Tag Archive for: Debate

Debate Frank Michael Reality

When Debating Atheists: Those Who Lack A Belief Lack An Argument

,

I just had a two hour plus debate with Dr. Michael Shermer, the publisher of Skeptic Magazine, on the question: “What better explains reality:  Theism or Atheism?”  Given the title of the debate, both of us had the burden of proof to detect the cause (or causes) for certain effects we all see. That’s what scientists, philosophers, and investigators do—they observe effects and attempt to discover their causes. Since science is a search for causes, I thought Dr. Shermer, who writes for Scientific American each month, would posit adequate causes for reality in this debate.  He didn’t.

But before I unpack where I think Michael went wrong, I want to commend him for his kind manner and for agreeing to engage in cross-examination. So many formal debates are nothing but dueling speeches where the two debaters never interact and can, therefore, ignore each other’s points.  This debate was not like that.  After we each gave 20-minute opening statements, the hour after that was a spirited back and forth, first between us, and then between us and the audience.  (We then took it to a restaurant where my friends Oleg and Karina treated us to the best steaks we ever had!)

In my opening statement, I gave evidence to support my conclusion that six major effects comprising reality—presented with the acrostic CRIMES—are better explained by God, and, in fact, wouldn’t exist unless God existed. I started with the most obvious effect that needs to be explained:  the Creation and fine-tuning of the universe itself.   Then I moved on to our ability to Reason, the Information found in the genome of living things, objective Moral values and obligations, the existence of Evil, and an orderly natural world that allows us to do Science. (If you want more detail than a 20-minute statement, there is a chapter on each of the CRIMES in my book Stealing from God: Why atheists need God to make their case.).

In his opening statement, Dr. Shermer assumed he didn’t have any burden of proof.  Instead of giving evidence how reality could be explained by causes other than God, he just claimed that science is superior and would one day find naturalistic causes for CRIMES.  But that claim is, ironically, a faith position. In fact, it is a blind faith position because it’s impossible in principle to find a natural cause for each of the CRIMES.

Consider Creation.  If the entire natural world (space-time and matter) had a beginning as most atheists admit, then the cause can’t be part of the natural world but must transcend it. The cause of nature must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful to create the universe out of nothing, and personal and intelligent in order to choose to create. In other words, we’ll never find a natural cause for all of nature.  Whatever created nature must be beyond nature (which is what the word “supernatural” means).

The rest of the CRIMES are not subject to the scientific method either, which means, despite Dr. Shermer’s charge, they are not “God of the gaps” arguments that can one day be overturned by some future scientific discovery. For example, we’re never going to find the cause of orderly natural laws or our ability to reason—including the laws of logic and the laws of mathematics—by running some kind of experiment.  We must assume those laws in order to do the experiment!  In other words, science is built on metaphysical principles that can’t be explained by science—they are needed to do science.

Objective moral obligations can’t be explained through science or materialism either.  If there is no God and we are all just moist robots dancing to our DNA (as Richard Dawkins put it), then how does a materialist explain the fact that love is objectively better than hate?  You can’t explain that running an experiment or by appealing to mere molecules in motion.

Dr. Shermer didn’t even try.  Instead, he shifted the problem by talking about how we know what’s right rather than explaining how an objective standard of rightness exists in the first place.  (This is a common and illicit move by atheists: they want to focus on epistemology—how we know morality or goodness—and ignore ontology, which seeks to identify the grounding of morality or goodness.)

Michael asked the audience to think of reasons, other than God, as to why we ought not sexually abuse children.  He said it’s wrong because it hurts other sentient beings and you wouldn’t want anyone to do that to you.

But those “reasons” merely appeal to other moral principles that need grounding themselves.  He’s merely shifted, not solved the problem.  Why is it wrong to hurt other sentient beings?  Why should we follow the Golden Rule?  Who said?  If we’re just overgrown germs dancing to our DNA and fighting for survival, what is the cause or source of such moral obligations?

They don’t come from science or the natural world. Science can help you discover how to create a bomb, but science can’t tell you whether or not you ought to use it.  You need a moral standard that transcends human opinion for that.  You need an immaterial, authoritative essence known as Goodness, Righteous or Justice.  You need God’s Nature (see our first debate for much more on that).

It might come as a shock to atheists, but science is not the only way of discovering causes.  In fact, in order to explain CRIMES, you need to use other disciplines outside of science. These may include philosophy, history, reason, and direct observation.

Dr. Shermer may scoff at philosophy, but he actually uses it as do all scientists.  It’s required in order to do science.  Why? Because science actually doesn’t say anything—scientists do. All data needs to be gathered and all data needs to be interpreted.  Science doesn’t gather and interpret the data; it’s scientists applying philosophical principles who do that.  The philosophical principle that Dr. Shermer applied was to rule out God in advance. Michael kept saying, “God is not an explanation.”  Well, how does he know that?  He’s assuming what he’s trying to prove.  He’s not showing it; he’s merely asserting it.

Perhaps Dr. Shermer thought he didn’t have to provide reasons for atheism because—according to him—atheism is just the lack of a belief in God. “It just means we don’t believe in God.  Full stop.” He said atheism entails no other beliefs. (By the way, that’s another philosophical position, not a scientific one).

But if Michael just “lacks a belief in God”, then he’s only making a statement about his psychological state and nothing about external reality.  Yet the cause of external reality is what we were there to debate!   So why did he even show up?

If two homicide detectives discover a dead body with a knife in his back, bloody footprints leading out the door, and a cryptic note from the killer, both should hunt down a suspect.  If one detective shows evidence that suspect A is the cause of this murder, the other detective isn’t doing his job if he merely says “I just lack a belief suspect A is the murderer,” and I’m not required to investigate anymore. He should give reasons why A isn’t the real murderer, and then provide evidence that another suspect had the ability, motive, and actually committed the murder.

Dr. Shermer did not do that.  He neither refuted the evidence for my suspect (God) nor did he identify another suspect who could account for CRIMES.  The materialistic causes he suggested—evolution, quantum vacuums, and speculations about aliens and bouncing universes— even if true require causes or preexisting laws themselves and have no ability to cause the immaterial aspects of CRIMES.

Instead of providing evidence for his position, Dr. Shermer did what most atheists do in debates. Despite being materialists, they grant themselves immaterial realities such as the laws of logic, math, morality, and orderly natural laws, and then extol the virtues of science that require those laws while making complaints about how God is running the universe.

Without an objective standard by which to judge, they steal a standard from God and judge that there’s too much evil in the world, God is evil, or if God existed He would do things differently (like heal everyone or write the atheist’s name in the sky).   And don’t forget—religious people are stupid and religion is evil.  None of that shows there is no God or explains reality in the absence of God. In fact, evil actually demonstrates God’s existence because there would be no thing such as evil unless there was an objective standard of Good, which is God’s nature.

In short, atheists don’t have arguments—they have complaints.  And complaints are not arguments.

So what best explains reality:  theism or atheism?  I gave my case for theism.  I’m still waiting to hear the case for atheism.

 

Frank Turek is an American Christian author, public speaker, radio host and the president of CrossExamined.org. He is the author of four books: Stealing from God: Why Atheists Need God to make their Case, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, Correct, Not Politically Correct and Legislating Morality. A former aviator in the US Navy, Frank has a master’s degree from the George Washington University and a doctorate from Southern Evangelical Seminary.

/by
El debate como un deber cristiano

El debate como un deber cristiano

By Douglas Wilson

For many Christians, it seems a reasonable question to ask whether it is at all profitable for us to participate in public debates. Who has ever changed their mind because of some public debate? Why argue about anything? Logomachies only cause headaches.

In contrast to this, I want to argue that such a quietist position is not only incompatible with the teaching of Scripture, but runs directly counter to it. We are called to speak to unbelievers in the public square, and we must do so in a way that includes responding to their objections. We are called to prevail in debates of this kind (in a particular way). When we do this well, what happens is public debate, the kind of debate that can be very helpful.

But before we make the case for this, it must first be said that those who want to avoid “shows unseemly for Jesus” have a point in their favor. There are some debates that serve no purpose, and the Bible expressly tells us to avoid them. But when Scripture tells us not to lose our battles in a particular way, we must not infer from this an imaginary duty not to fight those battles at all.

That said, I would like to begin by pointing out a few places where Christians are told not to engage in verbal bickering. While we are not to avoid all debates, we do need to avoid some debates.

“Speak evil of no one, not quarrelsome, but gentle, showing all gentleness to all men. For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another.” (Titus 3:2-3)

We must not be “troublemakers.”

“But put away foolish and senseless controversies, knowing that they breed strife. For the Lord’s servant must not be contentious but kind to all, apt to teach, patient, in gentleness correcting those who oppose themselves, in the hope that God may grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth and that they may escape from the snare of the devil, by whom they are held captive at his will.” (2 Timothy 2:23-26)

We are told to stay out of stupid, fruitless debates, where the issue being discussed is guaranteed to spiral downward into meaningless shouting. The servant of the Lord is not to be contentious. But even in this case, note that the servant of the Lord is to “instruct those who oppose.” In other words, Paul’s rule here is “not this kind of debate,” and not, “do not debate.”

We must assess the situation, and read the crowd. There are times when we must not stoop to their level (Prov. 26:4). But, since wisdom is not optional, there are times when we must step into their world in order to execute the reductio (Prov. 26:5).

So with these caveats in mind, why should we debate? Well, to start where every Christian should always start, let’s look at the life of Jesus. Asking whether it is legitimate to debate is like asking whether it is permissible to speak in parables. Jesus spoke in parables constantly, and he also engaged in constant public pointing and objecting.

Jesus deftly answered a question about his authority with a question about John the Baptist (Matt. 21:27). Jesus silenced the Sadducees in a debate about the resurrection (Matt. 22:29). Jesus debated the highly charged issue of taxes (Mark 12:17). Jesus debated the devil (Luke 4:4). Jesus debated the issue of Sabbath healing (Luke 5:22). And Jesus takes on his opponents on the issue of his own identity (John 8:14). There are many other examples. In fact, there are so many examples of polemical exchanges in the gospels that questions about the appropriateness of polemical exchanges can only arise if people are ignorant of the gospels, or if they come to the gospels with a strong, preconceived idea about Jesus that they learned elsewhere.

This is strange, but not surprising, because there is a strong non-biblical tradition that labels Jesus as the original hippie, teaching us all to make peace. This goes directly against all the teachings the Lord made about hellfire, and he won the numerous debates with established theologians, and, as Sayers or Chesterton once said, we must not forget the time he threw the furniture down the temple steps. A gentle, meek, humble Jesus, no.

That said, it is not surprising that we find instructions that reveal how public shock is actually a pastoral duty.

“Hold fast the faithful word as taught, that ye may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince those that contradict. For there are many unruly, empty talkers, and deceivers, especially they of the circumcision; whose mouths must be stopped.” ( Titus 1:9-11 ).

This not only requires pastors to debate false teachers, it requires them to win those debates.

“And when he was minded to pass into Achaia, the brethren encouraged him, and wrote to the disciples to receive him. And when he came there, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed, for he vehemently refuted the Jews publicly, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.” (Acts 18:27-28)

Putting this all together, we see the biblical reasons for debate. We see them both in the example of Jesus, and in the instructions given to pastors in the first century. The point of debating is to silence the stubborn, talkative, and overthinking. When this happens, it is sometimes not obvious to the false teacher that he has been silenced – even though it is obvious to everyone else. This is the valuable service that Apollos offered – he was a help to believers in the way he refuted the Jews’ question of whether Jesus was the Messiah. Translated into a modern setting, if a believer effectively refuted someone arguing for gay marriage, or an atheist denying God, the debate on stage might not be resolved at all. However, there are many believers in the audience who have heard those same arguments in numerous classrooms, and we now know that these arguments can be effectively countered. Apollos was a great help to believers.

In godly debate, you are trying to win men and not arguments, and you have to remember that many of those who are trying to win are in the audience. In the great public issues of the day, there are a great many people on the fence. Debates can have an enormous impact on “the swing segment.” I would like to say that when we observe how ineffective our debates are, we would do much better to heed the scriptures and lament how ineffective our debaters are. This is an activity that should be encouraged, honored, and praised, and we should provide the necessary training for those who are called to it. And training programs should reject those bellicose types who only want to join a “who you gonna call?” Cultbusters .

In conclusion, I would like to say a few things about one of the great arenas for demonstrating excellent debating skills, and that would be the classrooms of secular universities. To what extent should Christians just keep their heads down? And if they do speak up, how should they speak up?

I would suggest three things to students in that position. The first is that if you want to challenge a teacher, you should do so with an established ethic. By this, I mean don’t be a struggling student who only does half the reading, then walks up to the teacher with the safety on, and then when you’re shut down, runs away crying. Earn your right to speak, and do so by being at the top of the class – or at the top of the class before you decide to open your mouth. If your grades slip after that, that’s up to the teacher.

Second, let most of your opportunities come to you. If you challenge everything you could possibly challenge (depending on the class) you’re going to do it every ten minutes. If you’re in a target-rich environment, then you’re likely to attack one every 25. You’ll sufficiently and effectively prove your point, and in this scenario – trust me – a little goes a long way.

And finally, as a student, you are not a professor. That means you should not preach, or try to hijack the lecture. There is a place for gospel declaration, but this is not it. That being said, it is not out of place for a student to ask questions. That is not inappropriate – that is a student’s calling and vocation. And if you ask the right questions for which the professor does not have answers, then you do not have to jump to conclusions. You can do that in conversations with other students after class. Keep discussions (in this context) in the interrogative.

If you learn to do this well, it may be an indication that you are called to an apologetic ministry after graduation. If this happens, you will have more tools available than as a humble student.

 

Original Blog: http://bit.ly/2Pdmj3b

Translated by Jairo Izquierdo Hernandez

/by
Robin Collins And Atheist Peter Millican Discuss The Fine-Tuning Of The Universe For Life

Robin Collins And Atheist Peter Millican Discuss The Fine-Tuning Of The Universe For Life

, ,

By Wintery Knight

You might remember Peter Millican from the debate he had with William Lane Craig. I ranked that debate as one of the 3 best I have ever seen, along with the first Craig vs. Dacey debate and the second Craig vs. Sinnott-Armstrong debate.

Details:

Science has revealed that the fundamental constants and forces of the cosmos appear to be exquisitely fine-tuned to allow a universe in which life can develop. Is God the best explanation of the incredibly improbable odds of the universe we live in being a life-permitting one?

Robin Collins is a Christian philosopher and a leading advocate of the argument for God from cosmic design. Peter Millican is an atheist philosopher at Oxford University. They debate the issues.

From ‘Unbelievable?’ on ‘Premier Christian Radio,’ Saturday 19th March 2016.

The debate:

As usual, when the atheist is an expert, there is no snark or paraphrasing in the summary.

Summary

Brierley: What is the fine-tuning argument?

Collins: the fine-tuning is the structure of the universe is extremely precisely set to allow the existing of conscious, embodied agents who are capable of moral behavior. There are 3 kinds of fine-tuning: 1) the laws of nature (mathematical formulas), 2) the constants of physics (numbers that are plugged into the equations), 3) the initial conditions of the universe. The fine-tuning exists not just because there are lots of possibilities, but there is something special about the actual state of affairs that we see. Every set of laws, parameters and initial conditions is equally improbable, but the vast majority of permutations do not permit life. The possible explanations: theism or the multiverse.

Brierley: How improbable are the numbers?

Collins: Once case is the cosmological constant (dark energy density), with is 1 part in (10 raised to a 120th power). If larger, the universe expands too rapidly for galaxies and stars to form after the Big Bang. If smaller, the universe collapses in on itself before life could form. Another case is the initial distribution of mass energy to give us the low entropy we have that is necessary for life. The fine-tuning there is 1 part in (10 raised to the 10th power raised to the 123rd power).

Brierley: What do you think of the argument?

Millican: The argument is worth taking very seriously. I am a fan of the argument. The other arguments for God’s existence such as the ontological and cosmological arguments are very weak. But the fine-tuning argument has the right structure to deliver the conclusion that theists want. And it is different from the traditional design argument tended to focus on biological nature, which is not a strong argument. But the fine-tuning argument is strong because it precedes any sort of biological evolution. Although the design is present at the beginning of the universe, it is not visible until much later. The argument points to at least deism, and possibly theism. The argument is not based on ignorance; it is rooted in “the latest results from the frontiers of science” (his phrase).

Brierley: Is this the best argument from natural theology?

Collins: The cosmological argument makes theism viable intuitively, but there are some things that are puzzling, like the concept of the necessary being. But the fine-tuning argument is decisive.

Brierley: What’s are some objections to the fine-tuning argument?

Millican: The argument is based on recent physics, so we should be cautious because we maybe we will discover a natural explanation.

Brierley: Respond to that.

Collins: The cosmological constant has been around since 1980. But the direction that physics is moving in is that there are more constants and quantities being discovered that need to be fine-tuned, not less. Even if you had a grand unified theory, that would have to be the fine-tuning pushed into it.

(BREAK)

Millican: Since we have no experience of other laws and values from other universes, we don’t know whether these values can be other than they are. Psychologically, humans are prone to seeing purpose and patterns where there is none, so maybe that’s happening here.

Brierley: Respond to that.

Collins: It is possible to determine probabilities on a single universe case, for example using multiple ways of calculating Avogadro’s number all converging on the same number makes it more probable.

Millican: Yes, I willing to accept that these constants can take on other values, (“principle of indifference”). But maybe this principle be applied if the improbability were pushed up into the theory?

Collins: Even if you had a grand theory, selecting the grand theory from others would retain the improbability.

Brierley: What about the multiverse?

Millican: What if there are many, many different universes, and we happen to be in the one that is finely-tuned, then we should not be surprised to observe fine-tuning. Maybe a multiverse theory will be discovered in the future that would allow us to have these many universes with randomized constants and quantities. “I do think that it is a little bit of a promissory note.” I don’t think physics is pointing to this right now.

Brierley: Respond to that.

Collins: I agree it’s a promissory note. This is the strongest objection to the fine-tuning argument. But there are objections to the multiverse: 1) the fine-tuning is kicked back up to the multiverse generator has to be set just right to produce universes with different constants, 2) the multiverse is more likely to produce a small universe with Boltzmann brains that pop into existence and then out again, rather than a universe that contains conscious, embodied intelligent agents. I am working on a third response now that would show that the same constants that allow complex embodied life ALSO allow the universe to be discoverable. This would negate the observer-selection effect required by the multiverse objection.

Brierley: Respond to that.

Millican: I don’t see why the multiverse generator has to be fine-tuned since we don’t know what the multiverse generator is. I’m not impressed by the Boltzmann brains but won’t discuss. We should be cautious about inferring design because maybe this is a case where we are seeing purpose and design where there is none.

Brierley: Can you negate the discoverability of the universe by saying that it might be psychological?

Collins: These things are not psychological. The selected value for the cosmic microwave background radiation is fine-tuned for life and discoverability. It’s not merely a discoverability selection effect; it’s optimal for discoverability. If baryon-photon value were much smaller, we would have known that it was not optimal. So that judgment cannot be explained by

Millican: That’s a very interesting new twist.

Brierley: Give us your best objection.

Millican: I have two. 1) Even if you admit to the fine-tuning, this doesn’t show a being who is omnipotent and omniscient. What the fine-tuning shows is that the designer is doing the best it can given the constraints from nature. If I were God, I would not have made the universe so big, and I wouldn’t have made it last 14 billion years, just to make one small area that supports life. An all-powerful God would have made the universe much smaller, and much younger. 2) The fine-tuning allows life to exist in other solar systems in other galaxies. What does this alien life elsewhere mean for traditional Christian theology? The existence of other alien civilizations argues against the truth of any one religion.

Brierley: Respond to those.

Collins: First objection: with a finite Creator, you run into the problem of having to push the design of that creature up one level, so you don’t really solve the fine-tuning problem. An unlimited being (non-material, not composed of parts) does not require fine-tuning. The fine-tuning is more compatible with theism than atheism. Second objection: I actually do think that it is likely that are other universes, and life in other galaxies and stars, and the doctrine of the Incarnation is easily adaptable to that because God can take on multiple natures to appear to different alien civilizations.

Other resources (from WK)

If you liked this discussion, be sure and check out a full-length lecture by Robin Collins on the fine-tuning, and a shorter lecture on his very latest work. And also this the Common Sense Atheism podcast, featuring cosmologist Luke Barnes, who answers about a dozen objections to the fine-tuning argument.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2kN27rF

/by
Rally For Reason

Rally For Reason

,

By Terrell Clemmons

“Don’t be surprised to find out that there are atheists and agnostics in your midst,” Ted said to me, after railing against the evils of organized religion. I got the impression he expected some kind of visible reaction from me.

But I wasn’t surprised. He’d already said he was a humanist. The two kind of go together. Besides, I’m not horrified over atheists. I took the bait. You wanna discuss atheism, Ted? Let’s discuss atheism. “So, I get that you have problems with organized religion, Ted. But human organizations aside, do you believe there is a God? Or do you believe there is not a God?”

Ted didn’t give me a straightforward answer, though. Instead, he referred me to Sam Harris, one of his “favorite authors and Freethinkers,” who takes issue with some Catholic teachings and other Christian ideas about God. That was fine for Sam Harris, but Ted didn’t answer for himself. So I repeated the question.

This time he answered. “I don’t believe there is a God,” he said and followed up with a caricature of Christianity. “I don’t believe there is a supreme being that created the universe; and sits in heaven and watches every movement and monitors the thoughts of every human. I see very clearly the problems of organized religion…the hypocrisies, the greed, the sadistic, bullying behavior.”

Now I had something to work with. In the language of the basic logic of reasoning from premises (P) to conclusions (C), I reflected his own reasoning back to him. “Ok, Ted, correct me if I’m wrong. From what I’m hearing, your reasoning goes something like this:

P: People associated with organized religion have engaged in the objectionable behavior.
C: Therefore, there is no God.”

Since he’d quoted Sam Harris, I did the same for Harris’s reasoning. “And Sam Harris’s reasoning goes something like this:

P: The character traits of God as presented by some organized religions are objectionable to me.
C: Therefore, there is no God.”

At this, Ted clarified himself a bit. He was a “science guy,” and God, if he exists, is either “impotent…or evil.” And then he was ready to be done with it. “But, enough about what I think,” he said, and he shifted the subject to something else.

This exchange illustrates something about non-theists, whether they call themselves humanists, agnostics, atheists, freethinkers, or whatever label they prefer. At root, the atheist’s position is intellectually unsound.

Here’s another example:

Ivan: “I’m definitely an atheist. I am an atheist because I cannot believe in fantasy. There is no God. There is no Heaven. There is no Hell. That stuff was created by man to help a man feel better about himself. When I look at the scientific facts, I cannot believe in that. So yes, I am an atheist. Absolutely.”

Terrell: “Which scientific facts?”

Ivan reads off statistics about the size of the universe, emphasizing its vastness. “To think that there’s some type of supreme being, call it God or Jesus, that is bigger than that? That is concerned about us on earth? About our welfare? About our future? It’s absolutely preposterous,”

Ivan’s reasoning went like this:

P: The universe is really huge.
C: Therefore, there is no God.

Like Ted, Ivan considers himself a “science guy.”

Well, I like science, too. And, sure, the size of the universe is a marvel. But it says nothing about the existence or non-existence of God. Nothing, whatsoever. Soon, Ivan was ready to call it quits too. “I believe that at some point, people end up with firm convictions,” he wrote to me in an e-mail. “Their viewpoints should be respected and further attempts to convert them should be avoided because not everybody wants to be converted.”

Ahh, now we have arrived at the heart of the matter: Not everybody wants to be converted. These two exchanges expose the heretofore hidden reality that Ted and Ivan have made a personal, philosophical faith choice to disbelieve. Believers need to remember this and press those vocal non-theists to make their case. The prevailing posture among atheism says the atheistic worldview is more intellectually sound and evolutionarily advanced—that atheism is the belief anyone would come to if he merely examined the scientific facts, all other belief systems being vestiges of Stone Age superstition on a par with moon worship and child sacrifice. But it’s not. Get the facts out in the open and it becomes pretty obvious. Theism stands. Atheism falls. Because there really is a God who created the universe.

The smart atheists seem to know this. Tom Gilson invited David Silverman, president of American Atheists, to co-sponsor an open, reasoned debate at the Reason Rally which will take place this weekend. He declined. William Lane Craig invited Richard Dawkins to debate. He declined.

Nevertheless, unreason notwithstanding, the Reason Rally will go on this weekend. Take it as an invitation to reason together with the non-theists in our midst. Theism is up to the challenge. Atheism isn’t.

Related Readings

This post first appeared at Robin’s Readings and Reflections, where I will be guest blogging on occasion. Check it out.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2FY2I76

/by
Thinking Atheist

Are You Thinking Like an Atheist?

, ,

By Adam Tucker

As anyone who attends the Southern Evangelical Seminary National Conference on Christian Apologetics knows, SES does its best to offer well-rounded apologetics training that meets the needs of the novice while also challenging those who are more advanced. Our goal is to challenge the status quo of popular Christian thinking about apologetics and theological issues while at the same time being true to what makes SES unique in the evangelical world.

One of those unique aspects was on display at this year’s NCCA in the Friday night debate between Dr. Richard Howe, SES Emeritus Professor of Philosophy and Apologetics, and Dan Barker, Co-President of the Freedom from Religion Foundation. SES unashamedly builds its apologetics and theology proper (i.e., the nature of God) largely on the philosophical underpinnings laid forth by 13th century theologian Thomas Aquinas (who basically used portions of Aristotle’s thinking to provide a systematic approach to Christian apologetics and theology). This “classical” way of thinking about God’s existence has, until the last 200-300 years, been the standard way to do apologetics and to think about God. Sadly, for various reasons, it was largely abandoned, though it was never actually shown to be false. SES is convinced that this abandonment has led to confused thinking about how to actually do apologetics, which leads to shallow (if not false) thinking about who God is. This can lead to dangerous consequences for evangelism. These are all very important issues about which SES is quite passionate. In fact, it was none other than SES co-founder Dr. Norman Geisler who concluded his NCCA session by stating that evangelicals need an inoculation of Thomism (the thinking of Aquinas).

This is exactly the approach Dr. Howe took in the debate. There are plenty of resources from which one can pull in order to learn about popular arguments for God’s existence. Those are numerous and readily available. Instead, Dr. Howe offered a classical argument for God (a la Aquinas) upon which all the traditional attributes of God necessarily follow (an argument included in the SES ebook most conference attendees should have received via email).

We understand that at least a portion of the debate attendees were rather upset with the debate’s outcome. Honestly, we share your frustration. The debate was designed to be about the existence of God, a topic Dr. Howe admirably argued for but one essentially ignored by Mr. Barker. Instead of engaging with the topic at hand, Mr. Barker attempted to derail the discussion with worn out fallacious appeals about how “nasty” God is (a topic we directly addressed in a Saturday breakout session). Dr. Howe didn’t take the bait because that was not the topic of discussion, and with limited time one can only discuss so many things. Rather, he took the approach of showing Mr. Barker’s ignorance of such classical thinking. In other words, Mr. Barker is writing books promoting his atheism and doing “anti-apologetics” while completely ignoring the classical thinking that formed the intellectual foundation of Christianity. It should have been apparent in the debate that Dr. Howe was extremely successful in showing Mr. Barker’s lack of understanding in the subject, and Mr. Barker failed to address in any substantial way Dr. Howe’s arguments. Therefore, it should have been clear that Dr. Howe easily won the debate. He’s the only one who addressed the debate’s topic.

Mr. Barker’s basic response to Dr. Howe was to claim he shouldn’t have to take a class in order to understand the arguments for God’s existence. In Barker’s estimation, if God exists it wouldn’t be that difficult to know. This is simply a species of the argument from divine hiddenness (i.e., if God exists, then His existence should be obvious to everyone). Ironically, we’ve received the same response from some Christians who seem to agree with Barker in this respect. I believe such a response is very problematic. Allow me to illustrate.

My seven-year-old is a pretty smart guy. He makes good grades, is a math wiz and can recite numerous sports statistics. He even understands that when his allergies are acting up he needs some allergy medicine, or if he has a fever, he knows he needs some Tylenol. But exactly how much medicine should he take? How will those medicines interact with other medicines he may be taking or medical conditions he may have? How did that Tylenol come about in just the right combination of chemicals so as to help rather than harm him? He doesn’t know the answer to any of these questions.

I know more than my son and can answer some of those questions. My wife, on the other hand, is a clinical pharmacist. She knows the detailed answers to all of those questions and more. I recall helping her study for her pharmacy boards many years ago. The chemistry she had to study, the names she had to pronounce and recall, and the drug interactions she had to memorize were mind-boggling. We appreciate, and utilize often, the expertise of pharmacists like my wife. In fact, I’ve never heard anyone say, “I reject the study of pharmacology because God wouldn’t make chemistry and the human body so difficult to understand that someone must take a class to be trained. Those pharmacists should just stay in their ivory towers and quit confusing us with their terminology and study.”

Similarly, my seven-year-old can know that nothing comes from nothing, and right now he’s content with knowing that God is the cause of everything. But can he answer challenges from atheists like Dan Barker, Richard Dawkins, Bertrand Russell, or J.L. Mackie? Can he rightly refute the claims of the cults and their misunderstanding of God? Can he adequately respond to popular aberrant doctrines taught by some influential evangelicals? Many questions about God raised by both atheists and Christians require a good deal of background knowledge and, dare I say, philosophy in order to appropriately answer. The fact the someone is a Christian or has read one (or several) popular apologetics books does not necessarily make them an expert on the deeper issues that often need to be addressed when such questions are asked or challenges are raised. And it is simply a fact of reality that many of these deeper issues are difficult to understand (due in part to the abandonment of the classical Christian thinking mentioned above). As Edward Feser observes,

“Due to intellectual error and the complexity of the philosophical issues, [as mere humans we] sometimes fail properly to understand the main arguments for God’s existence, or mix all sorts of errors into whatever knowledge of God we do have. Due to the weaknesses of our wills, we also fall into moral error.  And when moral and intellectual errors multiply throughout a culture, the resulting general social environment may make it difficult for a given individual living within it to avoid more numerous and more serious moral and intellectual errors than he otherwise would have been prone to.”[1]

If we understand the need for intense and difficult study in order to comprehend the inner workings of the human body, why would we expect less intense study when learning about the infinite Creator of the human body? To paraphrase Dr. Feser, it’s actually not terribly difficult to demonstrate the existence of God, but it is often very difficult to clear away from someone’s thinking the mounds of bad philosophy that more than likely they simply have absorbed from the culture in order for them to be able to understand the arguments. This was on full display in the debate as Mr. Barker demonstrated his ignorance of the relevant subject matter.

Yes, God’s existence is obvious enough that my seven year old can understand the basics, but we’re not all seven years old. In order to understand the details, we need to put aside childish thinking (1 Cor. 13:11) and devote time to thinking deeply about reality and the conclusions that follow. We should also appreciate those who have devoted their lives to studying these things in order to help equip the rest of us and not be surprised if we don’t instantly understand every detail they communicate. As a seminary hosting a conference, our goal is to challenge our audience to go deeper. I don’t immediately understand half the things my wife talks about from her day at work, but I sure am grateful that she knows what she’s talking about and that she is willing to teach me if I’m interested in learning.

I want to challenge my brothers and sisters in Christ to not think like an atheist. Do not be content with what is often incomplete and unreflective thought. Our faith (and our knowledge of God’s existence) must be built upon deeper foundations that are not so easily disturbed by the tired old fallacious comments made by someone like Mr. Barker. We can’t believe something about God simply because it makes us feel good or it’s easier to think about that reality. The fact is, as was mentioned above, answering Mr. Barker with simple or pithy slogans from pop-Christianity or pop-apologetics will not get to the heart of the matter. In fact, it may even make the situation worse by not first properly defining and understanding terms and concepts relevant to the discussion. Such a failure in thinking can often lead to misunderstanding, a false sense of security, or even outright heresy. We must be careful to build our understanding of God upon reality rather than with our emotions and oft-times misdirected thinking.

Some of us are closer to my seven years old than we should be regarding our knowledge of apologetics, while others are closer to my pharmacist wife. But all of us are capable of learning from each other and going just a bit deeper each year. That doesn’t mean we will or even have to, understand the deeper philosophical arguments and the like (I certainly don’t plan on studying pharmacology any time soon!). But it should at least mean we recognize their existence and appreciate that we can learn from those who do understand them (and point unbelievers to them when needed). We are all on this journey together, and we’re at varying places along that journey. That’s great as long as we all remain teachable and willing to learn. As Mortimer Adler notes,

“Not only must we honestly announce that pain and work are the irremovable and irreducible accompaniments of genuine learning, not only must we leave entertainment to the entertainers and make education a task and not a game, but we must have no fears about what is “over the public’s head.” Whoever passes by what is over his head condemns his head to its present low altitude; for nothing can elevate a mind except what is over its head; and that elevation is not accomplished by capillary attraction, but only by the hard work of climbing up the ropes, with sore hands and aching muscles. The school system which caters to the median child, or worse, to the lower half of the class; the lecturer before adults-and they are legion-who talks down to his audience; the radio or television program which tries to hit the lowest common denominator of popular receptivity-all these defeat the prime purpose of education by taking people as they are and leaving them just there.”[2]

SES will never diminish or ignore our responsibility to become better communicators and seek constantly ways to clearly and effectively break down and explain complex topics. And there will be times when we don’t do that as well as we’d like. In the process, however, may we all show grace to one another and work together to help raise up the church as a whole in loving God with all their minds. In a desperately lost and confused world, the truth and clarity of the Gospel must be communicated and defended now more than ever. We are honored to partner with each of you in that endeavor.

Interested In Going Deeper?

For more on a brief introduction to the importance of Thomism, read Dr. Doug Potter’s article.

For more on classical apologetics, read Dr. Richard Howe’s article.

Be sure to watch my NCCA debrief with Dr. Howe HERE.

Consider the SES Lay Institute Apologetics and Biblical Studies courses.

SES also offers several certificates (for credit) or the ability to audit classes (not for credit).

Notes

[1] Edward Feser, “Modern Biology and Original Sin, Part II,” accessed October 27, 2017, http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/modern-biology-and-original-sin-part-ii.html. (Since all truth is God’s truth, it should be irrelevant to the reader that Dr. Feser is a Catholic. We can agree philosophically even if we disagree on other theological matters.)

[2] Mortimer Adler, “Invitation to the Pain of Learning,” accessed October 27, 2017, https://www.monticellocollege.org/sites/default/files/liberal-arts/invitation_to_the_pain_of_learning.pdf

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2h3YqMr

/by
Christians Science

“Christians Are Opposed To Science!” What Do You Mean By That?

By Evan Minton

In any debate or argument, it’s very important that you understand the terminology that your opponent is using and that your opponent understands the terminology that you’re using. If you don’t define your terms, you’ll just end up talking past each other and you’ll end up attacking straw men. As the philosopher, Voltaire put it: “Define your terms or we shall be like two ships passing in the night.”[1]

Often, you’ll hear atheists and anti-theists say things like “Christians don’t believe in science” or “Christians are anti-science!” or “You can believe in God or you can believe in science, but not both.” or “You can believe in The Bible or you can believe in science, but not both.” Atheists claim to be the champions of science and they deride Christians and Christianity for being opponents to science. But, in order to respond to the secularist’s claims, one has to ask a very important question: “What do you mean by that?” It’s one of the questions of The Colombo Tactic, a debate tactic talked about in Greg Koukl’s Tactics: A Game Plan For Discussing Your Christian Convictions. 

What do you mean by that? What do you mean by “science”? What definition are you ascribing to that term? Because how the secularist is defining “science” will determine whether or not I agree with his claims. In my experience debating atheists on the internet and in real life, I have found that “science” can mean many different things to many different people, and when they claim “Christianity and science don’t mix” or “God and Science don’t go together” or “You can believe in The Bible or believe in science, but not both”, while all of the atheists are using the same words and are phrasing their arguments the same way, they don’t actually all mean to convey the same message.

It is the object of this blog post to look at the various definitions of “science” and talk about whether or not Christianity (and Christians by extension) are truly “Anti-Science”.

Definition 1: Science = Science Is The Only Way To Know Truth. 

Some people confuse “science” with a philosophy called “scientism.” Scientism asserts that the only way to know what is true and what is not is through the scientific method. If you haven’t reached a conclusion through the scientific method, the conclusion can only be believed on blind faith or superstition. Scientism means that it can’t be known through science, it simply cannot be known.

If this is the definition of “science” that the skeptic says is incompatible with Christianity, then I would agree. Scientism and Christianity do not go hand in hand, for Christianity asserts that there are various roads to discovering the truth. For example, Romans 8:16 says that the way in which we know we are children of God is through the inner witness of The Holy Spirit. Hebrews 11:1 says “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance of things we do not see.”[2] We can know that we’re truly born again by The Holy Spirit witnessing to our hearts, telling us so. We can have confidence that God will always keep His promises by having faith in Him. Faith in Him is the evidence of what we do not see. What do we not see? His promises being fulfilled. We will see them in the future (e.g our entrance into Heaven because we placed our faith in Christ, Jesus’ return), but we don’t see them now. We trust that God will do what He says. Neither of these avenues to knowledge are through scientific means. The first is through spiritual, the second is through faith. One cannot be a Christian and believe that science is the only way to know truth.

On theological grounds, we must reject scientism. Since some atheists take scientism to be the same as science, they see a rejection of scientism as a rejection of science.

Of course, I would reject scientism even if I were not a Christian or even a theist at all. Why? Because the philosophy of scientism is logically self-refuting. A self-refuting claim is one that is refuted merely by asserting it. Such as examples would be “I can’t speak a word in English” spoken in English, or “My parents had no kids that lived” or “Everything I say is a lie”. If someone said to you “My parents had no kids that lived”, you would say “Well, that can’t be true. At least if they’re really your parents, since you’re alive.” If someone said “Everything I say is a lie”, you would know that if this statement is true, it’s false. If it’s true, at least one thing this person says is true, so not everything is a lie. But, if the statement is false, then it also isn’t true that everything he says is a lie since not everything he says is a lie. Either way, the statement cannot be affirmed without being undermined. If it’s true, it’s false, and if it’s false, it’s false.

Scientism is self-refuting in the same way. When someone says “Science is the only way to know truth”, I ask them “How did you come to that conclusion?” (another example of The Combo Tactic). How did you come to the conclusion that science is the only way to know truth? Did you come to that conclusion using the scientific method? How could the scientific method even be used to test that statement? What procedures would be involved in testing, scientifically, the claim “Truth can only be known through science”? The statement “Truth can only be known through science” is a philosophical statement, not a scientific one. It cannot be tested using the scientific method, and therefore, it collapses under its own criteria.

1: Truth can only be known through scientific testing.

2: Scientism cannot be known through scientific testing.

3: Therefore, scientism cannot be known.

For this reason alone, even atheists should reject scientism, at least if they want to remain logical. Are Christianity and Science opposites? Only if you’re using “science” as a synonym for “scientism”. But, by that definition, science and logic are opposites as well.

Definition 2: Science = An Old Earth and Darwinian Macro-Evolution 

I’ve come to learn that one big reason Christians are labeled anti-science, why Christianity is seen as being undermined by science, and why belief in God and belief in science are seen as incompatible, is because many Christians reject the scientific consensus regarding the age of the universe and the validity of Darwinian macroevolution. Being anti-evolution is seen as being anti-science.

Now, first of all, there are many, many Christians who accept the various dating methods and agree that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and that the universe is around 14 billion years old.[3] There are also Christians who accept Darwin’s theory of large-scale evolution and believe that that was the process God used to bring about all of life.[4] Where I stand on this issue: I don’t know. I am definitely an old earther of some sorts.

So, even given this definition of “Science”, it would only follow that some Christians are anti-science, but certainly not all. On this definition of “science”, only a portion would be anti-science. This charge wouldn’t affect Francis Collins, Deborah Haarsma, N.T Wright, Peter Enns, or others. They would not be opposed to science under this definition of the word.

Would The Bible be opposed to science? Well, this would depend on whether concordism is true or whether accommodationism is true. Does The Bible actually intend to teach us how old the universe is and the precise method and order God brought everything into being? If The Bible’s goal isn’t to convey cosmology or biology to us, but instead used the scientific understanding of its initial recipients (ancient Jews) to get theological and moral truths across, then even if we find scientific nonsense in The Bible, that would be no grounds for disavowing biblical inerrancy or concluding that scripture isn’t inspired. So which is it, concordism or accomodationism? Richard Bushey wrote an article he wrote making the case that God never intended to teach His readers science: see “Why The Biblical Flat Earth Model Doesn’t Flatten Christianity”. 

For further reading, see “Hermeneutics 101 – Part 3: Understanding The Cultural Context”  and my blog post “Why Did God Write A Book?” 

There are many interpretations of Genesis that are compatible with an old earth and even evolution. For a treatment of The Day-Age View, I recommend reading Hugh Ross’ “A Matter Of Days”, for The Functional Ontological Interpretation of Genesis, read John Walton’s books “The Lost World Of Genesis One” and “The Lost World Of Adam and Eve”. Deborah and Loren Haarsma’s book “Origins: Christian Perspectives On Creation, Evolution, And Intelligent Design” is also a source I’d recommend.

Is God incompatible with evolution? No. Christians have always held that God can work through natural processes as well as through miracles. If a man goes into surgery, and people pray that the surgery goes well and it does, they don’t say “Well, God didn’t do it. It was the surgeon and his skills”. They would say something like “God guided the surgeons’ hands so that they wouldn’t screw up” or, if one is a Molinist, “God placed just these surgeons in these circumstances knowing that they would perform the surgery successfully”. For some reason, a lot of Christians just don’t apply that same reasoning to evolution. Evolution no more replaces God as an explanation for the existence of the animal kingdom than a vacuum replaces a maid as the explanation for why the floor is clean. Evolution doesn’t replace God as an explanation for why life exists any more than an oven replaces a chef as the explanation for how dinner was cooked. Evolution doesn’t replace God as an explanation for life any more than a surgeon replaces Him as an explanation for why a surgery went well.

Is evolution incompatible with the epistemological justification of God’s existence? I don’t see why that would be so. Biological design arguments aren’t the only arguments for God’s existence, you know. There’s The Kalam Cosmological Argument, The Cosmic Fine-Tuning Argument, The Local Fine-Tuning Argument, The Moral Argument, The Ontological Argument, The Argument From Desire, The Argument From Science’s Doability, The Transcendental Argument, and there’s plenty of historical evidence indicating that Jesus of Nazareth died on the cross and rose from the dead (see here, here, and here). All of these arguments are, in my judgment, sound, and none of them depend on the truth or falsehood of Darwin’s theory. One can concede evolution and all of these arguments would still need dealing with.

I’d like to point out though, that just because one is opposed to a scientific theory, that doesn’t mean one is anti-science. That would be like saying that because a Christian disagrees with a particular interpretation of a passage of The Bible that he’s therefore “Anti-Bible”.

Definition 3: Science as defined As Philosophical Naturalism.

If what one means by “science” is the philosophical worldview called Naturalism (i.e nothing exists but the natural, physical world), then Christianity is definitely incompatible and opposed to “science”. There’s no such thing as a naturalistic Christianity. Naturalism rules out anything supernatural, by definition. It doesn’t allow for God, angels, or demons, and since it doesn’t allow for God, it doesn’t allow for miracles, and since it doesn’t allow for miracles, it doesn’t allow for a bodily resurrection.

Christians, Christianity, The Bible, God, all of these are anti-science if science is used as a synonym for atheism.

Definition 4 and 5: Science = (A) Knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. (B) Such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena: natural science.

This is one of the definitions that Merriam-Webster’s dictionary gives. It defines science as “such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena :natural science”[5]  Definitely not opposed to this. I speak for myself and many others when I say that learning things about the universe is a good thing. I am very pro-science under this definition of the word, and many other Christians are as well. Some Christians are scientists themselves. In fact, historically, the scientists who made the most groundbreaking discoveries and ergo were remembered for generations held to the Christian worldview. Do names such as Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, Michael Faraday, Robert Boyle, and Johannes Kepler ring a bell?  Modern day examples would include Francis Collins, who worked with the team that successfully mapped the human genome in its entirety. Under Marriam-Webster’s number 3, we can say that Christians are not anti-science. Christians have actually made great contributions to science.

I love learning science. I can’t get enough of it, to be honest with you. I initially dove into scientific research as part of my apologetics training (i.e to learn how to defend the Cosmological and Fine-Tuning Arguments), but as I learned more and more, I actually became interested in learning science for the sake of science itself. In fact, if I hope to some day buy all the seasons of How The Universe Works and Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s show Cosmos: A Space-Time Oddysee on DVD. I greatly enjoyed those programs.

I find the information in scientific books, journals, and TV programs fascinating. Not only that, but I consider it a form of worship. Jesus said to love God with all of our minds (Matthew 22:37). To learn how creation ticks is one way to pay this intellectual homage Jesus was talking about. When I hear scientists on TV talk about what goes on inside of a star, I cannot help but think “What an awesome God I serve! He made that!”. When I hear of astronomers describe the conditions on Saturn’s moon Titan, even if I never open my mouth, I at least inwardly praise God for making such a fascinating system. Even with evolution, If I fall off this fence I’ve been sitting on, I would say alongside Charles Kingsley, an Anglican Priest, and a friend of Darwin: “We knew of old that God was so wise that He could make all things; but behold, God is so much wiser than that, that He can make all things make themselves.”[6]  I believe God loves science, and I believe it makes Him happy the more we learn about this big, beautiful world He created. When the Higgs-Bozon (a.k.a The God Particle) was discovered, I saw a meme that was captioned “‘Hey scientists, thanks for finding my particle’ – God” and although it was intended to be humorous, I personally think it reflected the truth. When Higgs first predicted that such a particle existed, I can imagine the Father turning to The Son and saying giddily “This particle We created, they’re close to finding out about it!” I like to think of it as like a father giving his children a large jig-saw puzzle, then he sits back and watches in gladness as His children piece together more and more, getting a fuller picture the more pieces they successfully fit together.

When I use the word science, I never use definitions 1-3. I always use 4 and 5: “(A) Knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. (B) Such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena: natural science.” Christians, Christianity, The Bible, God, none of these are incompatible or opposed to science by these meanings of the word. And if you’ll click the link in Footnote number 5, I think you’ll find the Christian worldview isn’t incompatible with any of the other 3 definitions Marriam-Webster gives either. It is certainly incompatible with some of the definitions secularists often ascribe to it.

Conclusion

“Christians are opposed to science!”, “God and Science and mutually exclusive”, “You can believe The Bible or science, but not both.”. To my Christian readers, when you hear these statements, you need to first understand what they mean by the word “science”. Do they mean “Scientism”? Do they mean acceptance of an old earth and evolution? Do they mean it as a synonym for atheism? Or do they use it to mean an investigation into how the universe works? Depending on what they mean by it will determine what kind of response you should give. Not getting a definition out of them will likely result in you and the atheist talking past each other. Does he mean the same thing as you do when he says the word “science”? Find out. Ask the question “What do you mean by science?”

Footnotes 

[1] Or at least he’s been attributed as saying this. It is uncertain whether he ever did.

[2] I don’t believe that Hebrews 11:1 is teaching blind faith. Fideists will use the verse this way, but I really don’t think that’s what the verse is actually saying. For one thing, the context of this verse includes examples of people who had very strong evidence for God’s existence (e.g Abraham, Moses) and praises them for their great faith. Hebrews 11 is a sort of “Faith Hall Of Fame”. Faith is a synonym for trust. To have faith in God means to have trust in God. You can trust in God while having evidence for His existence. Inversely, you can have evidence for God’s existence and not trust Him at all (cf. James 2:19).

[3] Most of the Christian Apologists I’ve learned from over the years are Old Earth Creationists, such as Lee Strobel, William Lane Craig, Hugh Ross, Frank Turek, Norman Geisler, J. Warner Wallace, Sean McDowell, and Neil Mammen. While they reject evolution, they do agree that the universe and Earth are billions of years old, and would agree that young earth creationism defies sound science. For those interested in this position, I suggest Reasons.org. Also, see my blog posts on this on the “The Creation Controversy” page.

[4] These Christians call themselves Evolutionary Creationists. For those interested in investigating this position, I suggest BioLogos.org.

[5] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

[6] Charles Kingsley, The Natural Theology Of The Future, 1871

 

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

/by
Defining Terms Debate

The Importance of Defining Terms

By Luke Nix

Introduction

A few years ago I listened to the podcast “The Word Nerds“. This podcast helped me gain an appreciation for the power of the English language. In my conversations with people, I have noticed the power of the words themselves. Using the wrong word can cause needless arguments; using a less specific word can cause confusion, and many other effects (I just checked Dictionary.com to make sure I used the right one there) come from using the wrong word.

In righting using the wrong word can cause the affect of people thanking your just dumb. How many times did you have to reread that last sentence before you figured out what I was trying to say? This is probably just more of a lazy-spelling issue, but I had to put it out their.

Defining terms is extremely important in conversations. In normal language, certain words have an accepted definition that is assumed based on the context. If these words did not exist, then you wouldn’t be able to read this post and understand it. However, many words have slightly different meanings to different people. Let’s take the word “period”. I can think of three different definitions right off the top of my head. Most of us can figure that one out pretty quickly.

Words in Debates

Now, let’s take the word “science”. How many definitions for this are you aware of? I pick this one because I was at a debate between William Dembski and Michael Ruse in 2009. The topic was “Is Intelligent Design Science?” I was quite perturbed to see that they were each defining “Intelligent Design” the same, but they were not defining “Science” the same. In order for such a debate to have been fruitful, all the terms in the question up for debate needed to be agreed upon. For example, using his own definition of “science”, Michael Ruse made a compelling case that could not be refuted- as long as William Dembski accepted Ruse’s definition; however, since Dembski did not accept Ruse’s definition, and instead used his own then Ruse’s position could easily be undermined. The same happend when Dembski used his definition of “science” and Ruse refuted him.

Let us examine a more recent debate: William Lane Craig vs. Sam Harris. One of the words that was not clearly defined and accepted by both participants was “objective”. Sam Harris clarified that he was only arguing for a “universal” morality (one that only exists as long as conscious minds exist- he’s referring to humans), while Craig was arguing for morality that exists regardless of whether or not conscious minds exist- he’s also referring to humans. The fact that they were each using different definitions of “objective” caused much confusion for those who did not pick up on the distinction or its significance for the debate (even though Craig pointed out both in his first rebuttal).

Since the purpose of debates is to convince based upon agreed upon information, neither debate accomplish what they had the potential to accomplish. The definitions of “science” (in the first example) and “objective” in the second needed to be debated and agreed upon before any questions containing the words could be debated.

This is quite important when one is discussing religious, political, and other worldview ideas with someone who is opposed. Words that some people take to be universally defined across all wordviews are in for a huge surprise. Many words are not. “God” means one thing to the Christian and means another to the Buddhist or Muslim (Craig mentioned this also in his debate with Harris, but the point was ignored). “Empirical” means one thing to the scientist and means another to the historian.

The Power of Words

Speech is one of the communication methods that God has endowed strictly upon the human race. Speech is performed through many languages which all have numerous words (English alone claims nearly one million words). The power of speech lies in its ability to portray the unseen and the unmeasurable, along with the seen and measurable. It is used to communicate our thoughts, visions, and emotions to other humans. Each word corresponds to something and everything has a corresponding word (for the most part). However, the relationship of words to “things” is not one-to-one. One word may have several definitions (take the word “set” in English; according to Dictionary.com it has 119 definitions), and one definition may correspond to several words (synonyms).

However, the real power of words comes not in just the basic definitions, but in:

  1. The contexts that they alone are used- such as “annihilate” vs “demolish”, synonyms of one another, but not usually used interchangeably. “Demolish” tends to refer to the destruction of a building, and “annihilation” tends to refer to the destruction of a foe or enemy (in philosophy and theology it has an even stronger implication of the cessation of existence).
  2. The level of emotion– “dislike” vs “hate”, synonyms of one another, but “hate” is stronger than “dislike”3. The precision of the description- “break” vs “shatter”, synonyms of one another, but “shatter” paints a more accurate picture of how an object disassembled than “break”
  3. The level of power– “mean” vs “ruthless”, synonyms of one another, but “ruthless” is stronger than “mean”
  4. Intentionality– “push” vs “shove”, synonyms of one another, but “shove” indicates a mischievous “push”6. Size– “hill” vs “mountain”, synonyms, but mountains are larger than hills and on, and on…

Precision of Communication

When precisely defined words are cleverly combined into phrases, sentences, and paragraphs, they can communicate something so vividly, that reader or listener will have a precise understanding in their mind of the concept that was in the mind of the communicator.

Speech has been given to humans to communicate with each other. Different studies have been conducted that have concluded that talking with someone about thoughts in the mind help that person emotionally- which can lead to a more healthy and productive life. With the words of our language, we can precisely describe to people what is on our minds, and they can understand it. The larger vocabulary one utilizes, the more precisely they can describe their inner-most feelings.

There are many books on communication, and how intimately it is related to one’s relationships with friends, family, co-workers, etc. Precise and honest communication allows for fewer “unknowns” between the speaker and the listener. As the level of “unknowns” decreases, the personal connection between the two becomes stronger. Strong communication leads to strong and trusting relationships.

More Words

Many of you already are aware that many times a word may not exist in your vocabulary (or even in the language) that describes precisely what you want to communicate. We are all aware of adjectives and adverbs- those little words that describe (or add precision) other words. As the words mentioned above, adjectives and adverbs have many levels and nuances that will assist us in our description of a specific word (and thus, our thought).

Of course, overuse of these can be really, really, really, really bad and do more to confuse the listener (or reader). That last sentence is almost painful to hear (or read). As you have already figured out, “devastating” could easily replace “really, really, really, really, bad”. Depending on my intended meaning of “bad” I could also have used “frustrating” or “confusing”. Notice, though, that each of those words have their own nuances. One may be chosen over the other, depending on the context.

Other times, thoughts exist that can’t be quickly communicated with a word and some descriptors. We have to futher qualify them with complete sentences. When this is necessary, don’t take the easy way out by ignoring it, just do it. Most questions that someone asks about your point of view will be a “clarifying” question. This is a good time to use these descriptive words to further clarify what you are attempting to communicate.

More Clarification Is Sometimes Necessary

The more precisely we can communicate our thoughts, the more likely we will be to have our point of view understood. Now, “understood” is not synonymous with “accepted” (notice that I specifically stated what “understood” does not mean).

I recently came across a very good example of this advice being taken. A couple years ago, I was working my way through the book “Thrilled to Death” by Archibald Hart. Hart uses the term “anhedonia” a lot because that is the primary topic of the book. At the beginning of the book Hart clearly defines “anhedonia”. He starts by making it clear that there is a “clinical” definition, but he is not using it in that strict sense. He then goes on to describe what exactly he means. This was provided as an answer to his peers who would notice immediately if he were using the word incorrectly. By providing an exact definition of his term, Hart avoided much confusion and possible dismissal of his ideas. In both debates referred to above, if such a courtesy were provided by both parties (it can’t just be one-sided), confusion could have been avoided. Instead, both proceeded with different definitions of their respective words, and debates that were already difficult to follow for some people just increased in difficulty level.

A while back I read the book “No Free Lunch” by William Dembski (chapter 4.9). In it he provided a critique of one of his views from a peer. He went through the critique and responded. (I checked for the other scholar’s further responses and found them here if you are curious). I was quite annoyed by this exchange. The glaring fact that both of them were trying to more specifically define their terms, while the other person complained that they were doing such a thing was unmistakable! We can’t expect to be able to specifically define our terms yet not allow someone else to do the same, and on the flip-side, we can’t demand that the other specifically define their terms while we do not reciprocate said demand.

Another example of this is in the scientific community of biologists. “Evolution” is a broad term. Some want it split into two different terms: “microevolution” and “macro-evolution”. Each one clearly defines a level of evolution in the biological realm. I think that this is quite useful because the separate terms allow scholars (and laymen) to know exactly which type the other is discussing and can engage with less ambiguity. I addressed this issue in more detail here. Sometimes it is necessary to create new words to communicate a newly discovered distinction.

Conclusion

To finally conclude this, words have objective meanings. The fact that they have multiple possible meanings indicates that defining terms is extremely important if we wish for our conversations and debates to be productive. If this is not allowed, then the risk of holding a “strawman” understanding of the other person’s view is increased. When “strawmen” are believed, frustration abounds for both sides. In the future, when someone asks us to clarify our terms, we should patiently oblige them. Most of the time, they are not trying to be devious, they are simply trying to understand. They also ask with the expectation that we are not being devious. We must not abuse language to the point of demanding a different term in the absence of a distinction in definitions, but on the other extreme, we must not demand the same term in the presence of a distinction in definitions.

Over the last several years, I have written many other posts on the importance of clear communication to help keep worldview discussions and debates productive. Here are some of the recommended ones:

Related Posts:

Is Theism Well-Defined Enough to be Scientifically Testable?

Atheism: A Lack of Belief in God

What Is Faith?

Is Faith Emotional or Logical?

Philosophy of Science, Circumstantial Evidence, and Creation

Deconstructionism, The Constitution, and Biblical Interpretation

The Difference Between What A View Asserts and Implies

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2hB3RpP

/by
Debate Atheist Jesus

Debating Atheists: Arrival of Jesus (Part 5/5)

,

By Dan Grossenbach

Ancient history is a funny thing. We depend on the information, but no one was there to see it. Historians meet this challenge with the standard method of historiography.

Historiography is scientific in a sense, albeit different than the hard sciences like physics and chemistry. In both cases, absolute certainty still evades us. Historians seek only to identify what events are more likely than not to have happened. Famous religion skeptic Bart Ehrman says human events that occurred in the past are always a matter of what probably did or did not happen[1].

History’s witnesses contain lore and exaggeration but also facts. It’s inherently problematic that there’s much about the ancient world we’ll never know. In fact, an overwhelming majority of events and people left without a trace. When it comes to Jesus of Nazareth, however; there’s little else we can know so well.

Surprised? It turns out there are a few facts about his life, death, and post-death events that aren’t even contested among historians today. So, it’s safe to say we can know with relative historical certainty that these things actually happened. Don’t take our word for it, but see what the scholars who reject Christianity say about him.

Jesus died by Roman crucifixion in first century Palestine

“Jesus death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable.” – Atheist Gerd Ludemann[2]

“The crucifixion of Jesus by the Romans is one of the most secure facts we have about his life.” – Atheist Bart Ehrman[3]

We can take it “absolutely for granted that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate” Skeptic John Dominic Crossan[4]

Jewish scholar Paula Fredrickson tells us “the crucifixion is the single strongest fact we have about Jesus”[5].

Even the radical and anti-supernatural Jesus Seminar claims that the crucifixion is “one indisputable fact”[6]. Finally, New Testament scholar Marcus Borg articulates for us:

“[S]ome judgments are so probable as to be certain; for example, Jesus really existed, and he really was crucified, just as Julius Caesar really existed and was assassinated. …. We can in fact know as much about Jesus as we can about any figure in the ancient world”[7].

With such strong endorsement by non-Christian scholars who may otherwise be inclined to dismiss this fact, it seems as though no one would oppose it. Nonetheless, there are a few who do. Muslims, of course, are theologically committed to reject this fact at the outset. There are also a handful of scholars who argue the crucifixion was an allegorical story based on pagan mythology. An excellent rebuttal to this view by Greg Koukl can be found here[8]. The interested reader is encouraged to look into the reasons these scholars have for or against all three of these facts about Jesus[9]. The point of this article is to show basic facts most non-Christian scholars concede to when everything is considered.

Surprising as it may be, non-Christian scholars accept most of Paul’s letters and much of the gospel narrative as authentic. Honest historians apply the same standard to the New Testament as they give other available textual witnesses. Almost all scholars give credit to Paul for at least 7 of his 12 letters which give us more than enough for all three points in this post by itself.

Even non-Christian historians don’t dismiss the gospels which provide independent and early accounts. It’s important to realize the passion narratives that provide an account of the crucifixion have distinct differences even among the “synoptic” gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). This indicates the written narrative comes from a unique prior source even when other parts of the gospels may share a common tradition. Additionally, the crucifixion is presumed as historical in non-canonical material such as the Shepherd of Hermas and two letters of Clement, Gnostic texts, and the writings of early church fathers.

Contemporary non-Christian sources help too. Admittedly, some Christian apologists have overstated ancient witnesses that mention Christ, but others have dismissed them too quickly (the latter possibly due to the former). At the very least, the extant material left from ancient writers who mentioned Jesus relayed what they took to be contemporary common knowledge. Non-Christians Tacitus, Lucian, Mara Bar Serapion, and Josephus each have different reasons for mentioning Jesus of Nazareth, but they all assume his execution to be a fact taken for granted by their first century audience. It is also worth noting that ancient writings of the time confirm specific crucifixion details described in the gospels and no ancient source contradict this was Jesus’ fate[10].

Jesus had followers who had experiences they believed to be the risen Jesus

Once again, this point can be made by those who we would expect to disagree. Mike Licona points out that Jewish scholar Pinchas Lapide in his work titled, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective,gives a case that the post-resurrection appearances in the New Testament originate from the apostles themselves[11].

Atheist New Testament scholar Gerd Ludemann thinks the appearance narratives were so well attested that Paul cited them to support his argument. Commenting on the famous appearance narrative in 1 Cor 15, Ludemann thinks Paul referenced the 500 witnesses to encourage his audience to go interview them[12]. Skeptic Robert Funk reports the findings of the hypercritical “Jesus Seminar” who believe the 500 witnesses actually had an appearance, albeit a visionary one[13]. From this and many other passages, we know that the followers sincerely believed Jesus appeared to them both individually and in group settings – both to disciples who knew him well and those who did not – both to friend and to foe alike. The accounts are so well attested one scholar who even proposes the idea that Jesus never existed concedes this point (yes, you read that right). The skeptic Richard Carrier puts it this way…” Obviously, I also agree there were appearances, but I argue the appearances were hallucinations”[14].

Here Carrier supports the most common critical view in contrast to the resurrection hypothesis. His biased approach of methodological naturalism rules out the existence of God thereby excluding the resurrection option from the start. He’s so committed to avoid the resurrection that he proposes contradictory theories and admits he doesn’t intend to provide a plausible alternative theory – only something that’s possible. In his view (akin to Hume and Ehrman), miracles are the least probable event regardless of the evidence, so any alternative to the resurrection is more likely. The implicit assumption is this: since God isn’t an option, anything else will work better. He can then lob spaghetti at the wall and take whatever sticks because he took the supernatural noodles out before the toss.

Hostile skeptics Paul and James changed from hostile critics to teach the resurrection as their central message and lived an increasingly hostile life of suffering and ultimately faced a violent death for it.

James:

Admittedly the weaker of the “minimal facts” gleaned from his exhaustive study, Dr. Gary Habermas cites the conversion of James as a fact supported by the writings of a majority of scholars who are published on the topic in English, French, or German since 1975. In his book co-authored by Mike Licona, he lists four reasons given by the skeptics:

  • James rejected Jesus’ ministry (Mk 3:21, 31; 6:3-4; John 7:5)
  • 1 Cor 15:3-7 believed by skeptics to be authentic lists James as a witness to the risen Jesus
  • James becomes a Christian leader (Acts 15:12-21; Gal 1:19)
  • James died as a martyr for being a Christian leader (Hegesippus and Clement of Alexandria)[15]

Flavious Josephus was a contemporary to both James and Paul and was a Jewish historian financed by the Roman Emperor. His familial heritage was of Jewish elite in the capital city of Jerusalem where he lived while these events were unfolding. If anyone would have known about the early Christian movement, Josephus would. So, what he says about James the Just, the brother of Jesus of Nazareth and leader of the Jerusalem church carries some weight:

Having such a character, Ananus thought that with Festus dead and Albinus still on the way, he would have the proper opportunity. Convening the judges of the Sanhedrin, he brought before them the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, whose name was James, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned[16].

The testimony of James is affirmed by Christian and non-Christian sources alike.

Paul:

The fact that Paul was a skeptic who converted to Christianity is so uncontroversial that we can take it directly from the source, Paul himself. There’s no need to do otherwise since the non-Christian scholars endorse his authorship to his testimony. According to skeptic John Dominic Crossan, Paul’s personal testimony exceeds even the events recorded in Acts[17]. Paul writes of his personal conversion experience in Galatians, 1 Cor, Philemon, and 1 Timothy. It’s also accounted for in a separate source on two different occasions in the book of Acts, which ironically, is also the book that most vividly speaks of his prior violent opposition. Virtually no scholar goes against the overwhelming majority consensus that Paul once was a skeptic who became a believer. Given the drastic shift in position, that is a tremendous understatement. Even atheist philosopher Michael Martin has concluded this[18].

Conclusion:

In closing, let’s review what we can know from these facts that non-Christians support: 1) Jesus was crucified, 2) apostles had post-resurrection appearances, and 3) Hostile critics Paul and James converted. Which explanation best accounts for these three facts? Skeptics have offered a range of theories, but far and away, the most common naturalistic explanation offered is grief hallucinations. This is the most common way to avoid a supernatural explanation, but fitting the skeptic’s prior presupposition is where the advantages end.

Hallucinations fail to account for group appearances granted as historical by skeptics and doesn’t work for hostile witnesses like Paul who didn’t even know Jesus but wanted to kill his followers. The best explanation is the one offered by Christianity: that Jesus rose from the dead. The only reason to keep it off the table is if you take God off the table before you start looking.

Dr. Shapiro mentioned many things about the life of Jesus but didn’t face any of these three facts. Instead, he cited clearly inaccurate information to lead the audience astray. For example, he said Jesus may never have existed at all. To this point, scholar and skeptic Bart Ehman pulls no punches. In a friendly crowd, receiving an award from Freedom from Religion Foundation president Dan Barker, Ehrman said:

There is so much evidence that….this is not even an issue for scholars of antiquity…There is no scholar in any college or university in the western world who teaches Classics, Ancient History, New Testament, early Christianity, any related field who doubts that Jesus existed…That is not evidence…but if you want to know about the theory of evolution vs the theory of creationism and every scholar in every reputable institution in the world believes in evolution. It may not be evidence, but if you have a different opinion you’d better have a pretty good piece of evidence yourself…The reason for thinking Jesus existed is because he is abundantly attested in early sources…Early and independent sources certainly indicate that Jesus existed…One author we know about knew Jesus’ brother…I’m sorry, I respect your disbelief, but if you want to go where the evidence goes…I think that atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism, because frankly, it makes you look foolish to the outside world[19].

We need go no further than the peer-reviewed literature published by skeptics who should otherwise be inclined not to say such things. To be fair, these very same critics don’t conclude the resurrection best explains the facts, but conclusions about things with such weighty implications don’t happen in a vacuum. All sorts of factors influence our conclusions. Remember, history is a science of discovering what most probably happened so the urge is strong to wedge in other factors such as philosophical presuppositions, lifestyle habits, emotional attachment, upbringing, social setting, academic pressure, wealth, and recognition. No matter where we fall on the resurrection question, a variety of influences come into play. It’s at this point where we must part with the skeptics cited above with whom we’ve agreed with so far on key matters of science, ethics, human experience, and history. For those following their desires, just about any theory can be made to fit. For the rest of us who go where the evidence leads, there’s the hope eternal in the resurrection of Jesus.

[1] Bart Ehrman quoted in How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist By John W. Loftus, Peter Boghossian viewed in Google Books preview

[2] Gerd Ludemann, 2004. The Resurrection of Christ. p50 quoted by James Bishop here

[3] Bart Ehrman, http://ehrmanblog.org/why-was-jesus-killed-for-members/)

[4] John Dominic Crossan quoted by R. Stewart & Gary Habermas in Memories of Jesus. p282 quoted by James Bishop here

[5] Paula Frederickson, remark during discussion at the meeting of “The Historical Jesus” section at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, November 22, 1999 as cited at ReasonableFaith.org

[6] Robert Funk, Jesus Seminar videotape as cited by James Bishop here

[7] Marcus Borg, 1999. The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions. Chapter 5: Why was Jesus killed? as cited by James Bishop here

[8] Greg Koukl, Jesus Recycled Redeemer, Solid Ground, September 1, 2009http://www.str.org/publications/recycled-redeemer#.WJajTVMrLIU

[9] A great resource on the most current peer-reviewed literature on the topic is by Micheal R. Licona,The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, IVP Academic, 2010

[10] ibid, pp303-318

[11] ibid, pp323-324 – citing Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective, 2002, p99

[12] Gerd Ludemann, The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry, 2004, p41

[13] Licona (2010), p321 – citing Funk and the Jesus Seminar (1998)

[14] Richard Carrier, March 18, 2009, Missouri State University debate with William Lane Craig at approximately 47 min 23 sec.

[15] ibid, pp323-324 – citing Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective, 2002, p99

[16] Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, (2004) Kregel. Grand Rapids, MI. p68

[17] Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 20:200

[18] Licona (2010), p396

[19] Gary Habermas “The Case for Christ’s Resurrection” in To Everyone an Answer: The Case for the Christian Worldview. “[W]e have only one con­temporary eyewitness account of a postresurrection appearance of Jesus, namely Paul’s.” found here http://www.garyhabermas.com/books/inbook_to-everyone-an-answer/habermas_case-for-xp-res.htm

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

 

 

/by
Debate Atheism Arrival Evil

Debating Atheists: Arrival of Evil (Part 4/5)

,

By Dan Grossenbach

Understanding evil reveals an important part of reality. As much as we try to avoid it, evil is part of the universal human condition – something theists and atheists both have in common. You may be surprised, however; that the way atheists think about evil actually shows God exists.

Debate Atheism Arrival Evil

For the previous post on part 3, atheist arguments for the Arrival of Biological Information, click here. Unlike other points in this series so far, probing evil touches the heart. It gets emotional. The argument I’m presenting, by contrast, isn’t designed to address the emotional part of the problem. There are volumes dedicated to that. Rather, the point here is to reason through three facts about evil that nearly all people agree on and to see what follows:

  1. Evil exists

This fact is so obvious that even the argument of evil used against God relies on it. Readers have probably heard the “problem of evil” used as a critique against theism. This was something I knew Dr. Shapiro would bring up in our debate, since he’s brought it up in a prior encounter, so I decided to hit it head on. As expected, Dr. Shapiro parroted the classic criticism from 4th century BC philosopher Epicurus:  “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” [1]

The question puts God in a dilemma. Either he’s not all powerful (he can’t stop evil) or not all good (he’s unwilling to stop it). Theists believe God is both all-powerful and all-good thus find themselves having to eliminate one. I address this more later. What we must consider at present; however, is that the objector assumes the existence of evil prior to the objection. This is a huge assumption. Epicurus posed a fair question to the Greek polytheists of his day but is it fair to carry this over to God of the Bible? We’ll address that later. The immediate question is whether or not evil exists at all and this objection only works if it does. Put simply, if there’s a “problem” of evil, then there’s evil.

Seeing the plain consequences of this fact, skeptics typically go one of two ways: 1) ground goodness on something other than God, or 2) deny good or evil exist at all.

This first group accepts value propositions as something real (good and evil exist) but tries to avoid God. Freedom from Religion founder and president Dan Barker says “’Good’ is that which enhances life, and ‘evil’ is that which threatens it.”[2]

Sam Harris defines morality as the “right and wrong answers to the question of how to maximize human flourishing in any moment…”[3] In my debate with Dr. Shapiro, he repeated the secular humanist doctrine that value relates to the standard of universal “well-being.”

The careful reader may see that they shifted the meaning of good. Rather than goodness defined as ultimate moral perfection, they see it as the best way to accomplish a goal. Plenty could be said about this shift, but it doesn’t really matter for this part of my argument. Whether they ground goodness in human flourishing or not, they still have an objective standard. They don’t put it on God, but instead on something else of objective and universal value. Sam Harris urges, “we need some universal conception of right and wrong”[4]. So, despite this shift in definition, they find themselves in the same place in terms of establishing objective goodness. For this purpose, we can join together in agreement with atheists who agree objective goodness exists, right?

Not so fast! Other well-known atheists dismiss value altogether. In Darwinian naturalism, there is no way things are supposed to be. Dawkins puts this best:

In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference[5].

An abstract from Cornell University scientist William Provine’s second annual Darwin Day speech starts off this way: “Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly” One of those consequences, he suggests, is that “no ultimate foundation for ethics exists”[6].

If moral values aren’t real, this disrupts my first premise. There are plenty of reasons to reject the idea that moral values are a convenient social construct, but it’s important to show where this takes us if it were so.

It turns out the denial of moral value just exchanges one problem for another. If the atheists who deny evil are right, then the problem of evil goes out with it. If there’s no evil, there’s nothing to complain about. Saying there’s no evil is different than living that way, however. For most people, this isn’t as far as most are willing to go. Our gut-wrenching feelings on the inside and our outward actions tell us that everyone knows evil exists. In fact, even atheists arguing this objection often find themselves blaming God for the evil they just told us doesn’t exist. While the denial of evil may be something popular writers do, those dedicated to clear thinking on this issue have come to a much different conclusion. They know objective value is only possible with God.

The philosopher who put this most poetically was one of the greatest thinkers of the 19th century who also happened to be an ardent atheist Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche vividly illustrates the absurdity of a moral laden world without God in this passage from The Joyful Wisdom:

“Where is God gone?!” he called out. “I mean to tell you! We have killed him, – you and I! We are all his murderers! But how have we done it? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the horizon? What did we do when we loosened this earth from its sun? Whither does it now move? Whither do we move? Away from all suns? Do we not dash on unceasingly? Backwards, sideways, forwards, in all directions? Is there still an above and below? Do we not stray, as through infinite nothingness? Does not empty space breathe upon us? Has it not become colder? Does not night come on continually, darker and darker? Shall we not have to light lanterns in the morning? Do we not hear the noise of the grave-diggers who are burying God? Do we not smell the divine putrefaction? – for even Gods putrefy! God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him![7]

In our own time, atheist philosopher of science Michael Ruse puts it this way,

“The position of the modern evolutionist . . . is that humans have an awareness of morality . . . because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth . . . . Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says ‘Love they neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves . . . . Nevertheless, . . . such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory . . . . [8]

The late atheist Christopher Hitchens conceded that it “could be true, yes. That could well be true,” that morality is a by product of social evolution without any objective foundation[9]. He adds, “one wants to think their love for their fellow creature means more than that.” No Christopher, they don’t merely want to think it, they actually do think it and for good reason.

Nietzsche, Ruse, Hitchens, and other like-minded atheists may not believe in God and many despise him. However, they know that without him, they’re posed with another problem worse than the first. Namely, they are unable to account for the kinds of evil that we all know is real. Worse, they deny the very evil atheists typically point to as evidence against God. This argument turns the challenge on its head. We can only make sense of evil if God exists.

In my recent debate, my secular humanist opponent didn’t seem to grasp this. Instead, he doubled down. Dr. Shapiro indicted God for allowing things he described as real examples of evil. The irony here was that he was proving my point. If Shapiro is right that there are real unjustified evils that God was allowing, he’s granting that the first premise above. It’s as if he wants to argue “God exists and he’s really bad so he can’t exist!” He can’t have it both ways. Take it from the atheists, either evil exists or we need to act like it does.

So which is it? Do moral values exist in something other than God or are they useful illusions? We’ve seen how Darwinian naturalism leads to a world without value. On the other side, we’ve seen God’s critics condemn his acts as evil in no uncertain terms. We’ve also seen that a world devoid of evil can’t condemn God for something that doesn’t exist. If true, advocates of this view don’t point us to God nor do they challenge him, essentially making evil a non-issue. Those who blame God for real evil agree with us on this first point, but how far will they go?

  1. Evil entails objective good

By objective good, I mean absolute moral perfection by which all things of value are measured. Evil isn’t really a thing at all. Rather, it’s the absence of something – namely, something good. Just as darkness isn’t anything on its own without light (dark = the lack of light rays), evil only comes about when something good is taken away. For Harris, Barker, and Shapiro evil is when human well being doesn’t go the way it should. Whether we base value on God or our own idea of human flourishing, evil is when something goes wrong. It’s not the way things are supposed to be. This only makes sense if there’s a right way for things to be. Next, we see what kinds of things come with objective goodness.

  1. Objective good must transcend, precede, hold accountable, and value humanity.

Transcending:  First, goodness entails a moral authority which crosses all times, places, and cultures. People groups can’t make up their own values. Instead, value applies to all people regardless of what anyone thinks about it. That’s what philosophers mean by “mind-independent.” The Nazis can’t be just in doing what they did no matter how many people agreed with it. Instead, goodness must extend beyond the individual mind or community consensus to be the standard by which ALL people and cultures are compared. The value inherent in objective goodness must transcend humanity in this way.

Preceding:  Second, goodness cannot have been invented by the first humans. After all, any values established by man can be later undone by men[10]. It would be absurd to think the first humans could come up with whatever value system they wanted because they were first on the scene. It doesn’t take much effort to see the advantage of having lying or stealing as virtues. No, that isn’t an option available to us. Goodness wasn’t invented. It was already there.

Holding Accountable:  Third, there is no objective goodness if evil goes unpunished. As my friend Frank Turek puts it, where there’s no justice, there’s no injustice. When people are allowed to do bad things without any consequences, there is no justice. Objective goodness demands justice. But there’s not always justice in this world. The murderers of black teenager Emmet Till in the 1950’s rural Mississippi never faced trial. The murderer of 6 year old Adam Walsh admitted the killing but was never charged. While in his 70’s Joseph Stalin had already killed about 50 million people (not including war casualties) and continued his genocidal orders from his deathbed in a Moscow mansion. In a purely natural world with no accountability for all people, there’s no justice for all people. If there’s no justice for all people, there’s no justice at all. If that’s not good, then goodness must include universal human accountability.

Value Giving:  Fourth, objective goodness must include the intrinsic value inherent in all human life. By intrinsic, I mean they all have equal worth just for being part of the species and not for any act, experience, or attribute they have or lack. It would make no sense to violate the rights of a human being if they aren’t valued in the first place. Evil and suffering experienced by humans only makes sense if the species has worth beyond itself and that their value is an objective fact of reality.     

  1. Therefore, since evil exists, there is a transcendent, authoritative, human valuing source of objective goodness

Biblical Christianity’s explanation offers a solution that perfectly fits these facts:

  • God transcendshumanity – Job 12:10, Acts 17:25, 28, Col 1:17, Heb 1:3, Eph 4:6
  • God precedeshumanity – Gen 1-2, Ps 90:2, Job 36:26, Rev 1:8, Jn 8:58
  • God holds humanity accountable– Gen 3:24, Amos 9:1-4, Mt 6:20, 1 Pet 4:4-5, 2 Pet 3:9, Mt 25, Mk 9:43, Rev 14:9-11, 20:10
  • God valueshumanity – Gen 1:27, Ps 16:11, 73:25-26, Isa 62:5, Zep 3:17-18, Jn 3:16, Eph 5:23-32, 1 Jn 4:19
  • God isobjective goodness – Gen 1:31, Ps 100:5, Lk 18:19, Rom 12:2, 1 Thes 5:18, 1 Jn  4:8

As I said in the beginning of this post, it’s hard to separate emotion from logic when reflecting seriously on evil. This was a tough one to cover. On stage during the live debate, I had three examples of human suffering in my slide show but by the third one I lost my composure and had to skip it. I know I was being overly emotional in my appeal, but my unexpected emotional response just emphasized the point. Evil exists and deep down we all know it. Christianity might not be what people like, but it provides the best explanation. Dr. Shapiro didn’t think so, but he missed the point entirely. This was most evident during the Q&A when he said “I want to clear up something really fast. Christians always say if you don’t believe in God you can’t say anything about morality. That’s nonsense!”

Nobody ever argued this and Dr. Shapiro is smart enough to know better. The point he ignored that there is no objective basis to ground moral values under atheism. I’ve had the chance to meet with Dr. Shapiro since our debate and learned he considers all morality as relative. So, even when he grants the horrid act of abusing babies as objectively wrong, he still considers it relative.

Strangely, Dr. Shapiro seems to embrace moral realism when he condemns God’s actions, or his failures to act. Shapiro can’t allow for any moral values as real and mind independent since it makes no sense under atheistic naturalism. In other words, Dr. Shapiro might argue like this: Since God doesn’t exist, there are no moral values outside of the human mind. Since there are no values outside human minds, all morality is relative.

The trouble is, I don’t think Dr. Shapiro has followed the logic as far as it goes. As Dr. Shapiro said in his opening speech “It just is what it is.” At bottom, the universe has no meaning or purpose outside of humanity, he said.

Christianity does offer it. It offers a basis for grounding value in the universe, a value of humanity and holding people accountable. Dr. Shapiro didn’t understand the point and furthered the case for Christianity every time he complained about evil. It’s ironic, actually. The very person he blamed for evil – God – is the one we can see much more clearly in contrast to the evil we all know exists. The intellectual dishonesty really showed in the inconsistent demand Shapiro and questioners put on Christianity. They tolerated, even celebrated ignorance on origins of cosmos or biology but demanded to know why God allowed evil. Even if they could ground evil in something transcendent and authoritative, why not find ignorance on that just as “refreshing?” It gets worse.

This brings us to an important rule: the one who bears the burden of proof is the one who makes the claim. It wasn’t my burden to refute my opponent’s unsupported assertions but they are his to defend. I had to provide support for my position, but so did he. No one gets a free pass here.

Dr. Shapiro is fully within his rights to criticize my ideas, but he must do more than rely on emotional reaction and make a compelling case for his view. He gave no case so there was nothing to address. That’s why I pointed out to the audience that Dr. Shapiro depended on a “shock” factor in the absence of sound argument. In addition to pointing out this fallacy, I gave three points that Dr. Shapiro needed to defend for the Epicurian dilemma mentioned at the top of this post:

  • God has no moral authority to do as he sees fit with his creation.
  • God has no justification to accomplish a greater good (and we have enough knowledge to determine this).
  • God could have done otherwise to accomplish a better result.

Even after pointing this out during my rebuttal speech, Dr. Shapiro still failed to provide any good reasons to believe these three hidden assumptions implicit in his complaint about God.  Instead of arguing it, the appeal was to the heart, “How could a good God allow this?!”

As in the other points I made, I invited Dr. Shapiro to present an alternative explanation for evil. Since he didn’t do that, the offer presented consistent with Christian theism remained the best explanation offered that day.

Theism offers the best explanation but it does more. It is so obvious that there are things wrong with this world, that the burden falls on those who deny it. Sitting on a comfy couch with my wife talking about our day is all it takes to bring this reality home. As a federal agent and a nurse, the common question “How was your day, honey?” makes this evident daily. Regardless of where you are in life, I’m sure this could be true for you too.

Christian theism not only explains evil in our world, but it’s the only one that offers a satisfying solution to it. The same God of the Bible whose perfect nature sets the standard for value also offers mercy to people who have violated it. In perfect justice, the crimes against him are paid in full by the only one who can bear it, the God-man Jesus of Nazareth. Clearly, this is something that atheists won’t grant. But you would be surprised what they do say about him. The question of Jesus will take us to the fourth and final point in this short series.

Endnotes:

 

[1] Classic argument for the “problem of evil” first attributed in this form to the Greek philosopher Epicurus

[2] Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith, page 125

[3] Sam Harris, bases his moral standard on what he deems human flourishing,https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/thinking-about-go

[4] Ibid

[5] Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: The Darwinian View of Life, Basic Books, 1995, p133

[6] William Provine, “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life” [abstract] from speech given at the Second Annual Darwin Day Celebration, University of Tennessee – Knoxville on Feb. 12, 1998https://web.archive.org/web/20070829083051/http://eeb.bio.utk.edu/darwin/Archives/1998ProvineAbstract.htm

[7] Friedrich Nietzsche, The Joyful Wisdom,https://archive.org/stream/completenietasch10nietuoft/completenietasch10nietuoft_djvu.txt

[8] Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262, 268-269.

[9] Hitchens vs. Craig debate “Does God Exist,” Biola University (La Mirada, CA), April 4, 2009, at approximately 1:25 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tYm41hb48o

[10] Gregory Koukl, The Story of Reality, p73

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

 

 

/by
Debating Atheists Biological Information

Debating Atheists: Arrival of Biological Information (Part 3/5)

,

By Dan Grossenbach

Information embedded inside all of life demands an explanation. Virtually all agree that, at some point in earth’s early history, the first living being came about from non-living (dead) material. Setting aside for the moment the incredible principle of life arising from death, what we find inside of life gives us the greatest mystery of all. The information inside of life is exactly what we see in high tech computer engineering. It’s remarkably designed. Bestselling atheist writer and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins remarks on information in every cell this way:

Debating Atheists Biological Information

“The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal.”[1]

So the argument goes like this…

  1. All life requires DNA/RNA.

Citing Richard Dawkins, “DNA code is universal among all living things” [2]

  1. DNA/RNA is information

What’s information? “By information, I mean the specification of the amino acid sequence in protein…Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases of the nucleus acid or in amino acid residue in the protein.” Christian skeptic and co-discoverer of the DNA structure, Francis Crick. “Genes are information…a code…in sequence…just like what a computer programmer would do!” [3]

  1. Information requires a mind

In his debate with Christian apologist David Wood last year, leading atheist and editor of Skeptic Magazine Michael Shermer explains it this way,

Is there some advanced intelligence, a designer, call it whatever you want. Maybe. How do we know? Our methodology is actually pretty good for finding out…[Y]ou know the SETI program has algorithms. They grind through of signals coming from space to determine if it’s random noise or if it’s a signal. [4]

Shermer concedes that information infers an intelligent cause and even offers a way to verify it. Ironically, his method is the very same one offered by the ID advocates he’s trying to refute.

  1. Therefore, life required a mind.

This is why religion critics like Francis Crick[5], Richard Dawkins [6] and others propose the rarely accepted view of panspermia, or the idea that intelligent alien life seeded the early earth at just the right time for life to take root. In fact, there’s little discussed about origin of life at all. Normally, the question skips the origin of life issue and goes right into the evolution mechanism. Like all facts which lead us to conclusions we don’t like, it’s much easier to simply ignore the problem.

But not all of them are. The arrival of biological information is an area evolutionary biologists around the world are dealing with. In Nov 2016, scientists from around the world met in London to discuss how the neo-darwinian mechanism fails to account for the complexity of life. Recordings of the lectures will be provided on the Royal Society website soon. What’s more, is that the issue of information already in the cell before the first organism ever existed is not even a matter of evolution at all.

The reason I presented this as evidence for God is the same reason atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel and former atheist Antony Flew saw purpose and design in biological life. Every living cell requires something that is so particular that it cannot, in principle, be attributed to chance or natural causes. The DNA molecule contains not only complexity – for it has that. The complexity must also be arranged in such a way that it performs a specific function for the development of a living organism.

The specific complexity of this program is exactly like computer software. In fact, the four fundamental nucleotide base chemicals comprising the DNA molecule strands are not only similar to a computer program but they are the exact same thing. The pioneer of modern software, and no friend to Christianity, recognized this when he said, “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.” [7] The four chemicals abbreviated A-C-G-T are a four character code much like the binary two character code of human developed software consists of particularly placed zeros and ones. The only difference, is that whereas a slight computer code error typically results in a minor disfunction, any deviation from the DNA sequence most likely terminates the organism and any future decendants. This poses major problems for the. Neodarwinist theory of random mutation but that’s beyond our immediate scope.

Lest anyone be tempted to think time and chance under natural laws can produce such a function-based information code, atheist paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould shows that time is not available to us:

[W]e are left with very little time between the development of suitable conditions for life on the earth’s surface and the origin of life. Life is not a complex accident that required immense time to convert the vastly improbable into the nearly certain. Instead, life, for all its intricacy, probably arose rapidly about as soon as it could. [8]

Richard Dawkins goes further by ruling out chance a priori:

However many ways there may be of being alive, it is certain that there are vastly more ways of being dead, or rather not alive. You may throw cells together at random, over and over again for a billion years, and not once will you get a conglomeration that flies or swims or burrows or runs, or does anything, even badly, that could remotely be construed as working to keep itself alive. [9]

Not only was there no time for the DNA/RNA to develop naturally, there was also no known natural mechanism for it to do so.

Atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel agrees, “The more details we learn about the chemical basis of life and the intricacy of the genetic code, the more unbelievable the standard historical account [neo-Darwinian evolution] becomes.” [10]

“It is prima facie highly implausible that life as we know it is the result of a sequence of physical accidents together with the mechanism of natural selection.” [11]

“I realize that such doubts will strike many people as outrageous, but that is because almost everyone in our secular culture has been browbeaten into regarding the reductive research program as sacrosanct on the ground that anything else would not be science.” [12]

“I believe the defenders of ID deserve our gratitude for challenging a scientific world view that owes some of the passion displayed by its adherents precisely to the fact that it is thought to liberate us from religion.” [13]

Whenever information is found, in uniform and repeated human experience, it’s been the product of an intelligent mind. I left it to Dr. Shapiro to provide at least one piece of evidence to the contrary. He didn’t. 

This was the third in a series of five posts showing how atheists concede four primary facts that infer biblical Christianity. For a fuller picture of this argument, you may want to check out part one (introduction) or part two (arrival of the universe). 

Notes

[1] Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, New York:Basic Books/Harper Collins, 1995., p17

[2] This fact is so widely assumed it was hard to find a direct quote. Richard Dawkins cited in a news article https://news.virginia.edu/content/richard-dawkins-universal-dna-code-knockdown-evidence-evolution. It’s worth noting after an exhaustive search, I found no published work directly denying this fact.

[3] Richard Dawkins interview starting at 1:25 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oF1UzhPA5N8

[4] Michael Shermer vs. David Wood debate on “Does God Exist” October 10, 2016, Kennesaw State University

[5] Francis Crick, directed panspermia 1972, https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/scbccp.pdf

[6] Richard Dawkins at the end of Expelled https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=Dee3DLgEDEw

[7] Bill Gates, The Road Ahead p228

[8] Stephen Jay Gould, “An Early Start,” Natural History, February, 1978.

[9] The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design 1988, p9 The immediate relevance to this was pointed out to me by Douglas Axe.

[10] Nagel, Thomas (2012). Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p5

[11] ibid, p5

[12] ibid, p7

[13] ibid, p12

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

 

 

/by