that all of the disciples (with the exception of John) died a brutal martyrs death. Why would they die for a lie? Why would they die for something that they knew wasn’t true? I could believe someone would die for a lie that they believed was true, but I can’t bring myself to believe that someone would willingly die for something they knew was false.

Some of the sources that record the disciples’ martyrdoms are:

*Clement Of Rome – reported sufferings and martyrdoms of Peter and Paul.[9]

*Polycarp – Reported the sufferings and martyrdom of the disciples in general.[10]

*Tertullian – Reported the martyrdom of Peter and Paul (and specifically says that Peter was crucified and that Nero beheaded Paul).[11]

*Book Of Acts — Reports martyrdom of James the son of Zebedee (beheaded by Herod Agrippa).[12]
*Eusebius — Says in his Ecclesiastical History that all of the apostles were martyred, and says that Peter was crucified upside down.

At this point, skeptics usually respond by saying “Well that doesn’t prove anything. Other religions have martyrs. Does that mean their religious beliefs are true? Think of the terrorists who flew planes into the world trade center, for example. Does the fact that these terrorists were willing to die for their religious beliefs prove that Islam is true?” This rebuttal simply shows that the objector has misunderstood the argument. Neither I nor any Christian Apologist would argue that because the disciples died martyrs death that this proves that Jesus rose from the dead. What we’re claiming is that their willingness to suffer and die proves that they sincerely believed what they were claiming rather than trying to pull the wool over peoples’ eyes. No one would say the terrorists who took down the world trade center consciously thought that Islam was false. If they believed Islam was false, those 3,000 people would still be alive today. Martyrdom doesn’t prove a claim is true; it simply proves sincerity on the part of the one making the claim. Since almost all of the disciples were willing to die (some in horrible, slow, torturous, and gruesome ways), only an idiot would continue to say “Nah, they were simply spouting bald face lies.” I mean, can you imagine St. Peter lying upside down on the cross, having been beaten to a pulp, having had nails driven through his hands and feet, and bleeding and suffocating thinking to himself “Jesus is dead. He didn’t really rise. We stole his body and hid it at the bottom of a lake. He’s still dead, and soon I will be too! This torture was worth it!”

It’s also worthy to note that the apostles differ from modern day martyrs in that they were in a unique position to know for sure whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. The resurrection proclamations originated with them. If it’s made up, then they’re the ones who made it up. And yet, they died horribly for making this claim. Most martyrs, including Christian martyrs of today, die on the basis of secondary evidence (e.g. the minimal facts approach) or no evidence (blind faith). The disciples came to believe Jesus rose from the dead because they claimed that He appeared to them personally, that is, primary evidence! They claimed to have seen him! This places their martyrdom in a totally separate category than all of the ones you read about in “Voice Of The Martyrs.”

What all of this means is that through Paul and the church fathers Polycarp and Clement, we can affirm that the twelve disciples of Jesus claimed Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to them. Through the fact that they all died brutal deaths when they could have saved themselves by recanting means that they really believed what they were claiming.

Now, just put yourself in their shoes for a moment. What could make you believe that someone you loved rose from the dead and made you so confident of this, that you would be willing to die for proclaiming that? I know how I would answer this question: seeing him with my own two eyes.

Reason 4: The Postmortem Appearances To The Disciples Are Multiply Attested 

The synoptic gospels (Luke 24:36-43), The Gospel of John (20:19-20), and the 1 Corinthians 15 creed all mention postmortem appearances to the twelve disciples. It is highly unlikely that three independent sources would all make up the same lie, therefore, on the basis of the principle of multiple attestations, we have good reason to believe that the disciples saw the risen Christ.

Reason 5: Doubting Thomas Gives Us Reason Not To Doubt 

John 20:24-29 records the postmortem appearance to Thomas. All of the other disciples had seen Jesus alive and were rejoicing at his resurrection, but Thomas was so skeptical of the resurrection that he said that he wouldn’t believe it until he placed his fingers in Jesus’ hands and side. Verses later, we read that Jesus appeared to Thomas and Thomas was convinced. However, why would the writer of the gospel of John depict Thomas in such a bad light? John 20 doesn’t depict one of the apostles in a very good light by making him out to be a hard-headed skeptic, disbelieving the testimony of the rest of the apostles. It seems to me that Thomas’ skepticism is unlikely to be a Christian invention on the basis of the principle of embarrassment. Therefore, this passage is very likely to be telling us a historical fact.

Now, perhaps I can play devil’s advocate and propose an objection to this particular point: maybe the reason John puts Thomas in a bad light is that he disliked Thomas. Perhaps, later on, they got into heated arguments causing a rift between them. John 20’s depiction of Thomas, therefore, is slander. However, this is a possibility that has no historical evidence behind it. If the skeptic wants to undermine this fifth argument, he’ll have to do more than just propose an alternative possibility. He’ll have to back up that possibility with evidence. We have no reason to believe that the writer of John’s gospel (be he the apostle John or whoever) had any dislike of St. Thomas. No church historian hints at any tension between the apostle John and Thomas, nor do any of Paul’s writings indicate that such tension exists. We have no reason to believe that John had anything but the utmost respect for Thomas as he did the other apostles.

Reason 6: Brave Women, Cowardly Disciples 

Before the appearance to St. Thomas, the gospel of John reports that the risen Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene before He appeared to anyone else (John 20:11-17), and Jesus told her to tell the twelve disciples that He had risen (verse 18). We then read that Mary went and told the disciples what Jesus told her to tell them, but we also read in verse 19 that they were hiding in fear of the Jews!

Now, the principle of embarrassment has got a lot to go on here. First of all, remember that women were second-class citizens back in that culture and their testimony was so worthless that they weren’t even permitted to serve as witnesses in a Jewish court of law. In light of this fact, it is astonishing that not only is a woman the first to witness the empty tomb, but the first to see the risen Christ as well! If John were simply making this narrative up, wouldn’t he have had a man be the first witness of the risen Christ? Oh, no, but he couldn’t do that because he wrote that the men were locked up somewhere hiding in fear in the Jewish leadership. This is also a shocking thing to mention if you’re just making up a narrative. Why would John make the men (which would include John himself if he’s really the author of this book) be hiding like a bunch of wusses and write that only a woman follower of Christ had the guts to go down to the tomb? This paints the disciples in an embarrassing light and exalts a person who, back then, had low social status. By the principle of embarrassment, we can conclude that this account is historical.
But it gets even better! For the specific words, Jesus said to Mary were “Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” (verse 17). John’s gospel puts more emphasis on the deity of Christ than any of the other 3, yet he says that God the father is “His God.” When you’ve told your readers from verse 1 that Jesus is God, it’s odd to have him say that The Father is His God, as though Jesus is somehow an inferior being. If Jesus has a God, how can he be God? Now, just like with “Why have you forsaken me” which we examined in part 3 of this series, I think a plausible explanation for this sentence can be given. I don’t think Jesus’ words here in any way diminish His deity. However, the point here is that they seem to. Therefore, rather than having to go through the trouble of explaining this saying, it would have been much easier for John if he had just omitted that part altogether. The fact that it’s in here gives us reason to believe that John is making this up, this is actually what Miss Magdalene heard the postmortem Jesus say. Once again, the principle of embarrassment gives us reason to believe this account is historical.

The principle of embarrassment applies to John 20 in so many different ways:

1: A Woman is the first to see the risen Jesus. She sees him before any of the twelve do.

2: The disciples are hiding like cowards because they’re afraid the big bad Pharisees are going to get them.

3: Jesus calls The Father “My God” which prima facie suggests he isn’t God, in a gospel that emphasized His divinity since literally verse 1.

This gives us yet another reason to believe that the 12 disciples had a postmortem appearance of Jesus. Again, you can try to explain this postmortem appearance by appeal to a naturalistic theory if you want to, but the fact that they believed they saw Jesus post-crucifixion seems well grounded historically.

Conclusion 
We’ve seen that as with Jesus’ death by crucifixion and Jesus’ empty tomb, there is an astounding amount of historical evidence for the postmortem appearances to the disciples. Now, you can try to explain these appearances in some way other than to say Jesus really rose from the dead, but you have no grounds on which to deny that the disciples really believed they saw Him post-crucifixion.

As the agnostic historian, Bart Ehrman said “We can say with complete certainty [emphasis added] that some of his disciples at some later time insisted that he soon appeared to them. . . . Historians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus’ resurrection, since it is a matter of public record”[13]

The atheist historian Gerd Ludemann put it this way: “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which he appeared to them as the risen Christ.”[14]  For a historian, who is an atheist no less, to say that something like this is historically certain speaks volumes!

The atheist scholar E.P Sanders said “That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgment, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know.”[15]

Do we have enough evidence now to infer that Jesus rose from the dead? Actually, I think we do. In my experience, skeptics have a hard time coming up with a naturalistic theory that can account for both Jesus’ empty tomb and Jesus’ postmortem appearances to the disciples. However, I think we can make our case for the resurrection even stronger by examing postmortem appearances of Jesus to two specific individuals: Paul and James. It is these appearances that we will examine in the next blog post.

Notes 

[1] Several studies on the meaning of historesai in Gal. 1:18 have reached similar conclusions.  See William Farmer, “Peter and Paul, and the Tradition Concerning `The Lord’s Supper’ in I Cor. 11:23-25,”Criswell Theological Review, Vol. 2 (1987), 122-130, in particular, and 135-138 for an apostolic, Petrine source for the pre-Pauline tradition.  Also helpful is an older but still authoritative study by G.D. Kilpatrick, “Galatians 1:18 historesai Kephan” in New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of Thomas Walter Manson, A.J.B. Higgins, editor (Manchester: Manchester University, 1959), 144-149.  Paul Barnett reports that this same term appears in Herodotus, Polybius, and Plutarch, for whom it meant to inquire (41).  Similar ideas are contained in J. Dore, “La Resurrection de Jesus: A L’Epreuve du Discours Theologique,” Recherches de Science Religieuse, Vol. 65 (1977), 291, endnote 1

[2] Gary Habermas: “Experiences of the Risen Jesus: The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection,” Originally published in Dialog: A Journal of Theology, Vol. 45; No. 3 (Fall, 2006), pp. 288-297; published by Blackwell Publishing, UK.

[3] See the online article “Authenticating The Resurrection Of Jesus: The Corinthian Creed”, May 3rd, 2012, http://www.thefaithexplained.com/blog/authenticating-the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-corinthian-creed/

[4] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.3, c. 185. Taken from A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, and A. C. Coxe, eds. and trans., The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325 (Oak Harbor, Ore.: Logos Research Systems, 1997).

[5] Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, 32. In ibid.

[6] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.4.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Irenaeus, To Florinus, cited by the fourth-century church historian, Eusebius, who regarded Irenaeus as a reliable source (Ecclesiastical History 5.20). See To Florinus in Roberts, Donaldson, and Coxe, eds. and trans., The Ante-Nicene Fathers. See Eusebius, Eusebius: The Church History, Paul L. Maier, ed. and trans. (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), 195–96.

[9] “Because of envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars have been persecuted and contended unto death. Let us set the good apostles before our eyes. Peter, who because of unrighteous envy endured, not one or two, but many afflictions, and having borne witness went to the due glorious place. Because of envy and rivalries, steadfast Paul pointed to the prize. Seven times chained, exiled, stoned, having become a preacher both in the East and in the West, he received honor fitting of his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, unto the boundary on which the sun sets; having testified in the presence of the leaders. Thus he was freed from the world and went to the holy place. He became a great example of steadfastness.” – Clement Of Rome, First Clement 5: 2– 7.

[10] “They are in the place due them with the Lord, in association with him also they suffered together. For they did not love the present age…” – Polycarp, “To The Philippians,” 9.2

[11] “That Paul is beheaded has been written in their own blood. And if a heretic wishes his confidence to rest upon a public record, the archives of the empire will speak, as would the stones of Jerusalem. We read the lives of the Caesars: At Rome, Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising faith. Then is Peter girt by another, when he is made fast to the cross. Then does Paul obtain a birth suited to Roman citizenship, when in Rome he springs to life again ennobled by martyrdom.” – Tertullian.

[12] Acts 12:1-2

[13] Bart Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (New York: Oxford University, 1999), 230-231.

[14] Gerd Lüdemann, What Really Happened to Jesus? Trans. John Bowden (Louisville, Kent.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), p. 80.

[15] E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, page 280

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2I4Kp12

/by
4 Things That Must Happen Before More Christian Parents Will Care About Questions of Faith and Science

4 Things That Must Happen Before More Christian Parents Will Care About Questions of Faith and Science

,

By Natasha Crain 

In my newest book, Talking with Your Kids about God, there are six chapters that focus on the intersection of faith and science. They answer the questions: Can science prove or disprove God’s existence? Do science and religion contradict each other? Do science and religion complement each other? Is God just an explanation for what science doesn’t yet know? Can science explain why people believe in God? And What do scientists believe about God?

I was particularly excited to write these chapters because I know how important the topics are for parents and kids to understand today, yet so many parents are uncertain of how to approach them. However, over the last few months, more than a few readers I’ve talked to at events or online have sheepishly told me they skipped that section of the book because (I’m paraphrasing) science is out of their “comfort zone.”

This is deeply problematic—not that someone would skip a section of my book, but that parents so often resist engaging in such a critical faith issue today.

The belief that Christianity is anti-science has become a leading reason why many young adults are walking away from faith. Researchers at the Barna Group have found that 29 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds with a Christian background say churches are “out of step with the scientific world we live in,” and 25 percent say “Christianity is anti-science.” The fact that more than a quarter of kids from a Christian background accept this harmful and false narrative should raise a giant flag of concern for Christian parents.

Think this subject is being handled or will be handled by your child’s youth group? Think again. Barna research has also found that only one percent of youth pastors address any issue related to science in a given year. The disconnect between the need and the response to that need is huge right now.

That means parents need to take responsibility for discussing these questions with their kids. But there are four things I think will have to happen before more parents do so.

  1. Parents will have to understand that it doesn’t matter whether we personally care about science or not—our kids still need to engage with these issues.

In my experience talking with parents, I think this is the number one reason why most aren’t having these conversations: They just don’t personally care much about science themselves. To be sure, no one actually states that as the reason. Usually, parents just say it’s something they “need to look into” or that it’s “too complicated” (more about that in point four). But as with most things in life, if we truly believe something is important for our kids’ well-being, we will rise to the task. We care out of necessity.

For example, my son recently had an allergic reaction to cashews after eating one for the first time. I went into mommy doctor mode and researched everything I could online to know how to help him best. Is there a ton of information on nut allergies? Yes. Are there differences of opinion on what to do? Yes. Did I feel overwhelmed by learning all this? Absolutely. Did I for one minute decide that it was too difficult to sort out, so I wasn’t going to do anything at all to help him? Absolutely not.

I assure you that I don’t naturally care about nut allergies. But as soon as I knew it was important for my son that I educate myself on them, I got equipped. In the same way, it doesn’t matter whether we “care” about science; the question is whether knowledge of faith and science issues is important for our kids. Research (as I noted earlier) has answered that with an unequivocal yes.

  1. Parents will have to understand that it doesn’t matter whether our kids care about science or not—they still need to engage with these issues.

One parent recently told me that his kids “just aren’t scientists.” He said they are more into the arts, so he wasn’t going to try to get into the details of faith and science issues when that’s not an area of concern or interest for them.

Assuming that science questions won’t affect your kids’ faith because they aren’t into science is a big mistake. In fact, I think kids who don’t dive into science are just as likely to have their faith challenged by these issues as those who do. Why? If they lack interest in personally considering the issues in any depth, they may simply defer to whatever seems culturally accepted. Culture says science and faith are opposites and I have to choose just one? Okay. Culture says science has disproven God and faith is just blind acceptance of something without evidence? I guess I’ll choose science because I don’t want to feel ashamed.

Does that mean every kid needs to understand the intricacies of scientific debate? Not at all. But, as I explain in my chapters on science, everyone should understand the key terms and concepts the debate turns on and the assumptions made by varying worldviews.

  1. Parents will have to recognize that questions of the relationship between faith and science are multifaceted.

While many parents are overwhelmed at the thought of learning about science issues, others have oversimplified the matter. I see this a lot in Facebook groups. Someone posts a question about how their child is starting to question his or her faith because of “science,” and within seconds, everyone in the group has solved the problem by breezily pasting a link to the organization that champions their view on the age of the earth. Don’t get me wrong—age of the earth and evolution questions are extremely important (I wrote eight chapters on this in Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side!), but there are many contours of the conversation beyond those particular issues. Kids who have knowledge of just one area—and just one view within that area—will not have the broader foundation needed to engage with today’s world.

  1. Parents will have to accept that we don’t have to be science experts to be knowledgeable guides.

My nine-year-old daughter has been preparing for her first piano competition. After listening to her practice her piece many times recently, I realized that she kept struggling with the same couple of measures. She insisted, however, that there wasn’t a problem. I couldn’t easily describe where I heard the issue, so I asked her to play the piece while I looked at the music.

Even though I don’t play piano myself, I’ve been in enough of her lessons over the last three years to understand the basics of how to read music. I can follow along and see the rhythm, rests, dynamics, and so on. When she got to the trouble part, I said, “Here! This is the measure you need to look at!” My daughter, who is very independent and never wants help with anything, wasn’t exactly happy with my direction. She replied, “You’re not a piano expert. You don’t even know how to play the piano! How would you know if something is wrong or where it’s wrong?”

It’s certainly true that I’m not a piano expert, but my daughter missed the point that I don’t need to be an expert in order to be a knowledgeable guide for her. I had learned enough of the basics and theoretical framework to show her where the problems lie—even if I couldn’t sit down and play the piece myself.

In the same way, parents don’t need to be science experts to be knowledgeable guides for their kids on the intersection of faith and science. But many parents “bow out” of the conversation because they just don’t feel qualified to have it. There’s no reason to do so. Just because you can’t teach your kids the intricacies of evolutionary theory (or anything else) doesn’t mean you can’t be equipped to guide your kids in a meaningful, God-honoring way.

With a little motivation and effort, you can learn to show how beautifully science describes God’s creation—not disproves it.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2G0YSoM

/by
True Love Must Be Reciprocated

True Love Must Be Reciprocated

By Brian Chilton

Recently, I was talking to a friend of mine who was infatuated with a person who did not necessarily share the same sentiments. In fact, it was not certain what the other person really desired in their relationship. I will not mention anything more about this situation out of respect for those involved. This situation has caused me to do a lot of thinking about love, what it is, and what it entails. It seems to me that for true love to be genuine it must be reciprocated. That is, it must be accepted by both individuals in the relationship. We can learn a lot about love from God’s triune relationship.

I. Love is reciprocated in the Triune relationship.

When attempting to explain the triune nature of God, Norman Geisler uses the example of the genuine spirit of love to explain this difficult theological concept. Geisler’s illustration is not original to him; rather he took it from Augustine of Hippo. The following is Geisler’s depiction of love in the triune relationship of God:

“Augustine suggested an illustration of how God is both three and one at the same time. The Bible informs us that “God is love” (1 John 4:16). Love involves a lover, a beloved, and a spirit of love between lover and loved. The Father might be likened to the Lover; the Son to the One loved, and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of love. Yet love does not exist unless these three are united as one. This illustration has the advantage of being personal since it involves love, a characteristic that flows only from persons.”[1]

Seeing that God is love (1 Jn. 4:16), the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is a demonstration of perfect love in its purest form. Love is not forced. Love is accepted and flows from person to person. There is a lover—one initiating the love, a beloved—the one receiving the love from the lover, and the spirit of love—a mutual received love between both parties. In the case of the triune relationship, this love is mutually given and received by all three members of the Godhead. We can learn a lot about love from God.

II. Love is reciprocated in human relationships.

God is the perfect demonstration of love as we noted in the previous section. The loving example of the Trinity is carried over into healthy loving human relationships. How so? Healthy relationships involve two people who mutually love one another. Let’s consider a hypothetical example of person A (we’ll call Adam) and person B (we’ll call Barbara). Say Adam loves Barbara and expresses his love towards her. Yet, Barbara does not love Adam in return. Adam tries and tries to make Barbara love him, but she does not return his emotions. Is this true love? Absolutely not! Adam’s love is not reciprocated.

Let’s consider another case. Say Barbara loves Adam, but Adam doesn’t return the favor. Barbara manipulates Adam into a relationship. They get married, but Adam never has the feelings for Barbara that she has for him. This relationship is not one based on love, but rather control and manipulation. True love must be reciprocated.

For Adam and Barbara’s love to be genuine, Adam must express his love to Barbara. Barbara must receive his love. Therefore, Barbara will express her love to Adam and her love will also be openly received. This hypothetical relationship notes how that true love requires a lover (one sending the love), a beloved (one receiving love), and a mutual spirit of love between the two.

III. Love is reciprocated in divine/human relationships.

Since genuine love is seen in God’s eternal triune relationship and that true love is reciprocated between two consenting individuals, then it only makes sense that God instill his love upon us not by force, but by reciprocation. That is to say, God freely offers his love to individuals. He doesn’t force his love on an individual. Remember, forced love is not genuine love! God says through his prophet Ezekiel, “Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked?… Instead, don’t I take pleasure when he turns from his ways and lives?” (Eze. 18:23).[2] Jesus says that “Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life” (Jn. 3:15). In this case, God is the lover, and human beings are the beloved. But, the love must be reciprocated.

Can individuals seek God on their own? Absolutely not! God’s grace must be extended to them first. This truth is seen in Jesus’s description of the Holy Spirit’s ministry. Jesus notes that the Holy Spirit will “convict the world about sin, righteousness, and judgment: About sin, because they do not believe in me; about righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will no longer see me; about judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged” (Jn. 16:8-9). In this case, we see that God is the lover, human beings are the beloved, and the Spirit working to produce this love is the Holy Spirit. Forced love is not love, though. God does not force a person to salvation. He freely gives his love and his love must freely be received, otherwise, it is not true love.

Conclusion

When I counsel couples looking to get married, I always tell them that if they want to love one another, they must first know God because God is love. Because God is love and demonstrates perfect love, we should not be surprised to find that love is exuded in human relationships when it mimics God’s love. Theological systems need to also accept this understanding of love. Genuine love must have a lover, a beloved, and the spirit of love. Otherwise, a relationship may exist, but it is not a truly loving relationship.

Notes 

[1] Norman L. Geisler, “Trinity,” Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 733.

[2] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017).

 

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as the pastor of Huntsville Baptist Church in Yadkinville, North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2ri6wqu

/by
Tactics The Worst Mistake A Christian Can Make When Doing Apologetics

Tactics: The Worst Mistake A Christian Can Make When Doing Apologetics

By Wintery Knight

I have a key that will unlock a puzzling mystery

So, this is just an advice post for doing apologetics.

Here are three situations I’ve run into while doing apologetics in the last month.

First situation. I was talking with a lady who is an atheist. I had a copy of “God’s Crime Scene” in my hand, and she asked me about it. I told her that it was a book written by the guy who solved the homicide case that I asked her to watch on Dateline. She remembered – it was the two-hour special on the woman who was killed with a garrotte. She pointed at the book and said: “what’s in it?” I said, it has 8 pieces of evidence that fit better with a theistic worldview than with an atheistic one, and some of them scientific. Her reply to me was – literally – “which denomination do you want me to join?”

Second situation. I was talking with a friend of mine who teaches in a Catholic school. She was telling that she got the opportunity to talk to her students about God, and found out that some of them were not even theists, and many of them had questions. So she asked them for questions and got a list. The list included many hard cases, like “what about the Bible and slavery” and “why do Christians oppose gay marriage?” and so on.

Third situation. Talking to a grad student about God’s existence. I’m laying out my scientific arguments for her, holding up the peer-reviewed papers for each discovery. I get to the Doug Axe paper on protein folding probabilities, and she holds up her hand. One question: “Am I going to Hell?”

So think about those three situations. In each case, the opponent is trying to reject Christianity by jumping way, way ahead to the very end of the process. When you do Christian apologetics, you do not take the bait and jump to the end of the process dealing with nitty-gritty details until you have made your case for the core of the Christian worldview using your strongest evidence. Let me explain.

So, your strongest evidence as a Christian is the scientific arguments, along with the moral argument. Those would include (for starters) the following:

  1. kalam cosmological argument
  2. cosmic fine-tuning
  3. galactic and stellar habitability
  4. origin of life / DNA
  5. molecular machines / irreducible complexity
  6. the moral argument

The problem I am seeing today is that atheists are rejecting discussions about evidence because they think that all we are interested in is getting them to become Christians. Well, yes. I want you to become a Christian. But I know perfectly well what that entails – it entails a change of life priorities. Both of the women I spoke to are living with their boyfriends, and the kids in the Catholic school just want to have fun. None of them wants to believe in a God who will require self-denial, self-control, and self-sacrifice. Nobody wants God to be in that leader position in their lives. Christianity is 100% reversed from today’s me-first, fun-seeking, thrill-seeking, fear-of-missing-out travel spirit of the age.

So, how to answer all these late-game questions? The answer is simple. You don’t answer any late-game questions until the person you are talking with accounts for the widely-accepted data in your list. These are things that have got to be accepted before any discussion about minor issues like one angel vs two angels at the empty tomb can occur. When we discuss all the basic issues where the evidence is the strongest, then we can go on to discuss issues where the evidence is debatable, then finally, in the last bits before the end, we can discuss these other kinds of questions.

How to explain why this process must be followed to the person who asks specific questions about minor issues? Simple. You explain that your goal is not to get them to become a Christian right now. That you want to let, them believe anything thing they want. That’s right. They can believe anything they want to believe. As long as what they believe is consistent with the evidence. And what I am going to do is give them the evidence, and then they can believe whatever they want – so long as it’s consistent with the evidence.

So, for example, I’m going to tell them 3 pieces of evidence for a cosmic beginning of the universe: the expanding universe (redshift), the cosmic microwave background radiation, and the light element abundances. That’s mainstream science that shows that the universe came into being out of nothing, a finite time in the past. And I will charge them not to believe in any religion that assumes that the universe has always been here. For example, Mormonism is ruled out, they believe in eternally existing matter. See how that works? Hey, Ms. Atheist. You can believe anything you want. As long as what you believe is consistent with the evidence. 

I think this approach of not letting them rush you to the end at the beginning is important for two reasons. First, we can get our foot in the door to talk about things that are interesting to everyone, in a non-stressed environment. Everyone can talk about evidence comfortably. Second, we show that we hold our beliefs because we are simply letting evidence set boundaries for us on what we are allowed to believe. We can’t believe not-Christianity, because not-Christianity is not consistent with the evidence. And you start with the most well-supported evidence and eliminate worldviews that are falsified by the most well-supported evidence. Atheism actually gets falsified pretty quickly, because of the scientific evidence.

So, that’s my advice. Had a friend of mine named William try this out about a week ago. It went down like this:

William to me:

This guy I know messaged me and bragged for a while about how easy he can dismantle Christianity. He said: “present the gospel to me as you understand it. I’ll simply ask questions to demonstrate it is not worth your belief.”

WK to William:

First of all, he isn’t allowed to just sit there and poke holes in your case; he has to present a positive case for atheism. Second, don’t discuss Christianity with him at all until you first discuss the evidence for theism – start with the good scientific evidence.

And William wrote this to his friend:

The way I’m wired is that I process all competing theories and go with the best one. By doing a comparative analysis of worldviews I find that Christian theology easily explains the most about the world I find myself living in.

I’m pretty sure that a God of some sort exists because of the scientific evidence for the origin of the universe and the fine-tuning in physics. From there I find it quite intuitive that if a God went through the trouble of creating and tuning a universe for life that this God likely has some sort of interest in it and has revealed Himself to humanity in some way.

From there I can look at the major world religions and compare them to see which one explains the past and the present the best. Christianity easily comes out on top.

And then a few days later, I got this from William:

I finally got the agnostic to tell me what he thinks about origin and fine-tuning. When I started pointing out that his views were unscientific, he blew a gasket, called me dishonest and told me he didn’t want to discuss anything further.

And that’s where you want to be. Cut off all discussions where the challenger tries to jump to the end and get you to debate the very last steps of your case. Present the strongest evidence for your core claims, and get him to account for this evidence within his own worldview. Lead the discussion with public, testable evidence. All warfare depends on picking the terrain, weapons, and tactics that allow you to match your strength against your opponent’s weakness.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2HKFu54

/by
The Evidence For Jesus' Resurrection, Part 4 Fact (2) The Empty Tomb

The Evidence For Jesus’ Resurrection, Part 4: Fact (2) The Empty Tomb

, ,

By Evan Minton

We saw in the previous blog post that the historical evidence for Jesus’ death was overwhelming. Even several non-Christian scholars affirm it, and even say that it’s the one fact about Jesus that is indisputable. However, what happened to Jesus after He died? The New Testament says that He was placed in a tomb that was found vacant 3 days later by a group of Jesus’ women followers. This is the second minimal fact in our case for Jesus’ resurrection. But what evidence is there that Jesus’ grave was really empty? How do we know that Jesus’ body was really absent from the tomb?

There are several reasons that I know of to believe that Jesus’ tomb was empty. Let’s look at them.

Reason 1: The Jerusalem Factor

All 4 gospels attest that Jesus was crucified and buried in Jerusalem. Now, history tells us that Christianity had a lot of opposition in the first century, from both the Jewish leaders as well as the Roman government. If the enemies of Christianity, like the Pharisees, truly wanted to stamp out the early Christian movement, the easiest way to do it would be to down to Jesus’ tomb, pluck the body out of the tomb and parade it down the streets for all to see. Everyone who gazed upon the dead corpse of Jesus as the Pharisees carried it around Jerusalem would know for a fact that the disciples were lying about Jesus being raised from the dead. Christianity would be destroyed before it even had a chance to get off the ground. However, Christianity did not die in the first century. It’s still alive today? How do we explain this? I think the best explanation is that the Jewish leadership did not go down to Jesus’ grave and exhume his corpse. Why didn’t they do that? I think the best explanation for that is that Jesus’ body wasn’t even in there to be taken out!

If Jesus’ body were still in the tomb, the enemies of Christianity would have definitely taken the body out of the tomb and showed it to everyone, squashing the entire Christian movement and demonstrating it to be a hoax. This would be the easiest way at that time to refute Christianity. If they had done that, we would not be having this discussion right now. But we are having this discussion right now, most likely because they didn’t produce the corpse, and they didn’t produce the corpse because there was no corpse to be produced.

Objection: Jesus’ Body Was Unrecognizable By The Time The Disciples Started Proclaiming The Resurrection, So Producing The Corpse Would Have Done No Good. 

Some skeptics have responded to this argument by saying that Jesus’ body was unrecognizable by the time the disciples started running around telling folks that He rose from the dead, so it wouldn’t really have the effect of demolishing the Christian faith after all. Consequently, the enemies of Christianity either didn’t produce the body, or they did but people just responded: “That’s not really Jesus”.

There are some problems with this objection. First of all, in the arid climate of Jerusalem, a corpses’ distinctive wounds, stature, and hair color, and hair style would have been identifiable even after 50 days (the time when the book of Acts says the disciples started proclaiming Christ’s resurrection).[1] Therefore, it would have been no trouble to figure out whether a corpse belonged to Jesus or not. A person could examine the corpse’ physical stature, weight, distinctive wounds (“does this corpse bear the wounds consistent with a crucified victim?”), and hair color and style to see if it was consistent with what one would expect Jesus’ corpse to be like. You don’t even need to be a trained forensic pathologist to do this. Anyone of any education level could check these things out.

Secondly, even if Jesus’ body truly was unrecognizable, we should still have expected any body at all to have created a mass exodus from the Christian church, even if a small number of adherents remained. Such an exodus would surely have been picked up by Lucian of Samosata, who was ridiculing Christianity in his work and would surely have loved to use such an incident as evidence against the Christians’ claims. Moreover, we would expect the early church apologists like Justin Martyr to try to respond and explain this mass exodus and why there was a body in Jesus’ tomb if Jesus had really risen. Yet, history is silent on such an exodus. None of the non-Christian historians say anything about it, and none of the early church fathers feel compelled to address it.

Reason 2: All Four Gospels Feature Women As Witnesses To The Empty Tomb

All four gospels feature women at the first witnesses to Jesus’ empty tomb. Now, why is that significant? As I briefly mentioned in the previous chapter, women were considered second class citizens in the first century. Talmud Sotah 19a says “Sooner let the words of the law be burnt than delivered to women“! The Talmud also contains a rabbinic saying that goes like this: “Blessed is he whose children are male, but woe to him whose children are female”! And according to the Jewish historian Josephus, their testimony was considered so untrustworthy that they weren’t even permitted to serve as witnesses in a Jewish court of law! Josephus wrote: “But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex, nor let servants be admitted to give testimony on account of the ignobility of their soul; since it is probable that they may not speak truth, either out of hope of gain, or fear of punishment.” (Antiquities, 4.8.15).

Women were (A) second-class citizens, and (B) considered to be so untrustworthy that they couldn’t even stand as witnesses in a court of law! In light of this fact, how remarkable it is that it is women who are said to be the chief witnesses to the empty tomb, rather than men. If the gospel authors were playing fast and loose with the facts, they surely would have made male disciples such as Peter or John the chief witnesses to the empty tomb. The fact that it is women instead of men who are said to be the first witnesses to the empty tomb is best explained by the fact that the empty tomb narratives in the gospels are true!

To make women, your first witnesses to the empty tomb would be to insert words into the mouths of witnesses who would not be believed. Therefore, by the principle of embarrassment, we have good reason to believe the tomb was empty.

Reason 3: The Enemies Of Christianity Presupposed The Vacancy Of The Tomb When They Said That The Disciples Stole The Body

When a child tells his teacher that the dog ate his homework, that presupposes that the homework is not in the child’s possession. When the enemies of Christianity have to resort to accusing the disciples of stealing the body, that presupposes that there is no body in the tomb.

“While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, ‘You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.’ So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.” – Matthew 28:11-15

This is powerful evidence due to a historian’s principle known as The Principle Of Enemy Attestation. Now, you might be wondering why we should view this as good evidence for the empty tomb, since it’s comes from Matthew’s gospel and not directly from the Jewish leadership themselves. It’s not like it’s coming out of a book written by Caiaphas where he writes “The tomb was empty because the disciples took his body” or anything like that. Couldn’t Matthew have made this up simply to make the empty tomb story seem more credible? Well, no. I don’t think so. I say that for three reasons.

First, consider the fact that Matthew says “This story has been widely circulated to this very day.” Now, what does “to this very day” mean? Clearly, Matthew is saying that the opponents of Christianity were running around spreading this story even at the very time period that he was penning these words! They were making this claim to potential converts even during the very time period that Matthew was writing his gospel. If the anti-Christian Jews were not making that accusation, then Matthew could have easily been falsified. People could have gone to the Jewish leadership and asked them “We read in the gospel of Matthew that you deny Jesus rose from the dead. You explain his empty tomb by saying they stole the body. Is this true?” If it wasn’t true, the Jewish leadership could have said “What? We said no such thing! What are you talking about?” Would Matthew really open himself up to such easy falsification?

Secondly, people don’t usually respond to accusations unless someone actually made that accusation of them. Imagine you walk into your front yard and discover that your car is missing. In a panic, you cry out “My car is gone! My car is gone! What happened to it!? Dude, where’s my car!?” and then your friend shows up and says “Gee, that’s a shame. I don’t know what happened to your car, but it’s not like I stole it or anything!!!” You would look at your friend funny and say “I never said that you stole my car. Wait a minute, is there something you’re not telling me?” People simply don’t respond to accusations unless there is truly an accuser. In those rare moments that they do respond to non-existent accusations, they cause themselves to look guilty of the very thing they’re denying.

Thirdly, the claims of the opponents of Christianity is multiply attested. In Justin Martyr’s “Dialogue With Trypho,” he responds to this accusation from the Jews, and Tertullian rebuts it as well in his work “De Spectaculous.” This implies that the enemies of Christianity really were making this claim. It originated in the first century and persisted throughout the second and third.

Reason 4: The Empty Tomb Is Multiply Attested

The empty tomb is mentioned in multiple, independent sources. It’s mentioned in (1) The synoptic gospels, (2) the gospel of John, and (3) the early creed cited in 1 Corinthians 15.

Given the fact that the tomb is attested in 3 independent sources, it is very probable that Jesus’ tomb was in fact, empty. Remember what Paul Maier said in the previous chapter? This former professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University said that if an event is mentioned in two or three sources, it’s impregnable. That is to say; it almost certainly occurred. Well, that’s what we have with the empty tomb. Three independent sources. On the basis of the principle of multiple attestations, we have good reason to believe Jesus’ tomb was empty.

Now, some may object “Wait a minute! Paul never mentions the empty tomb in 1 Corinthians 15!” And these objectors would be right. However, while the empty tomb is not explicitly mentioned in the creed, it is implicitly mentioned. Dr. William Lane Craig explains that “The old tradition cited by Paul in I Cor. 15.3-5 implies the fact of the empty tomb. For any first century Jew, to say that of a dead man ‘that he was buried and that he was raised’ is to imply that a vacant grave was left behind.”[2]

Reason 5: Mark’s Account Is Simple And Lacks Signs Of Embellishment

Dr. William Lane Craig explains that “All one has to do to appreciate this point is to compare Mark’s account to the accounts which are found in the later apocryphal gospels. These are forgeries that arose during the centuries following the appearance of the New Testament. These do contain all sorts of wild, legendary accounts about the resurrection. For example, in the so-called Gospel of Peter, which is a forgery from the second half of the second century after Christ, the tomb is surrounded not only by a Roman guard, but also by all of the chief priests and the Pharisees, as well as a huge crowd of people from the surrounding countryside who have come to watch the tomb. Suddenly, during the night, a voice rings out from heaven, and the stone over the door of the tomb rolls back by itself, then two men are seen descending out of heaven and entering into the tomb, then three men, gigantic figures, come out of the tomb, the heads of two of the men reach to the clouds, the head of the third man overpasses the clouds, and then a cross comes out of the tomb, and a voice from heaven asks, “Hast thou preached to them who sleep?” and the cross answers, “Yea.” Now, these are how real legends look. They are colored with all sorts of theological and apologetical motives, motives which are conspicuously lacking from the Markan account which by comparison is stark in its simplicity.”[3]

Reason 6: Multiple Literary Forms 

Repeated as a miracle (John 20), creed (1 Corinthians 15:4), didactic (see Acts 2:24-32), and apocalyptic.

Reason 7: The Reason The Women Went To The Tomb – Historical Fit/Coherence

The reason the gospels say the women even went down to the tomb, to begin with lends credence to the accounts. It was a standard practice of Jews to anoint the bodies of dead friends and family members. Why the women didn’t go on Saturday is very likely due to the fact that it was the Sabbath, the shops were closed, and they couldn’t buy perfumes and ointments with which to anoint the body. They would have had to wait until Sunday when the shops were open before they could get the perfumes to anoint Jesus’ body. See Mark 16:1-5, Luke 23:56-24:1-3.

So, the principle of historical fit (also known as The Principle Of Coherence) is applicable here.[4]

Reason 8: Archeological Evidence Presents An Edict That Makes The Most Sense In Light Of Jesus’ Tomb Being Empty 

Dr. Frank Turek and Dr. Norman Geisler make mention of this in their book I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist. Geisler also makes mention of this in another work. He wrote: “A slab of stone was found in Nazareth in 1878, inscribed with a decree from Emperor Claudius (A.D. 41-54) that no graves should be disturbed or bodies extracted or moved. This type of decree is not uncommon, but the startling fact is that here “the offender [shall] be sentenced to capital punishment on [the] charge of violation of [a] sepulcher” (Hemer, BASHH, 155). Other notices warned of a fine, but death for disturbing graves? A likely explanation is that Claudius, having heard of the Christian doctrine of the resurrection and Jesus’ empty tomb while investigating the riots of A.D. 49, decided not to let any such report surface again. This would make sense in light of the Jewish argument that the body had been stolen (Matt. 28:11-15). This is an early testimony to the strong and persistent belief that Jesus rose from the dead.”[5]

Why would Claudius issue the death penalty for disturbing graves? That seems like an extreme overreaction. However, as Geisler said in the citation above, it makes sense if Claudius knew of the Jewish polemic against Jesus’ empty tomb and was trying to prevent any alleged resurrections from occurring again.

Reason 9: Jesus’ Tomb Was Never Venerated As A Shrine 

The philosopher and apologist J.P Moreland explains that: “In Palestine during the days of Jesus, at least fifty tombs of prophets or other holy persons served as sites of religious worship and veneration. However, there is no good evidence that such a practice was ever associated with Jesus’ tomb. Since this was customary, and since Jesus was a fitting object of veneration, why were such religious activities not conducted at his tomb? The most reasonable answer must be that Jesus’ body was not in his tomb, and thus the tomb was not regarded as an appropriate site for such veneration. . . . It seems, then, the lack of veneration at the tomb of Jesus is powerful evidence that the tomb was empty.”[6]

Conclusion

We have seen in this blog post that the empty tomb has a lot of historical evidence in it’s favor. It is this evidence that has lead 75% of scholars and historians, both Christian and non-Christian to accept the empty tomb as a historical fact. Former Oxford University church historian William Wand writes, “All the strictly historical evidence we have is in favor of [the empty tomb], and those scholars who reject it ought to recognize that they do so on some other ground than that of scientific history.”[7]

Do we have enough evidence to conclude that Jesus rose from the dead? No. If the empty tomb were all the evidence we had, we would not be justified in concluding that Jesus rose from the dead. After all, an empty tomb can be accounted for in any number of ways. It will only be when the empty tomb is combined with the 3 other minimal facts we’ll look at in this blog series (the postmortem appearances to the disciples, Paul, and James), that we’ll see that the inference to the resurrection is justified.

Notes 

[1] Gary Habermas and Michael Licona responded to this objection in their book “The Case For The Resurrection Of Jesus,” and in the footnotes, they said they got this information from the Medical Examiner’s Office for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Habermas and Licona said “The physician in charge said that even in Virginia, which has a climate warm and damp enough to promote quick decomposition, an unprepared corpse undergoing a normal rate of decomposition should still after fifty days have its hair and an identifying stature. The wounds would ‘definitely’ be identifiable. Thus, a corpse in a much worse state than what would be expected for arid Jerusalem would still be identifiable after fifty days.” — Habermas, Gary R.; Licona, Michael R.. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (p. 287). Kregel Publications. Kindle Edition.

[2] William Lane Craig, “The Resurrection Of  Jesus”, https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/jesus-of-nazareth/the-resurrection-of-jesus/

[3] William Lane Craig, “Evidence For Jesus’ Resurrection”, from a lecture given at Southhampton Civic Hall UK, https://www.reasonablefaith.org/videos/lectures/evidence-for-jesus-resurrection-southampton-uk/

[4] Byron R. McCane, “Burial Practices in First Century Palestine”, n.p. [cited 16 Nov 2017]. Online: http://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/people/related-articles/burial-practices-in-first-century-palestine

[5] Norman Geisler, When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences (1990), p. 206. The exact same paragraph appears even more recently in Geisler’s Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (1998), p. 48.

[6] J.P Moreland, “Scaling The Secular City”, Bakerback Academic, pages 161–162

[7] William Wand, Christianity: A Historical Religion? (Valley Forge, Pa.: Judson, 1972), 93– 94.

 

Evan Minton is a Christian Apologist and blogger at Cerebral Faith (www.cerebralfaith.blogspot.com). He is the author of “Inference To The One True God” and “A Hellacious Doctrine.” He has engaged in several debates which can be viewed on Cerebral Faith’s “My Debates” section. Mr. Minton lives in South Carolina, USA.

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

/by
Galileo and the Catholic Church

Galileo and the Catholic Church

,

By Ken Mann

The question is asked in different ways. Are science and religion compatible? Are science and faith in conflict? The answer, once one has properly defined what is meant by science and faith, is it depends. Critics of Christianity will assert, based on history, that there is an inherent conflict between science and religion and they use the trial of Galileo before the Inquisition as an “example” of the conflict. We’re told Galileo was tortured, forced to recant his belief in a heliocentric universe, and imprisoned for the remainder of his life for the heresy of advocating heliocentrism. This paper will address how aspects of this narrative are false, and others are misleading. Galileo’s conflict with the Church has been described as “… a clash of ideas⎯ between scientific claims fervently held by a small band of scientific reformers on the one hand and opposing theological doctrines supported by centuries of church tradition on the other.”[1] Galileo is described as a martyr of science because the Catholic Church was opposed to science.[2] In order to explain how Christianity and science are compatible today the Christian apologist must be able to explain how, for good or ill, they have interacted in the past. Over the course of this paper, we will see that the Galileo affair was not about science but about the authority of the Catholic Church over how to interpret the Bible. The nascent disciplines of astronomy and cosmology suffered at the hands of an entrenched and embattled institution, however, the conflict was not about truth per se, but control.

This paper addresses the myths, complexities, and lessons we can learn from Galileo’s trial. In terms of myths, there are two aspects accepted by history that are in fact false, specifically that during his trial Galileo was tortured and that he was imprisoned for the remainder of his life. In terms of complexity, there were many different factors at play that ultimately culminated in Galileo’s trial. It is simply a grotesque oversimplification to assert that this incident represents the collision between science and theological doctrines. Finally, we can learn a great deal about the conflicts in our own day between theological and scientific authorities.

In order to understand these 17th-century events, it is worthwhile to take a step back and understand the state of cosmology[3] at that time. The Church and much of Europe, since at least the 13th century, had adopted an Aristotelian cosmology. The works of Aristotle had been reintroduced into Europe, in Latin, and were eventually integrated into Church teaching.

Aristotle’s view of the cosmos was the source of the geocentric (earth-centered) view of the universe. The earth was immobile. The center of the earth is where all matter was drawn, to where things naturally moved. The sun, moon, planets, and stars all revolved around the earth on celestial spheres. The moon and beyond was a realm of eternal, changeless perfection, while the domain of matter was subject to change and decay.[4] Aristotle’s view of the cosmos was integrated into Christian theology finding concord with such passages that indicate the earth is stationary (Psalm 75:3; 93:1; 96:10; 119:90; 1Chronicles 16:30[5]) and that the sun moves (Joshua 10). In the second century, Ptolemy developed a model of the geocentric cosmos that would explain the observed motions of planets. The combination of an explanatory model for astronomical observations and the imprimatur of the Church made the geocentric view the only rational and acceptable view of the universe for over 300 years.

In 1543, Copernicus’ magnum opus, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of Heavenly Spheres) was published with the encouragement and blessing of the

Catholic Church. It barely caused a whimper. It was, in fact, the writing and agitation of Galileo some 73 years later that resulted in Copernicus work being put on the Index of Prohibited Books, where it remained until 1835.[6] From its original publication until Galileo, heliocentrism did not draw the ire of Church officials for the simple reason that it was merely a theory. Copernicus offered an alternative mathematical model for the movements of the various heavenly bodies.

Neither Copernicus nor any other astronomers in the 16th century argued, at least strongly or publicly, that Aristotelian cosmology was false. In fact, prior to the invention of the telescope in the early 17th century, the only argument in favor of heliocentrism was theoretical elegance or simplicity. The predictions made by Copernicus’ model were no more accurate than those based on Ptolemy’s geocentric model.

Moving now to the early 17th century, Galileo started using the newly invented telescope to make astronomical observations. With an eight-power instrument, he started making observations of the moon, the sun, the phases of Venus, and the moons of Jupiter. His publications Starry Messenger (1610) and Letters on Sunspots (1613) launch him into the public spotlight as an advocate of heliocentrism. As Galileo tried to argue (in conversation and in letters) for the truth of heliocentrism, he was confronted with what he thought was an exegetical problem. Simply put, he believed that the scientific content of the Bible needed to be discussed in light of the observations supporting heliocentrism. According to Galileo, the Bible communicated truths about salvation that are beyond human reason. However, he also argued (as summarized by David Lindberg) that, “When the Biblical text oversteps those limits, addressing matters that are within reach of sensory experience and rational knowledge, God does not expect these God-given capacities to be abandoned… It follows that theologians, before committing themselves to an interpretation of such passages, would be well advised to examine the demonstrative arguments of scientists and natural philosophers.”[7] Galileo’s ideas about exegesis in defense of heliocentrism were eventually brought to the attention of the Inquisition. In 1616 the Holy Office formally censured two key tenets of heliocentrism: the sun is at rest (labeled “formally heretical”) and that the earth moves around the sun (labeled “erroneous in faith”).[8]

Galileo was summoned by Cardinal Roberto Bellarmino and informed him that heliocentrism “had been declared false and heretical and was not to be held or defended.”[9] Galileo was not accused of any wrongdoing, but the decision of the Inquisition ended his campaign on behalf of heliocentrism.

In 1623, with the ascendency of Maffeo Barberini to the papacy as Urban VIII, the fate of heliocentrism seemed to have changed. Barberini was a close friend and admirer of Galileo and his work in astronomy. Over the course of six meetings with the new pontiff, Galileo came to believe that he was free to write a book on heliocentrism provided he treated it as a mere hypothesis. When Galileo completed Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems in 1629, he had in fact gone beyond merely debating competing hypotheses. Instead, what he had written was “… nothing less than a powerful argument on behalf of the indubitable truth of heliocentrism; no reader could have understood it otherwise. Nor did one have to read between the lines to perceive this as Galileo’s purpose, for in the Dialogue itself he repeatedly claimed to have demonstrated the ‘truth’ of his conclusions.”[10] Despite having gone through appropriate channels within the Church prior to publishing Dialogue, its reception within the Vatican was disastrous for Galileo. In addition to his overall treatment of heliocentrism, Simplicio, “… a slow-witted Aristotelian laughing stock of the dialogue,”[11] voiced the same arguments Galileo had heard during his audiences with Urban. A letter to Florence from the Florentine ambassador describes a meeting where the pontiff “… exploded into great anger…” at the mere mention of Galileo. The pope believed Galileo had deceived him, as he clearly did not treat heliocentrism as a hypothesis.

Further, in the character Simplicio, he made the pontiff an object of ridicule.

Alienating the pope with such obvious insubordination was possibly the least of Galileo’s problems. Since Dialogue clearly advocated for the truth of heliocentrism, it violated the Congregation of the Index decree from 1616 that condemned heliocentrism as “…false and completely contrary to the Scriptures.” The same decree not only prohibited Copernicus’ book from being printed, it went on to assert that “… all other books teaching the same thing are prohibited, as the present Decree prohibits, condemns and suspends them all respectively.”[12] The Inquisition appointed a Special Commission to investigate further. In the files of the Holy Office a memorandum was discovered[13] which claimed that Galileo had been given a specific injunction by the Commissary General of the Holy Office to “relinquish altogether” his acceptance of heliocentrism and to no longer “hold, teach, or defend it in any way, either verbally or in writing.”[14] Because of the weight of all this evidence Galileo was brought to trial in Rome in April of 1633.

Having set the stage in terms of the historical context, let’s begin to look at the myths, complexities, and lessons of Galileo’s trial. The myths, things that were at one time assumed to be true are now known to be false, are tied to the outcome of the trial, specifically that he was tortured and imprisoned. Galileo was found guilty of “vehement suspicion of heresy” for his advocacy of heliocentrism in Dialogue and for denying that the Bible is a scientific authority.[15]

In any trial, the activities of the Holy Office were kept under strict secrecy. The Cardinals and those who were prosecuted never discussed the proceedings in public. Very accurate and reliable records were kept including transcripts of interrogations and even details of how the accused responded to torture.[16] However, in the case of Galileo’s trial, under explicit orders from the Urban VIII, the sentence document and the abjuration recited by Galileo were widely distributed and printed in books and newspapers. The pope wanted Galileo to serve as an object lesson for all Catholics and to demonstrate his bona fides as a staunch defender of the faith.[17] Two items from the sentence document are significant. First, it says that Galileo was subjected to “rigorous examination” (a.k.a. torture).[18] Second, that Galileo was to be imprisoned at the discretion of the Holy Office. This was understood to mean imprisoned at the Inquisition palace in Rome for an indefinite period of time.

If the sentence and abjuration had remained the only known documents, prison and torture administered by the Catholic Church would have remained the historical record.

However, letters written by Galileo and the Tuscan ambassador to Rome that became public in the late 18th century and the release of Inquisition records on the Galileo trial in the late 19th century corrected both of these myths. The Holy Office records demonstrate fairly conclusively that Galileo did not experience any physical torture. From the records themselves, there is no indication that any physical torture took place. It seems clear that it was threatened as a possibility but never actually occurred. Further, Galileo’s advanced age (69) would have precluded the possibility of torture.[19] As to Galileo’s imprisonment, from his arrival in Rome on February 13, 1633, until he left Rome on June 30th, only three days in June are unaccounted for where Galileo might have been held in prison. The rest of his time in Rome was spent at either the Tuscan embassy (the ambassador’s residence) or the prosecutor’s 6-room apartment. After spending 5 months at the home of the archbishop in Siena, Galileo returned to his own villa in December of 1633. He lived there until his death in 1642.

Turning from the outright myths, we will now address the complexities of Galileo’s conflict with the Church. These can be broken down into two categories. First, there are four factors, not generally understood from a modern perspective, which prevented the acceptance of heliocentrism. Second, there is a fundamental misconception about the nature of Galileo’s confrontation with Church.

The first problem that prevented widespread acceptance of heliocentrism was that the evidence available at the time was not sufficient. The modern view of heliocentrism is in light of what we know from science rather than what was known or could be proven during Galileo’s time. The arguments Galileo marshaled at the time supported the heliocentric view, but they were also compatible with the model put forward by Tycho Brahe.[20] Galileo was convinced that the hypothesis of heliocentrism was true, but there was not enough evidence to overturn over 300 years of adherence to Aristotelian cosmology.

Second, if the task of overturning Aristotle’s long-established cosmology was not herculean enough, Galileo’s undertaking was seemingly made impossible by his arrogant and impulsive demeanor. He was typically far more effective at making enemies than converts. It is assumed by many experts on Galileo’s trial that his fate was in some sense made certain by the various enemies he had created in the years leading up to 1633. David Lindberg concludes, “Galileo’s personality was a consistent and important factor; indeed, it seems clear that had he played his cards differently, with more attention to diplomacy, Galileo might have carried out a significant campaign on behalf of heliocentrism without condemnation.”[21]

A third impediment Galileo faced was the issue of epistemological authority. Where does knowledge of the cosmos come from? Is it available via human capacities of sense and reason? Is it only found in the scriptures? Is it some combination of the two? The prevailing view of both Catholic and Protestant theologians was that knowledge of the heavens was, in principle, unavailable to the natural sciences. The nature of the celestial realm was a divine knowledge that was inaccessible to the human intellect. Thus, the work of Copernicus and Ptolemy were merely models used to predict the locations of the planets, they were mathematical instruments and not intended as descriptions of reality. Galileo’s argument regarding heliocentrism went far beyond a debate about which model was more accurate. He believed that the heliocentric model of the universe was a description of reality. Thus, he defied conventional wisdom not only about the inaccessibility of the heavens; he also claimed that scientific observation could attain knowledge not available from the Bible.

Fourth, the argument for another epistemic authority collided, rather violently, with the Catholic Church’s stance, after the Reformation, on the interpretation of scripture. One of the decrees issued by the Council of Trent (1545 – 1563) on the interpretation of scripture said in part:

The Council decrees that, in matters of faith and morals… no one, relying on his own judgment and distorting the Sacred Scriptures according to his own conceptions, shall dare to interpret them contrary to that sense which Holy Mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge their sense and meaning, has held and does hold, or even contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.[22]

Galileo’s two-books inspired reasoning was not without support within the Church, however, the Decree issued in 1616 that heliocentrism was “contrary to Scripture” was a clear and convincing indication that the Church was going defend its authority on matters related to cosmology.

Besides the obstacles that prevented acceptance of heliocentrism, the Galileo affair is treated simplistically as a conflict between scientific rationalism and religious doctrine. In response to this assertion, consider the following: every one of the participants in this debate were Christians who accepted the authority of the Bible, were theologically informed, and could make rational arguments for their respective views on cosmology. Further, within the Church itself, there were various opinions on hermeneutics, some agreed with Galileo, others did not.

From the domain of science, among the experts in astronomy, heliocentrism was not a widely held view. In short, rather than a confrontation between science and religion, it might be more accurate to describe the Galileo affair as a conflict within science and religion.[23]

In light of all this, what really happened? Simply put, it was a confrontation over the authority of the Church, not a scientific debate. Considering the Church’s stance on who may interpret scripture and Galileo’s temperament arguing for heliocentrism, a collision was inevitable. David Lindberg offers the following one sentence summary, “The trial was about disobedience and flagrant insubordination: the issues dealt with in the decree of 1616 were not reexamined; its conclusions were merely reasserted.”[24] The merits of Galileo’s arguments were insignificant when contrasted against centuries of consensus. The authority of Aristotle’s geocentric cosmology was not going to be discarded simply because the heliocentric view was plausible. The Church chose to stake its authority on that consensus and science suffered as a result.

Finally, let us consider what lessons can be drawn from the Galileo affair. When studying history, one must always be careful not to fall into the trap of anachronism, judging events in the past through the lens of the knowledge and sensibilities of the present. When considering the heliocentric debate in context, the evidence available, and the consensus of the time, it was reasonable to support the geocentric view. Another form of temporal snobbery we should avoid is condemning the Church for how it exercised its authority. Lindberg makes the following observation about that period:

“The early seventeenth century was a time of growing absolutism in Europe, in both religious and political terms. The freedom to express dangerous ideas was as unlikely to be defended in Protestant Geneva as in Catholic Rome. The idea that a stable society could be built on general principles of free speech was defended by nobody at the time, and police and judicial constraints were therefore inevitable realities.”[25]

Another important lesson is to eschew stark, simplistic contrasts regarding such broad categories “science” and “religion.” Such conflicts are rarely as simple as the contrast between truth and error; rather they are proxies for more subtle discussions. In this case, the issue of epistemological authority was at work. It was not merely a question of how things are known (mere epistemology) but what would be considered as a source of knowledge (authority). The Church sought to defend its interpretation of the Bible as true and correct in all “matters of faith and morals.” The mistake we perceive looking back is extending such control over matters of cosmology.

In our modern era, it is widely believed that we have developed to a stage where what is actually true or false dictates what is considered knowledge. We believe we are no longer at the mercy of any bureaucracy or human institution to gain knowledge. In the 17th century, the Bible was the dominant source of knowledge about reality. What we have seen in this paper is that Galileo was tried not for rejecting the Bible but for challenging the Church’s sole authority to interpret the Bible. Today, the Church (Protestant and Catholic) has been eclipsed by science as the preeminent (or perhaps only) source of knowledge for mankind. In reality, however, the Church and institutional science have merely switched roles over the last 350 years. Today, the fields of science that attempt to explain the origins and development of life are trapped in a dogmatic devotion to an idea imagined over 150 years ago. Despite an overwhelming body of evidence to the contrary, neo-Darwinism is adhered to dogmatically as the only explanation for the development of life. As discussed in the film Expelled and numerous intelligent design blogs, advocating dangerous ideas that contradict the reigning consensus is punished, not with torture or imprisonment, rather the destruction of academic careers. Perhaps that is the strongest lesson we can learn from history; it always repeats itself.

Bibliography

Blackwell, Richard J. Behind the scenes at Galileo’s trial: including the first English translation of Melchior Inchofer’s Tractatus syllepticus. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008.

Ferngren, Gary B., ed. Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002.

Lindberg, David C., and Ronald L. Numbers, eds. When Science and Christianity Meet. 1st ed. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 2003.

Numbers, Ronald L. Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion. 1st ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009.

Notes

[1] David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, eds., When Science and Christianity Meet, 1st ed. (Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 2003), 33.

[2] Gary B. Ferngren, ed., Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002), 105. Galileo and the Catholic Church Ken Mann.

[3] Cosmology being the study of the nature or composition of the universe, the attempt to understand how the universe works.

[4] It is outside of the scope of this paper to address the “Copernican Principle” that supposedly demoted humanity from the center of the universe. In short, it would be accurate to say that in ancient Greek cosmology the Earth was the sump of the universe. This is amply, and metaphysically, expressed in Dante’s Inferno.

[5] Richard J Blackwell, Behind the scenes at Galileo’s trial: including the first English translation of Melchior Inchofer’s Tractatus syllepticus (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008), 115.

[6] Lindberg and Numbers, When Science and Christianity Meet, 47.

[7] Ibid., 46.

[8] Ibid., 47.

[9] Ibid., 49.

[10] Ibid., 51.

[11] Ibid., 52.

[12] Blackwell, Behind the scenes at Galileo’s trial, 4.

[13] It is contended by Blackwell (Behind the scenes at Galileo’s trial, page 6) that the specific memo was fraudulent in some fashion. That it was derived from a letter Galileo received from Cardinal Bellarmini, but altered to make writing Dialogue a clear example of insubordination.

[14] Blackwell, Behind the scenes at Galileo’s trial, 5.

[15] Ronald L. Numbers, Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion, 1st ed. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009), Kindle Location 757–760.

[16] Blackwell, Behind the scenes at Galileo’s trial, 7.

[17] Numbers, Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion, Kindle Location 766.

[18] Ibid., Kindle Location 768–775.

[19] Ibid., Kindle Location 795–843.

[20] In Brahe’s model of the solar system, the earth was still at rest with the sun in motion around the earth, however, all the planets orbited the sun.

[21] Lindberg and Numbers, When Science and Christianity Meet, 57.

[22] Ibid., 45.

[23] Ibid., 58.

[24] Ibid., 54.

[25] Ibid., 59.

/by
Can You and Your Kids Answer These Skeptics of Christianity (Part 1 of 5)

Can You and Your Kids Answer These Skeptics of Christianity? (Part 1 of 5)

, ,

by Natasha Crain

Over the last few months since Talking with Your Kids about God came out, I’ve heard from a lot of parents who especially love the conversation guides provided in the book. Every chapter has one of these guides to help parents have a conversation with their kids about that chapter’s content. There’s an easy conversation starter to get kids thinking (“Open the Conversation”) and several questions to help you dig in deeper (“Advance the Conversation”). For parents with younger kids, it can be enough to just use the question from “Open the Conversation” to hit a couple of key points from the chapter on the way to school in the morning!

One of the most valuable parts of each chapter’s conversation guide is in the section, “Apply the Conversation.” This section features a quote from a skeptic that pertains to the chapter’s subject. This gives you and your kids the opportunity to practice applying what you just learned by developing a response. I didn’t provide sample answers to these in the book, as they’re intended to get you thinking on your own!  However, I’ve received so many requests for sample responses that I’ve started to write them, and I’ll be sharing them here on the blog in five separate posts over time (one post for each of the five book sections).

Today I’m sharing sample responses for Part 1: The Existence of God (6 chapters). I want to emphasize three things before you read these.

First, there are a lot of possible ways to effectively respond to any of these skeptics’ quotes! Don’t consider these answers to be the “right” answers.

Second, all of these responses are based on the chapter content itself. There’s much more that could be said, but I’m only including concepts based on what your kids would learn from reading the chapters.

Third, encourage your kids (if old enough) to try writing their own response after you talk about the chapter’s content. Writing responses really helps kids to flush out their thoughts and process the material. With my daughter’s permission, I’m sharing her response to the chapter 2 skeptic in that section below as an example.

Chapter 1: What Can We Learn about God from Nature?

Skeptic’s Quote 

Atheist author Dan Barker says, “I am an atheist because there is no evidence for the existence of God. That should be all that needs to be said about it: no evidence, no belief.” Based on what you learned in this chapter when someone says there’s “no evidence” for God, what questions could you ask to clarify what that person means?

Sample Response

Evidence is a body of facts that require human interpretation. In other words, evidence itself doesn’t say anything. Humans can all look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions due to factors like our varied assumptions, available information, and motivations. As such, there will always be multiple possible explanations for the evidence we see in the world around us. With that as context, I’d like to ask a few questions about what you mean when you say there’s “no evidence” for God.

First, when you say God, are you generally referring to the existence of any supernatural being, or are you referring specifically to the God of the Bible? Second, when you say there’s no evidence for God’s existence, are you saying that there’s no evidence that could possibly be relevant to the question of God’s existence, or that there’s no evidence which you believe is best explained by the existence of God? Finally, what kind of evidence would you expect there to be if a supernatural being existed?

Chapter 2: Where Did the Universe Come From?

Skeptic’s Quote

In an online forum, a person asked how atheists can argue that the universe came from nothing. An atheist replied, “Personally I do not claim that the universe ‘came from’ anything at all and it did not ‘appear.’ The universe just is… it needs no creation story.” Based on what you learned from this chapter, how would you respond to this person?

Sample Response

I’d like to understand better what you mean when you say the universe “just is” and that it didn’t come from “anything at all.” Do you mean that you believe the universe is eternal, or that it had a beginning but its beginning doesn’t require an explanation?

[If the response is that the universe is eternal…]

While many people before the 20th century agreed that the universe is eternal, scientific evidence mounted in the 1900s that the universe actually had a beginning. For example, in the 1920s, astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered through the world’s largest telescope at the time that galaxies are moving away from us, like spots on an inflating balloon. He and other scientists realized that this expansion implied there was a beginning to the universe (if you rewind the process of something expanding, you logically arrive at a beginning point). Through this and many other discoveries in the 1900s, scientists came to the consensus that the universe began to exist and is not eternal.

The reason that this is a significant point to consider is that an eternal universe, as you say, wouldn’t have “come from” anything at all—it wouldn’t have had a beginning. But if the universe did have a beginning, as the scientific evidence overwhelmingly shows, we have to ask what caused it to exist. We know that nothing in the universe pops into existence without a cause, so it defies our experience to suppose that the universe itself did. Something or someone supernatural—beyond nature—must have caused it to exist. In order to create space, time, and matter, the cause would have to be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and uncaused itself. This doesn’t tell us the cause is synonymous with the God of the Bible, but it’s consistent with Him.

[If the response is that the universe began to exist but doesn’t require an explanation…]

We know that nothing in the universe pops into existence without a cause, so it defies our experience to suppose that the universe itself did. If you are claiming that the universe indeed popped into existence from nothing despite this knowledge, why have you concluded that’s the best explanation for it? To simply assert that something doesn’t “need a creation story” is not a replacement for looking at this evidence and determining the best explanation. I could similarly claim that my computer monitor doesn’t need a creation story, but that doesn’t negate the fact that it does indeed have one. Given what we know, the best explanation for the beginning of the universe is that there was something or someone supernatural—beyond nature—that must have caused it to exist. In order to create space, time, and matter, the cause would have to be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and uncaused itself. This doesn’t tell us the cause is synonymous with the God of the Bible, but it’s consistent with Him.

[As an aside, here is my 9-year-old daughter’s response after we studied the chapter the first time. While she doesn’t get every detail exactly right, it’s a great start! I love her first line, as that’s the crux of the issue.]

Chapter 3: Where Did Life Come From?

Skeptic’s Quote

A person commenting on an online article said, “Had [fine-tuning] not occurred…life here would either not exist, or it would be different. That doesn’t mean there’s some big fairy who made it happen. Just because we survived on this planet does not mean a god made the planet for us.”

Sample Response

You are correct that “just because” we are on this planet, we shouldn’t necessarily believe that a god (the biblical God or any other supernatural being) put us here. I’m not assuming that’s the case, just as you shouldn’t assume it’s the case that a supernatural being did not put us here. We both should look at the available evidence and consider the best explanation for what we see.

The fine-tuning that we’re talking about is extensive in scope–over 150 parameters of a planet, its planetary companions, its moon, its star, and its galaxy have been identified that must have values falling within narrowly defined ranges for physical life of any kind to exist. The probability of those factors individually taking a precise value and simultaneously taking those values is astronomically low (by some estimates, the probability that even one life-supporting body would occur anywhere in the universe is less than 1 chance in 10 to the 282nd power). Even most atheist scientists acknowledge that the universe at least appears to be finely tuned. The question, then, is: What is the best explanation for this remarkable finding? No one is suggesting a “fairy” made it happen, so let’s set aside facetious explanations and have a serious discussion. The real conversation is whether this fine-tuning is a product of chance or intelligence. To be clear, no one is claiming that the intelligence is necessarily the God of the Bible, so we can also set aside any preconceived notions about who He is. We are only considering whether what we see is more consistent with a series of chance events or with the product of intelligence. Given the delicate fine-tuning that has been identified, I think it’s far more reasonable to believe that it’s the result of a purposeful intelligence beyond nature. Why do you believe a better explanation is chance?

Finally, suggesting that life just wouldn’t exist to witness fine-tuning had it not happened is not an explanation—it’s just a fact. It doesn’t address whether chance or intelligence is the best explanation for the occurrence. And speculating that other kinds of life (non-carbon-based) may have existed instead if the universe was structured differently doesn’t address the fact that much of the fine-tuning we see is necessary for the universe to even exist in the first place. This has nothing to do with the specific kinds of life that may or may not develop.

Chapter 4: Where Did Our Moral Understanding Come From?

Skeptic’s Quote

“Do we really need religion in this day and age? If you know the difference between right and wrong, why do you need religion? If you can show respect, why do you need religion? If you can make a positive difference in someone’s life, why do you need religion? What matters is how you treat someone. Put a smile on their faces. It’s that easy.”

Sample Response

Your questions all assume that religions only exist to provide moral rules for living. To be sure, almost every religion includes moral directives. However, religions also make many other truth claims about things such as where we came from, why we’re here, who we are, and where we’re going. Additionally, religions make logically contradictory claims, so they can’t all be true at the same time (for example, in Christianity, Jesus is the exclusive path to God, and in Islam, he is not).

That leaves us with two possibilities: 1) no religion is true (they are all manmade ideas) or 2) one religion is true. Reading between the lines, you seem to believe the first possibility since you associate religion with a past “day and age” (in other words, you’re assuming religious beliefs are something cultures outgrow as they become more sophisticated). At the same time, you seem to assume that right and wrong in fact exist. If you do believe that there are things that are right or wrong for all people, and not just a matter of personal opinion, then you are acknowledging the existence of what would be called objective moral values. On that, I completely agree with you. I think it’s our deepest human intuition that things like child kidnapping, rape, and torturing someone for fun are wrong, regardless of anyone’s opinion to the contrary. Where we differ is on the implications of that fact. I do not believe that there can be objective moral values if God doesn’t exist. Let me explain.

If objective moral values exist, we have to ask where those values would come from. In a world that is made of nothing more than matter (physical “stuff”), there can be no right or wrong for all people because there is no moral authority. No one could say what anyone should or shouldn’t do because everything would be a matter of opinion. For example, in such a world, you couldn’t say that “what matters is how you treat someone” (unless you are only stating that as your own opinion and aren’t suggesting that’s an obligation for all people). But if objective moral values and duties do exist, that points to a higher-than-human moral authority; moral laws require a moral lawgiver.

Does that mean the moral authority is the God of the Bible specifically? Not necessarily. Knowing that requires a consideration of the evidence for the truth of the Bible. But if that evidence leads us to conclude that the Bible, and therefore Christianity, is true (possibility 2 above), then there’s much more than moral directives at stake: Jesus is the exclusive savior of the world and only by trusting in him will we have eternal life.

Chapter 5: What is the Difference Between God and a Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Skeptic’s Quote

Atheist and bestselling author Richard Dawkins says, “I have found it an amusing strategy, when asked whether I am an atheist, to point out that the questioner is also an atheist when considering Zeus, Apollo, Amon Ra, Mithras, Baal, Thor, Wotan, the Golden Calf and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I just go one god further.”

Sample Response

By grouping the biblical God with all of these fictional beings, I understand you’re suggesting that there’s no difference between them—those “gods” don’t exist, just as the biblical God doesn’t exist. But simply claiming that the biblical God belongs on a list with fictional beings isn’t a “strategy” for demonstrating He’s fictional as well. It’s simply an assertion based on the assumption that there’s no evidence that any of these beings—including the biblical God—exist. It’s important to acknowledge, however, that theists do believe there is evidence for God’s existence and are not blindly guessing that He exists; it’s not a foregone conclusion that there’s no evidence for God and theists are happy to believe anyway. Rather, theists are looking at a set of facts about the universe and are asserting that the best explanation for those facts is the existence of God. Atheists are looking at the same set of facts and are asserting that there are better natural explanations for those facts. We can legitimately disagree over the interpretation of the evidence, but it’s disingenuous to imply or explicitly claim that theists aren’t basing their beliefs on any evidence at all.

Chapter 6: How Much Evidence Do We Need to Be Confident God Exists?

Skeptic’s Quote

When an agnostic college student was asked what would be compelling reasons for him to believe that the God of the Bible exists, he said, “I would have to say unambiguous, direct evidence…Some people will use their explanation for God existing as things we don’t know… [like] the arguments [that] everything is so fine-tuned, but that doesn’t do much for me. I would very much prefer to have actual, direct evidence of somebody saying, ‘This directly points to God Himself coming down and speaking.’ And at that point, I’d have to verify with someone that I’m not hallucinating…It has to be some direct evidence of God, not an extrapolation of evidence from something else.”

Sample Response

I understand your desire to have God reveal Himself in a very personal, direct way to every individual. I would love that too! However, we should acknowledge that whether or not God chooses to reveal Himself according to our personal preferences has no bearing on whether or not He actually exists. Just as a detective doesn’t get to choose what kind of evidence he has to work with, we don’t get to choose how an all-knowing, all-powerful God would reveal Himself if He exists. Rather, we have to consider the evidence in the world around us and determine what the best explanation is for that evidence.

I know you said you would “prefer” other kinds of evidence than the fine-tuning of the universe, but the fact remains that our universe and planet are precisely structured to support life. We can’t shrug our shoulders at that just because we want other evidence; we have to ask ourselves what we can best infer from that reality. We also have other pieces of evidence to consider—such as the universe having a beginning (which requires a cause from outside of nature), the origin and complexity of life, and the innate moral understanding humans seem to have. In each of these cases (which we could discuss further), the best explanation given what we know from the evidence is the existence of a universe-creating, life-designing, moral law-giving being outside of nature.

Does that leave us with absolute certainty about His existence? No…but we don’t look for that level of certainty with anything in life. We trust based on what we have good reason to believe is true.

And does that tell us this being is the God of the Bible? Not necessarily. It’s certainly consistent with Him, but we would need to look at the evidence for the truth of the Bible to connect them. This, of course, is important to consider—especially since you said you’d like evidence that “directly points to God Himself coming down and speaking.” Christians believe God did exactly that in the person of Jesus Christ. We have compelling evidence that the Gospels of the New Testament were written by or based on eyewitness testimony of those who knew Jesus personally. If we can determine that these witnesses are reliable, then we have good reason to trust their testimony that the kind of evidence you happen to want is exactly what God has given us (albeit 2,000 years ago). Would you like to talk more about the reliability of the Gospels?

If you enjoyed reading these responses, please share this post!

Click here to get your own copy of  Talking with Your Kids about God, or find it at your local bookstore.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Hqw4fd

/by