Tag Archive for: Dios

By Maverick Christian

INTRODUCTION

For those of you who are philosophically unfamiliar, naturalism is the belief that only nature is real and that the supernatural does not exist. The Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN), put forward by Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga, holds that the conjunction of naturalism and evolution is self-defeating. This is not an argument against evolution, but rather an argument against naturalism (since, if naturalism is true, then evolution is the “only game in town,” and if the conjunction of naturalism and evolution is self-defeating, so much the worse for naturalism).

To define some terms and abbreviations, a defeater is (roughly) something that eliminates or weakens rational grounds for accepting a belief; in the context of argument, the defeater is such that one is rationally compelled to abandon the defeated belief (i.e., one does not believe it, either by (1) remaining agnostic about it, or (2) believing it to be false). Suppose, for example, that I arrive in a town and see what appears to be a barn fifty yards away. I later learn that last week some crank put up fake barns all over the area, along with the real ones, and that these fake barns are indistinguishable from real barns when viewed from a distance of thirty yards or more. I now have a defeater for my belief that I had seen a barn. I realize that I might have seen a barn, but I do not have sufficient grounds to continue accepting the belief. The rational thing for me to do is to abandon my belief that I had seen a barn. Suppose I later learn that the eccentric removed all the fake granaries before my arrival. Then I would have something that nullifies the defeater’s defeating force, i.e., a defeater of defeaters. The EAAN claims that the naturalist who believes in evolution acquires a defeater for his belief in evolution + naturalism. Commonly used abbreviations for the EAAN:

                 F = our cognitive faculties are reliable.

                N = Naturalism is true.

                 E = Evolution is true.

Pr(F/N&E) = the Probability of F given N and E.

That is, Pr(F/N&E) refers to the probability that (our cognitive faculties are reliable given naturalism and evolution), part of the argument is as follows:

  1. Pr(F/N&E) is low.
  2. The person who believes in N&E (naturalism and evolution) and sees that Pr(F/N&E) is low has a defeater for F.
  3. Anyone who has a defeater for F has a defeater for almost any other belief including (if he believed it) N&E.
  4. Therefore, the N&E devotee (at least the devotee who is aware of the truth of premise 1) has a self-defeating belief.

Let’s call premise (1) the Defeat Thesis and let’s call premise (2) the Probability Thesis. Denying the truth of evolution is not the best option for the naturalist, so if the above evolutionary argument against naturalism is sound, the naturalist is in serious trouble. But defeaters themselves can be defeated, as in the case of the barn scenario I described, so is it possible that a defeater of defeaters is present for the naturalist here? Couldn’t the naturalist run a series of tests to confirm his cognitive reliability? Not quite, since the naturalist relies on his cognitive faculties even to believe that there is such a thing as scientists and cognitive tests, plus the belief that he has done those tests, and if he has a defeater for F, he is pretty much screwed. So the defeater mentioned in premise (2) would be an invincible defeater.

Next, I will refer to the two fundamental premises.

THE PROBABILITY THESIS

Why do you think Pr(F/N&E) is low? Normally you might think that true beliefs help you survive. That’s certainly the case if beliefs are causally relevant to behavior (e.g., I think this plant is poisonous, so I’m not going to eat it). But if the truth of our beliefs isn’t so causally relevant, then that factor will be invisible to natural selection. The content of our beliefs could be anything, true or not, and it wouldn’t affect our behavior. Whether the belief content is 2+2=4, 2+2=67, or 2+2=4.096 would make no difference to how we behave. If that’s true, then Pr(F/N&E) is low.

The kind of naturalism being discussed here assumes that human beings are purely nonphysical creatures without minds or souls. In my Plantinga Argument Against Materialism article I described Alvin Plantinga’s argument for the idea that if materialism about human beings were true (i.e., if we were purely physical beings), then the propositional content of our beliefs (e.g., there is a cold soda in the fridge ) would not be causally relevant. So for a better understanding of how the semantic content of a belief is causally relevant to behavior go to The Epistemological Argument Against Materialism.

So why would it matter if N&E implies that the semantic content of our beliefs is causally irrelevant? To avoid bias against our own species, let’s not think about ourselves, but about alien creatures whose physiology is radically different from ours. N&E is true for these aliens, so the semantic content of their beliefs is causally irrelevant. Then the N&E of the electrochemical reactions that cause these aliens’ behavior could generate any semantic content (e.g., 2+2=1 or grass is air), without the content affecting behavior. The semantic content could even be “junk” beliefs that bear no relation to the external environment, such as in dreams, and it would still not affect behavior. It would still be possible that electrochemical reactions that produce advantageous behavior also generate mostly true beliefs, but given the causal irrelevance of semantic content, it would seem like the most serendipitous of coincidences, if that were to happen. Therefore, in the absence of further relevant data, the likelihood that his cognitive abilities are reliable (given N&E) is low.

One might object that while the probability of cognitive reliability is low given only N&E, we know more relevant data P such that Pr(F/N&E&P) is high, e.g. we know that, for physiology, the link between content and behavior is favorable for our species, such that we act as if semantic content influences our behavior in a way worthy of a rational agent. Perhaps that is true, but that is an objection to the Defeatist Thesis and not the Probability Thesis. For now we are only concerned with justifying that Pr(F/N&E) is low. In any case, let FA stand for the cognitive faculties of aliens being reliable . I have argued that Pr(FA/N&E) is true for the following argument:

  1. If Pr(FA/N&E) is low, then Pr(F/N&E) is low.
  2. Pr (FA/N&E) is low.
  3. Therefore, Pr(F/N&E) is low.

In light of the fact that in N&E, the semantic content of a belief is causally irrelevant, the probability of FA given N&E is low. Similarly, what is true for aliens is true for us (remember, we are basically taking into account the probability of F in just N&E). But suppose that, even after reading the rest of my post on Plantinga’s argument against materialism, one is still not convinced that a belief does things in virtue of its NF properties and not its semantic content. Is there another way to argue for the Probability Thesis?

The DNFA scenario

For the sake of having a label handy, let’s call semantic epiphenomenalism (SE) the view that a belief does things in virtue of its NF properties rather than its semantic content, as some philosophers call it. It seems to be the case that Pr(F/N&E&SE) is low, but what if SE were false? What if, despite Plantinga’s argument against materialism, one is still convinced that the semantic content of a belief is causally relevant? In that case there is another thought experiment that I’ll call the “DNFA scenario.”

Suppose a mad scientist creates an artificial neurophysiological device (ANPD), a multi-tentacled device implanted near Smith’s brain stem that controls both his thoughts and behavior. The mad scientist can remotely control the ANPD’s electrochemical processes to vary Smith’s beliefs and behavior in countless different ways. For example, Smith is dehydrated, and the mad scientist, wanting his victim to be healthy, uses the ANPD to force Smith to drink some water while simultaneously making him believe “I’m thirsty and water will quench my thirst.” The second time Smith is dehydrated, the mad scientist uses a different electrochemical setting to make Smith believe ” Drinking this water will grant me superpowers in the afterlife” while simultaneously producing the same drinking behavior (and suppose this belief is false). In this case, the electrochemical process that produces the mental-enhancing behavior also produces a false belief. The DNFA can even produce “junk” semantic beliefs that have little to do with the coerced behavior, such as making Bill believe that “grass is air” or that ” 1+1=3 ” while simultaneously making Smith drink the water. The third time Smith gets dehydrated the mad scientist does just that, causing Smith to drink the water while also making him believe that “1+1=3.” Indeed, the mad scientist can associate almost any belief with the same drinking behavior . Even if a person’s semantic content is only NF properties, it is how the NF properties interact with the rest of the system that determines the behavior. An artificial neurophysiological device is not only metaphysically possible, but also appears to be physically possible (given that beliefs and behavior can be produced by electrochemical means).

The DNFA scenario shows that false beliefs can be associated with mental state-enhancing behavior, to the point where false beliefs are garbage beliefs (beliefs that are extremely unrelated to the external environment, as in dreams). But if the artificial neurophysiology scenario is physically possible, then it is at least metaphysically possible for the natural neurophysiology of an evolved being to have the same “disconnect” between semantics and behavior. Even if it were possible that the semantic content of a belief is causally relevant (one might think that semantic content is just the NF properties), the DNFA scenario shows that for any given behavior B, there are innumerable semantic contents C – even of C extremely unrelated to the external environment – that could be associated with B. Like ES, this would still allow for the possibility that beliefs and behaviors are linked in a “rational” way (e.g., I think a plant is poisonous, so I won’t eat it) but like ES it would still be possible for even junk beliefs to be associated with advantageous behavior. Someone might argue that the relation between semantic content and behavior is in this sense functionally equivalent to ES, despite the falsity of ES. Call this view semantic pseudo-epiphenomenalism (SEP).

Two key claims of the PES are (1) ES is false; (2) even though ES is false, it is still possible for even rubbish beliefs to be associated with advantageous behaviour – and the DNFA scenario shows that this is in fact physically possible (since the device is physically possible). Thus the DNFA scenario shows that if ES is not true, then PES is. Both ES and PES allow for a large divorce between beliefs and behaviour (again, think of the case where grass is air is associated with Smith drinking clean water). On second thought, it is very easy to imagine a moving set of atoms creating advantageous behaviour while producing beliefs unrelated to the external world, and it is easy to take for granted our more fortunate truth-leading relation between belief and behaviour, since it is so familiar to us.

To again avoid bias towards our own species, they don’t think of us, but of alien creatures from another world on which they have N&E&PES. While it’s easy to assume that beliefs and behaviors would be linked in a “rational” way (e.g. a man believing that water will quench his thirst so he drinks it), there’s nothing in N&E&ES or N&E&PES to believe that such a link would occur in aliens (whose physiology, we can assume, differs from ours), since both ES and ESP easily allow junk beliefs to be connected with favorable behavior. Because ESP is functionally equivalent to ES, and given the enormous variety of diverse beliefs that might be associated with a given behavior (“bachelors are married”, “grass is air”, “2+2=1”, “2+2=2”, “2+2=3”, etc.) an evolving race of alien creatures suffering from ESP has a low probability of evolving reliable cognitive faculties as if they were affected by ES. In sum, naturalism implies that either ES or ESP is true, and since Pr(FA/N&E&ES) and Pr(FA/N&E&PES) are low/inscrutable, it follows that Pr(FA/N&E) is also low/inscrutable. But then if Pr(FA/N&E) is low/inscrutable, then Pr(F/N&E) is also low/inscrutable (since, as with the aliens, we are considering the possibility of F in N&E without further information).

An objection

In response, one might propose the following rebuttal. Although naturalism inevitably involves an ES-type problem—whether via semantic epiphenomenalism or semantic pseudo-epiphenomenalism—the mental-state-enhancing neurophysiological properties that are most likely to be selected for by natural selection (say, a certain neurophysiology is selectable just in case it is most likely to be selected for by natural selection) happen to be the ones that are conducive to truth. The DNFA scenario is obviously engineered and produces certain behavioral belief pairs that are not likely to obtain in human physiology in real time. The most efficient and selectable way for neurophysiology to produce advantageous behavior also produces true beliefs. Thus, although the ES-type situation exists for semantics and behavior, luckily for us the physiological relation between semantics and behavior is such that true beliefs usually obtain.

All of that may be true, but as an objection against the Probability Thesis it falls short. A major problem is that even if a favorable physiological relationship between beliefs and behaviors obtains for our species, such a favorable relationship does not seem to be knowable from N&E&ES alone. It cannot be known from N&E&ES alone, nor from N&E&SPE alone. To illustrate the problem, consider a planet with aliens whose neurophysiology differs radically from ours (though we don’t know much else about this). On N&E&ES where the semantic content of a belief is causally irrelevant, it would still be possible for mostly true beliefs to be associated with advantageous behavior, but since the semantic content of their beliefs could be anything and it wouldn’t matter, it would be the most serendipitous of coincidences, if it ever happened. Similarly in N&E&PES where even garbage beliefs can be associated with advantageous behavior, it would still be possible that alien electrochemical reactions that cause advantageous behavior also generate mostly true beliefs, but it would be a rather fortuitous coincidence if that were to happen, given the enormous variety of beliefs that can be associated with a given behavior (as the DNFA scenario suggests) and given that we have no additional relevant information about alien physiology.

One could grant that the probability of F given N&E (only) is low, but also claim that we know some proposition P (perhaps that the physiological relation between belief and behavior happens to be benevolent for our species) such that Pr(F/N&E&P) is high, and we have excellent reasons to believe that P is true. Therefore, Pr(F/N&E) being low does not defeat F for the evolutionary naturalist. However, this would be an objection against the defeater thesis rather than the probability thesis, so it will not be discussed in this section. Can the Defeatist Thesis withstand this objection? For that matter, why accept the Defeatist Thesis in the first place?

THE THESIS OF THE DEFEATER

Scenarios S1A through S5A below are features of the XX drug, a medication that renders cognitive abilities unreliable for a high percentage of people who take it, although those affected are unable to detect their cognitive unreliability. A small percentage of people who have a gene called the “blocking gene” produce a protein that blocks the reliability-destroying effects of the XX drugs, but no one else is immune to the drug. Some scenarios refer to the XX mutation, a mutation that causes the body to naturally produce and release the XX drug into the body shortly after birth.

Scenario ( S1A) : I know that my friend Sam has taken the drug XX, a medication that renders cognitive faculties unreliable for a high percentage of people who take it, although those affected are unable to detect its cognitive unreliability. I know, however, that Sam later comes to believe that extensive testing has established its cognitive reliability, although I have no independent reason to think that this occurred. And since Sam obtained his belief about cognitive testing long after he took the drug XX, I conclude that the belief was probably produced by unreliable cognitive faculties, and I have a defeater of my belief that Sam’s cognitive faculties are reliable.

Scenario (S2A) : I, as a three-year-old, ingest drug XX, being aware of its possible effects. I am not aware of any relevant differences that distinguish my case from Sam’s. Sam’s case, acquiring drug XX, and ingesting drug XX are my earliest memories. Some years after the incident I come to believe that I have undergone extensive testing establishing my cognitive reliability, but since this belief was long after I ingested drug XX, I come to the conclusion that my belief was probably the product of unreliable cognitive faculties and that I have a defeater for my belief that my cognitive faculties are reliable.

Scenario ( S3A): I have been injected with drug XX by a doctor shortly after I was born (the doctor mistakenly thought he had injected me with an important vaccine), and I come to believe the following. At first I believe that I am the product of some kind of evolution that makes the reliability of my cognitive faculties highly probable. I am a renowned scientist who has built a machine that I know is capable of reliably detecting when drug XX has entered a person’s bloodstream. I administer the test to myself, and the machine reports that drug XX entered my bloodstream at the time I was born. I later come to believe that I have gone through extensive testing establishing my cognitive reliability, but since this belief was long after drug XX entered my bloodstream, I come to the conclusion that I have a defeater of my belief that my cognitive faculties are reliable.

Scenario ( S4A): Natural evolution gave me the XX mutation and I come to believe the following. I am a renowned scientist who has built a machine that I know is capable of reliably detecting when the XX drug has entered a person’s bloodstream. For most of my life I have believed that I am the product of some sort of evolution that makes my cognitive reliability highly probable. After a few years, I administer the test and the machine reports that the XX drug entered my bloodstream at birth. I later come to believe that I have gone through extensive testing establishing my cognitive reliability, but since this belief was long after the XX drug entered my bloodstream, I come to the conclusion that I have a defeater of my belief that my cognitive abilities are reliable.

Scenario (S5A) : The only humanoid species on my planet is homo sapiens, and all of us have the XX mutation. I come to believe the following. Through an ingenious combination of scientific and philosophical argument, it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that natural evolution implies that the XX mutation is inevitably a part of any humanoid’s genetics. Although there is the small possibility of a humanoid species that also has the blocking gene as part of its normal genetics, no other humanoid species would evolve the blocking gene. I come to the conclusion that the likelihood of my humanoid cognitive faculties being reliable is low given that I am a product of natural evolution. I later come to believe that there is overwhelming evidence for my cognitive reliability (for example, I believe credible scientists have told me that we all have the blocking gene), but since this belief occurred after the XX drug entered my bloodstream, I come to the conclusion that my belief in the blocking gene, etc. It was probably produced by unreliable cognitive faculties, and I have a defeater for my belief that my cognitive faculties are reliable.

Scenario ( S6A): The Probability Thesis is true and Pr(F/N&E) is low, but I initially did not believe this and instead believe that I am the product of some kind of evolution which makes my cognitive reliability very probable. Later, however, I study philosophy and see for myself that the probability of my humanoid cognitive faculties being reliable given that I am a product of natural evolution is low. I have since come to believe that I have undergone extensive testing establishing my cognitive reliability, but since this belief was long after N&E had already affected my cognitive faculties, I come to the conclusion that I have a defeater for my belief that my cognitive faculties are reliable.

So above we have a slippery slope of scenarios. The idea is that if F is defeated in (S1A), then it is defeated in (S2A), and if F is defeated in (S3), then it is defeated in (S4A), and so on. If F is not defeated in (S6A), where does the slippery slope stop and why? When is there a relevant difference between two scenarios that save F from defeat?

It is particularly difficult to find a relevant difference between (S5) and (S6A). One might say, in (S6A) we know from overwhelming evidence that N&E makes F likely, but why exactly do we know this in (S6A) but not in (S5)? To make the problem more explicit, imagine that the two worlds in (S5) and (S6) are essentially identical apart from the differences in (S5), so that I believe that my species-specific type of natural evolution is a product of giving me genes that (along with adequate nutrition, etc.) make it likely that my cognitive faculties are reliable, that cognitive science and evolutionary biology have given us strong evidence for human cognitive reliability, that truth-leading faculties are adaptive in Earth primates, and so on. I also believe that we have the gene-blocker to override the effects of the XX mutation. On top of that, let’s say that people in scenarios (S1 A) through (S5) were lucky to the point that everyone has the blocking gene. However, the belief in cognitive reliability is still defeated when people believe that all the supposed evidence for cognitive reliability is obtained long after drug XX enters the bloodstream. So how exactly is it that the supposed evidence for F is defeated in scenario (S5), but not in scenario (S6A)? If there is an important difference between the two scenarios, what is it?

One might think that the relevant difference between scenarios (S5) and (S6A) is the N&E mechanism of likely cognitive unreliability, i.e. the mechanism that makes Pr(F/N&E) low. In (S5) the naturally-evolved mechanism of likely cognitive unreliability is drug XX, whereas in (S6A) it is (probably) some other physiological process. But this hardly seems like a relevant difference in different causes that produce essentially the same effect: making humanoid cognitive faculties unlikely to be reliable given that they are a product of natural evolution. In scenarios (S5) and (S6A), whatever the mechanism of likely cognitive unreliability is for N&E (whether drug XX or some other mechanism) does not seem to matter.

CONCLUSION

The evolutionary argument against naturalism is as follows:

  1. Pr(F/N&E) is low.
  2. The person who believes in N&E (naturalism and evolution) and sees that Pr(F/N&E) is low has a defeater for F.
  3. Anyone who has a defeater for F has a defeater for almost any other belief including (if he believed it) N&E.
  4. Therefore, the N&E devotee (at least the devotee who is aware of the truth of premise 1) has a self-defeating belief.

One of the big reasons for accepting the Likelihood Thesis (premise 1) is that if N&E were true, then the semantic content of our beliefs is causally irrelevant in the sense that a belief does things in virtue of its neurophysiological (NF) properties and not because of its semantic content. If a belief had the same NF properties but different content, it would result in the same behavior (the same neurophysiological properties means we would have the same electrical impulses traveling along the same neural pathways and emitting the same muscle contractions). Even if that were not the case, the DNFA scenario suggests that it is still possible for “junk” beliefs to be associated with electrochemical reactions that produce advantageous behavior. If semantic epiphenomenalism (SE) is not true in N&E, then semantic pseudo-epiphenomenalism (SEP) is, and both Pr(F/N&E&SE) and Pr(F/N&E&SEP) are low, so Pr(F/N&E) is low.

The argument for the Defeatist Thesis (premise 2) is that if F is defeated in (S1), then it is defeated in (S2), and if F is defeated in (S3), then it is defeated in (S4), and so on, where (S6) is the scenario of a person who accepts both N&E and the Probability Thesis. The general idea is that the effect of an evolutionary naturalist believing Pr(F/N&E) to be low is similar to believing that drug XX has entered the body (where drug XX destroys the cognitive reliability of most who take it).

The upshot of all this is that there is a serious conflict between science and naturalism, since the conjunction of naturalism and evolution is an interesting way of self-refutation.

 


Original Blog: http://bit.ly/2MyZ47h
Translated and edited
by Jairo Izquierdo

Como no creyente, sospeché que las historias sobre Jesús se volvían más elaboradas y grandiosas con el paso del tiempo. Por eso era tan importante para mí leer los primeros documentos relacionados con Jesús; esperaba que los relatos iniciales retrataran a Jesús como un maestro sabio, pero nada más. Desde luego, no esperaba que Jesús fuera representado como Dios hasta mucho más tarde en la historia. Pero descubrí justamente lo contrario. Los primeros testigos describen a Jesús como divino y claramente lo adoraron como Dios. Esta representación de Jesús aparece constantemente en los escritos de cada estudiante sucesivo y líder cristiano fiel a través de los primeros años de la historia cristiana. A continuación, un breve resumen de las primeras descripciones de Jesús:

La Deidad de Jesús no es una leyenda tardía

Bernabé, compañero de Pablo (c. 70-130 d.C.)

“Él es el Señor de todo el mundo, al que dijo Dios en el principio del mundo: Hagamos al hombre a imagen y semejanza nuestra”.

Ignacio, obispo de la Iglesia de Antioquía (c. 110 d.C.)

“Dios mismo se manifestó en forma humana para la regeneración de la vida eterna”.

Clemente de Roma, el obispo de la Iglesia en Roma (c. 120 d.C.)

“Hermanos, es lógico que deben pensar en Jesucristo como de Dios – como Juez de

los vivos y los muertos”.

Ireneo, Obispo de la Iglesia en Lyons (Actualmente), Francia (c. 180 d.C.)

“De esta manera Él manifiesta en términos claros que Él es Dios, y que Su venida fue en Belén… Dios, entonces, se hizo hombre, y el Señor mismo nos salvó”.

“Él es Dios, porque el nombre Emmanuel indica esto”.

“¿Cómo pueden ser salvos si no fue Dios quien obró su salvación en la tierra? ¿O cómo pasará el hombre a Dios, si Dios no hubiera venido primero al hombre?”

Clemente de Alejandría, maestro cristiano de renombre en Egipto (c. 195 d.C.)

“¡Oh, el Gran Dios! ¡O el Hijo perfecto! El Hijo en el Padre y el Padre en el Hijo… Dios el Verbo, que se hizo hombre por amor a nosotros”.

“Nada, entonces, es odiado por Dios, ni tampoco por la Palabra. Por tanto, son uno — es decir, Dios. Porque Él ha dicho: “En el principio el Verbo estaba con Dios, y el Verbo era Dios”.

“El Verbo mismo, que es el Hijo de Dios, es uno con el Padre por igualdad de sustancia. Es eterno e increado”.

Hipólito, presbítero líder en la Iglesia en Roma (c. 205 d.C.)

“Aunque soportó la cruz, volvió a la vida como Dios, habiendo aplastado la muerte”.

Tertuliano, apologista cristiano apasionado en Cartago, África del Norte (c. 207 d.C.)

“Nosotros los que creemos que Dios realmente vivió en la tierra, y que tomó sobre sí la humilde condición humana, con el propósito de salvar al hombre, no pensamos como aquellos que rehúsan creer que a Dios le importe algo…. Afortunadamente, no obstante, es parte del credo de los cristianos el creer en el hecho de que Dios sí ha muerto y que, sin embargo, Él está vivo hoy y para siempre”.

Orígenes, alumno famoso de Clemente de Alejandría (c. 225 d.C.)

“Nadie debe sentirse ofendido que el Salvador también es Dios, al ver que Dios es el Padre. Del mismo modo, ya que el Padre es llamado Omnipotente, nadie debe sentirse ofendido de que el Hijo de Dios también se llama Omnipotente. Porque de esta manera, serán ciertas las palabras que Él dice al Padre: “Todo lo mío es tuyo, y lo tuyo, mío; y he sido glorificado en ellos”.

“El Hijo no es diferente del Padre en sustancia.”

Note que la descripción de Jesús no cambia con el tiempo. Jesús no se hizo más divino con el paso de los años. Jesús era Dios desde los primeros relatos y Él fue adorado como Dios desde el principio. Incluso los no creyentes del primer siglo observaron que Jesús fue adorado como Dios desde los primeros días. Plinio el Joven (61-112 d.C.), el gobernador de Bitinia (d.C. 112) y un senador romano, escribió al emperador Trajano pidiendo orientación sobre cómo se debe tratar a los cristianos en su provincia. Él dijo que los cristianos estaban “reunidos en un cierto día fijo antes de que se hiciera de día, cuando cantaban en forma alternada un himno a Cristo como a un dios, y se comprometían a un juramento solemne, a no hacer malas obras, a no cometer nunca fraudes, robos, adulterios, a no mentir ni negar la fe”. Está claro, incluso a partir de esta referencia pagana, que los primeros creyentes adoraron a Jesús como a Dios.

William Lane Craig, en su libro, Reasonable Faith: Truth And Christian Apologetics (La fe razonable: la verdad y la apologética cristiana), escribe: “Los estudios realizados por académicos del N.T. como Martin Hengel de la Universidad de Tubingen, CFD Moule de Cambridge, y otros han demostrado que después de veinte años de la crucifixión; la Cristología de que completamente proclamaban a Jesús como Dios encarnado ya existía… el sermón cristiano más antiguo, el relato más antiguo de un mártir cristiano, el informe pagano más antiguo de la Iglesia, y la oración litúrgica más antigua (1 Corintios 16:22) todos se refieren a Cristo como Señor y Dios”. Eso es muy poderoso. La Deidad de Jesús no es una creación tardía o una atribución legendaria. Los primeros creyentes, en los primeros capítulos de la historia cristiana, proclamaron que Jesús es Dios.

 


J. Warner Wallace es autor de Cold-Case Christianity, tiene una trayectoria de más de 25 años como policía y detective, posee un Master en Teología por el Seminario Teológico Golden Gate Baptist y es profesor adjunto de Apologética en la universidad de BIOLA.

Blog Originalhttp://bit.ly/2U24Qx0

Traducido por Jorge Gil Calderón

Editado por María Andreina Cerrada

By Ryan Leasure

When I was a kid, I considered Batman to be my favorite superhero. Unlike other superheroes who could fly, see through walls, or turn into green giants, Batman fought crime in Gotham City through more conventional means. He was a great fighter, used cool gadgets, had an awesome suit, and drove a cool car. In this way, Batman was more realistic than his fellow superheroes. Now suppose I truly believed that Batman was a real person. After all, I had seen him on the silver screen and at the occasional Halloween party. My friends, however, thought it was ridiculous and tried to erase this idea from my brain. However, no matter what they said, I remained convinced of his existence.

Until one day, my friend suggested that we visit Batman in Gotham City. This sounded like a great plan to me, I wasted no time packing my bags, with all my Batman shirts, and started dreaming of being by my superhero’s side. There was one final step left. I needed to buy tickets to Gotham City, so I grabbed my computer and started searching for the next available flight, except I couldn’t find any! I searched vigorously for hours, but alas, I ended up empty-handed, with no ticket.

My friend, who was more astute than I thought, took this opportunity to explain to me why I couldn’t find a plane ticket: Gotham City doesn’t exist. To prove him wrong, I quickly Googled the city’s location, only to find that it was nowhere to be found. After all these years of thinking that Gotham City was located where New York City was, I felt dejected. This was a bad sign, since if Gotham City isn’t real, then Batman probably isn’t either.

IS NAZARETH A REAL PLACE?

For years, Jesus mythologists have argued that Nazareth, like Gotham City, was fictional. The argument goes, if Nazareth didn’t exist, then Jesus didn’t exist either. After all, the Gospels repeatedly state that Jesus came from Nazareth ( Mk 1:24 ; Jn 1:45 ).

So if you prove that Nazareth didn’t exist, you can prove that Jesus didn’t exist either. Skeptics make this claim based on the fact that the Old Testament, the Jewish historian Josephus , and the Jewish Talmud never mention Nazareth. Surely, the argument goes, all three of these primary sources would have mentioned Nazareth if it were a real place. What are we to make of this claim? Was Nazareth a real place? Yes, and there is evidence.

ARCHEOLOGY

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

Furthermore, further archaeological discoveries provide additional evidence of Nazareth’s existence. Within the city, archaeologists excavated two houses in 2006 and 2009, which match a typical dwelling in first-century Rome. Inside the houses, they found doors, windows, a shaft and cooking pots.

In addition, archaeologists discovered first-century tombs just outside the city, which fits with Jewish customs that forbade burying corpses inside the city. Likewise, pottery dating back to the first century was discovered inside the tombs. The evidence is so compelling that archaeologist Jack Finegan says, “From the tombs… one can conclude that Nazareth was a heavily Jewish settlement in the Roman period.”

CAN ANYTHING GOOD COME OUT OF NAZARETH?

Based on excavations, scholars suggest that ancient Nazareth was a small hillside village of about sixty acres, with a maximum population of 500 people. This fits nicely with Nathanael’s dismissive comment in John 1:46 when he asked, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” You’d think that if you were making up a religious hero, you’d give him a more prominent hometown. The Gospel writers had no motivation to make up this detail about Jesus.

CAESAR’S DECREE

Perhaps the most important discovery from ancient Nazareth is a marble slab measuring 24 by 15 inches. Archaeologists date this piece to the first half of the first century, probably during the reign of Emperor Claudius (AD 41-54).

On this slab is a decree from Caesar himself stating that if anyone steals a body from any of the tombs, they will suffer capital punishment. It is necessary to keep in mind that we are talking about Caesar, the most powerful man in the world, and a small rural village of 500 people thousands of miles away. What would compel Caesar to care about grave robbers in Nazareth? This would be the equivalent of the President of the United States addressing a grave robber in a small rural town in North Dakota.

It seems that Caesar had heard stories of Jesus of Nazareth rising from the dead. He had probably also heard that Jesus’ disciples stole his body from the tomb. No doubt lost in the shuffle were the exact details that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead in Jerusalem.

We know for certain that Claudius was aware of Christianity because he expelled all Christians from Rome in AD 49. Suetonius , a 2nd century Roman historian writes that Claudius “expelled the Jews from Rome constantly making riots at the instigation of Chrestus.” Luke also reports this event in Acts 18:2. Apparently, the Christian preaching that Jesus was the promised Messiah caused quite a stir among the Jewish community.

Think about how this radical claim would have caused dissension. The Jews had maintained a strict monotheistic faith for thousands of years, and now suddenly some of their own were claiming that Jesus of Nazareth is Lord. Perhaps violence was involved. It’s hard to know for sure, but it was significant enough to cause Claudius to drive everyone out of his city.

WHAT DOES THIS PROVE?

Unlike Gotham City, Nazareth was a real city in the Galilee region of first-century Rome. Archaeology confirms its existence several times over, as not only have we found ancient houses, pottery, and tombs, but we also know that Caesar wrote a special decree for the people of Nazareth not to remove bodies from tombs, or else they would die. It is likely that he wrote this proclamation in connection with the story that Jesus rose from the dead.

These archaeological findings do not necessarily prove Jesus’ existence, but they do corroborate the Gospels’ claims that Jesus came from Nazareth. To learn more about how we know Jesus was a real person, you can check out an article I wrote here.

Skeptics continue to cast doubt on the Gospels, and more specifically, on Jesus of Nazareth. However, archaeology continues to confirm the accuracy of the biblical narrative. Based on the archaeological findings discussed above, I believe it is safe to say that the claim that Jesus came from Nazareth is not fake news.

 


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

Translated by Rudy Ordoñez Canelas

Edited by Maria Andreina Cerrada

By Max Andrews

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT [1]

This is the ontological argument that advocates the existence of an essential, omniscient, omnipotent and morally perfect being:

  1. The property of being maximally large is exemplified in some possible world.
  2. The property of being maximally large is equivalent, by definition, to the property of being maximally excellent in all possible worlds.
  3. The property of being maximally excellent implies the properties of omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection.
  4. A universal property is one that is exemplified in all possible worlds or none.
  5. Any property that is equivalent to a property held in all possible worlds is a universal property.
  6. Therefore, there exists a being that is essentially omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect.

Now, this is a very technical argument… So, let’s try to make some sense of this:

Defense of Premise 1. When I refer to a possible world I am referring only to a possible logical state of affairs. The first premise merely states that the property of being maximally large is logically possible – that is, that no contradiction obtains.

Defense of Premise 2. Premise 2 outlines the logical equivalence of maximum greatness with maximum excellence.

Defense of Premise 3. Premise three follows from the logical equivalence located in premise 2.

Defense of Premise 4. Premise 4 presents a disjunctive: either the universal property X is valid in all worlds (hence its universality) or it is necessarily a contradiction, and is impossible to obtain.

Defense of Premise 5. The fifth premise asserts the first disjunctive stated, which is simply that if a property holds in all possible worlds, then it is a universal property. Therefore, if a universal property holds in some possible world, then this universal property holds in all possible worlds. Logic does not vary across possible worlds.

Defense of the Conclusion. Therefore, if these universal properties hold in all possible worlds, they are valid in the actual world. This argument also does not “define” God to exist. Rather, it is an a priori argument that considers the mere possibility of a being with maximally great properties. This modal form of the argument shows that if a being with maximally great and maximally excellent properties is possible, then that being must exist.

Anselm’s ontological argument

Anselm’s argument can be formulated as follows:

  1. God exists in the understanding.
  2. God is a being.
  3. If X exists only in the understanding and is a possible being, then X could have been greater.
  4. Let us suppose that God only exists in the understanding.
  5. God could have been greater (Dado 2, 4, 3).
  6. God is a being of whom nothing greater is possible.
  7. So a being for which no greater being is possible is therefore a being for which no greater being is possible.
  8. Since 4 gives rise to a contradiction 4 must be false.
  9. God exists not only in the understanding.
  10. Therefore, God exists in reality.
  • Existence in reality is an aggrandizing property.
  • The argument is a reductio ad absurdum . To prove X assume ¬X. Show how ¬X leads to a patent contradiction or falsehood.

Gaunilo’s objection

Gaunilo proposes the idea of ​​a perfect island. “I can conceive of a perfect island so this perfect island must exist.” The problem with this is that the island could, in reality, always be better. How many palm trees? How big is the island? How good is the climate? Inevitably, when you start adding all the big properties together to form the island you get Anselm’s idea of ​​God.

Plantinga’s modal ontological argument

This is the formulation of Plantinga’s Argument:

  1. It is possible for a maximally great being (God) to exist.
  2. If it is possible for a maximally great being to exist, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
  3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in all possible worlds.
  4. If a maximally great being exists in all possible worlds, then it exists in the actual world.
  5. Therefore, a maximally large being exists in the real world.
  6. Therefore, a maximally large being exists.
  7. Therefore, God exists.

The object in the modal ontological argument is God, and his essence is necessary existence . That is what we get from one world to all possible worlds, because if necessary existence is valid in one possible world then it is valid in all possible worlds, like a computer virus.

Where does God’s necessity come from? If it comes from something else then it lacks a particular aggrandising property (and is therefore contingent). However, if God’s necessity comes from himself, his aseity, then these aggrandising properties refer to God’s essence. An important distinction to make is that a necessary being is not the fact of its existence, but rather it takes part in necessary existence. Furthermore, if God is simple then God is his essence and his essence is to exist.

CONCLUSION [2]

So what God has that we don’t have, then, is the property of necessary existence. And He has that property as part of His essence. God cannot lack the property of necessary existence and still be God. Of course, if something has the property of necessary existence, it cannot lose that property, for if it did, there would be a possible world in which it lacked necessary existence and so was never necessarily existent in the first place.

IMMANUEL KANT’S OBJECTION [3]

Kant’s criticism is that existence is not a property, since existence precedes essence. But it does not follow from this that necessarily existing is not a property. In any case, Plantinga’s version of the modal ontological argument does not assume that necessary existence is a property. It simply assumes that a being is greater if it exists necessarily rather than contingently. This is evidently quite true. The idea of ​​a being that is omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect in all possible worlds seems perfectly coherent.

THE OBJECTION OF ABSTRACT OBJECTS [4]

This objection consists in changing the object of the argument – which is God – for any ideal object that is equally necessary or that is considered necessary (for example, the number 1, the triangle, etc.,) to demonstrate that God only exists conceptually and not concretely. Thus premise 1 would be

1′. It is possible for a triangle to exist.

Following the rules of modal logic the conclusion would then be

7′. Therefore, the triangle exists.

If you take the word “existence” in its ordinary sense, then if it is claimed that it is possible for an abstract object like the number 2 or the triangle to exist, and if you believe that these are necessary entities, as most philosophers do, then the conclusion follows, then there is a triangle, a number, and not just in the conceptual sense, but in the full sense of existence, just as Platonism claims, that abstract entities like numbers, geometrical objects, exist in the same sense as concrete objects. But this does not prove that God exists only as a concept, what it proves is that the existence of these abstract objects is real, that they are as real as God! Now, if you are not a Platonist, then you may well deny premise 1 if you take the word “existence” in its full sense (something that is real). We certainly have the idea or concept of the number 1, of the triangle, but we would deny that such entities exist in any possible world and therefore they do not exist in the real world.

Grades

[1] From the ontological argument to this explanation is part of an email I received from Max Andrews in response to a question I had sent to Reasonable Faith about Alvin Plantinga’s modal ontological argument.

[2] See: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/spanish/la-necesidad-de-dios

[3] See: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/spanish/dos-preguntas-sobre-el-argumento-ontologico

[4] This was Dr. Craig’s response to my objection to ideal objects which he addressed on his Reasonable Faith podcast starting at minute 7:13: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/mediaf/podcasts/uploads/RF_Questions_About_Discouragement_Free_Will_and_Martyrdom_2013.mp3

 


Max Andrews is a graduate student of philosophy. His graduate research is in the philosophy of science and religion. His philosophical education consists of a Master of Arts in Philosophical Studies: Philosophy of Religion (2012) and a Bachelor of Science in Religion: Biblical Studies (2010).

By Hugh Ross

More than a dozen parameters for the universe have to have values ​​that fall within narrowly defined ranges for life of any kind to exist [1] .

Strong nuclear force constant

If it is larger: hydrogen would not form; the atomic nuclei for most elements essential for life would be unstable.

If it is less: there would be no elements outside of hydrogen.

Weak nuclear force constant

If it is larger: too much hydrogen would be converted to helium in the Big Bang; therefore, too much heavy element material would be made by the burning of stars; there would be no ejection of heavy elements from the stars.

If it is smaller: too little helium would be produced by the Big Bang; therefore, too little heavy element material would be made by the burning of stars; there would be no ejection of heavy elements from the stars.

Gravitational force constant

If it is larger, the stars would be too hot and would burn out too quickly and unevenly.

If it is lower: the stars would be too cold to ignite nuclear fusion; therefore, no production of heavy elements.

Electromagnetic force constant

If higher: insufficient chemical bonds; elements heavier than boron would be too unstable for fission.

If lower: insufficient chemical bonds.

Relationship between the electromagnetic force constant and the gravitational force constant

If it is larger: there would be no minor stars; hence, short stellar lifetimes and uneven stellar luminosities.

If it is smaller: there would be no stars larger than 0.8 solar masses; therefore, there would be no production of heavy elements.

Relationship between electron mass and proton mass

If it is higher: insufficient chemical bonds.

If lower: insufficient chemical bonds.

Relationship between the number of protons and the number of electrons

If it is greater: electromagnetism would predominate over gravity, preventing the formation of galaxies, stars and planets.

If it is smaller: electromagnetism would predominate over gravity, preventing the formation of galaxies, stars and planets.

Expansion rate of the universe

If it is larger: galaxies would not form.

If it is smaller: the universe would collapse before the stars were formed.

Level of entropy of the universe

If it is smaller: proto-galaxies would not form.

If it is larger: there would be no condensation of stars within the proto-galaxies.

Mass density of the universe

If it is larger: too much deuterium from the Big Bang; therefore, the stars would burn out too quickly.

If it is less: an insufficient amount of helium from the Big Bang; therefore, too few heavy elements would be formed.

Speed ​​of light

If it is larger: the stars would be too bright.

If it is smaller: the stars would not be bright enough.

Age of the universe

If it is larger: there would be no sun-like stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of the galaxy.

If it is smaller: Sun-like stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed.

Initial uniformity of radiation

If it were more uniform: stars, star clusters and galaxies would not have formed.

If less uniform: the universe at this point would consist mostly of black holes and empty space.

Fine structure constant (a number describing the fine structure separation of spectral lines)

If it is larger: DNA could not function; there would be no stars larger than 0.7 solar masses.

If it is smaller: DNA could not function; there would be no stars smaller than 1.8 solar masses.

Average distance between galaxies

If it is larger, an insufficient amount of gas would be infused into our galaxy to sustain star formation over an adequate time.

If it is smaller: the sun’s orbit would be perturbed too radically.

Average distance between stars

If it is higher: the density of heavy elements would be too low for rocky planets to form.

If it is smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable.

Proton decay rate.

If it is greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation.

If it is less: the universe would contain an insufficient amount of matter for life.

Relationship between the nuclear energy levels of Carbon 12 (c 12 ) and Oxygen 16 (o 16 )

If it is higher: insufficient amount of oxygen.

If it is lower: insufficient amount of carbon.

Base energy level of Helium 4 He 4

If it is higher: insufficient amount of carbon and oxygen.

If it is lower: insufficient amount of carbon and oxygen.

Decay rate of Beryllium 8 (Be 8 )

If it is slower: the fusion of heavy elements would generate catastrophic explosions in all stars.

If it were faster, no elements heavier than beryllium would be produced; therefore, the chemistry of life would not be possible.

Excess of the neutron mass over the proton mass

If it is larger: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of the heavy elements essential for life.

If it is smaller: neutron decay would cause all stars to rapidly collapse to become neutron stars or black holes.

Initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons

If it is larger: too much radiation for planet formation.

If it is lower: insufficient matter for the formation of galaxies or stars.

Polarity of the water molecule

If it is larger: the heat of fusion and vaporization would be too great for life to exist.

If it is smaller: the heat of fusion and vaporization would be too small for life to exist; liquid water would become too poor a solvent for life’s chemistry to function; ice would not float, leading to runaway freezing.

Supernova eruptions

If they are too close, the radiation would exterminate life on the planet.

If they are too far away: few heavy elements are produced for the formation of rocky planets.

If too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated.

S i too rare: too few heavy element ash for rocky planet formation.

If too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation.

If too early: too little ash of heavy elements for the formation of rocky planets.

Binary white dwarfs

If they are few: little fluoride for the chemistry of life to function.

If there are too many: alteration of planetary orbits by stellar density; life on the planet would be exterminated.

S too early: insufficient amount of heavy elements for efficient fluorine production.

If too late: Fluorine is too late for incorporation into the proto-planet.

Relationship between exotic matter and ordinary matter

If it is smaller: galaxies would not form.

If it is larger, the universe would collapse before sun-like stars could form.

Note

[1] Davies and Koch, pp. 391-403. See also chapters 3 and 4.

 


Original Blog : http://bit.ly/2Fq2kP1

Translated by Alejandro Field

Por Scott Youngren

“Una interpretación de sentido común de los hechos, sugiere que un superintelecto ha jugado con la física, así como con la química y la biología, y que no hay fuerzas ciegas sobre las que valga la pena hablar en la naturaleza. Los números que uno calcula de los hechos me parecen tan abrumadores como para poner esta conclusión casi fuera de toda duda”.

-Astrofísico y Matemático de Cambridge University, Fred Hoyle

“Fred Hoyle y yo diferimos en un montón de preguntas, pero en esto estamos de acuerdo: el sentido común y la interpretación satisfactoria de nuestro mundo sugiere la mano del diseño de una super-inteligencia”.

-El ex profesor de investigación de Astronomia y Historia de la Ciencia Owen Gingerich, quien es ahora el mayor astrónomo en el Observatorio Astrofísico Smithsonian. Gingerich está aquí reflexionando sobre el comentario anterior de Fred Hoyle.

Profesor de matemáticas John Lennox Universidad de Oxford cita al famoso Físico Matemático de Oxford University Roger Penrose:

Trata de imaginar el espacio fásico… de todo universo. Cada punto de este espacio fásico representa una manera posible en que el universo pudo haber empezado. Hemos de imaginar al Creador, armado con un ‘dardo’ —que va a ser colocado en algún punto en el espacio fásico… Cada posición diferente del ‘dardo’ proporciona un universo diferente. Ahora, la precisión que se requiere para el propósito del Creador depende de la entropía (Desorden, caos) del universo que se crea con ello. Sería relativamente “fácil” producir un universo de alta entropía, ya que entonces no habría una gran cantidad de espacios fásicos disponibles para que el “dardo” le atine. Pero para empezar el universo en un estado de baja entropía –para que haya una segunda ley de la termodinámica— el Creador debe apuntar a un volumen más pequeño del espacio fásico. ¿Que tan pequeña sería esta región, para que un universo muy parecido al que realmente vivimos resultara?

Lennox continúa citando la respuesta de Penrose:

“Sus cálculos le llevan a la conclusión notable que ‘la puntería del Creador debe de haber sido de una precisión de 1 parte en 10 a la potencia de 10 ó 123, que es un 1 seguido de 10 ceros a la potencia de 123a”.

Como Penrose dice es un “número de los que sería imposible escribir en la forma decimal usual, porque incluso si usted fuera capaz de poner un cero en cada partícula del universo, no habría partículas suficientes para poder hacerlo”.

John Polkinghorne (Profesor de Fisica Cuantica en Cambridge) dijo:

“En los primeros picosegundos del universo, la afinación o ajuste perfecto de las cosas tenía que ser increíblemente precisa. Si se tiene en cuenta una sola variable de las muchas, la relación de expansión-contracción, tenía que ser tan exacta, que sería como apuntar a un blanco de una pulgada cuadrada en el otro extremo del universo, a 20 millones de años luz de distancia y golpear el blanco en el puro centro”.

Y la única alternativa para que el universo surgiera de la casualidad es que se ha planteado deliberadamente. Acción deliberada requiere un creador consciente (léase Dios). Y para aquellos que todavía están tentados a concluir que nuestro universo es solo el resultado de un accidente extremadamente improbable, yo explico en Why God? Why not just plain luck? (¿Porqué Dios? ¿Porqué no solo pura suerte?) el porqué por pura probabilidad (azar), nunca se puede causar nada… menos la creación de un universo.

 


Traducido por Jorge Gil Calderón

Editado por Jairo Izquierdo y María Andreina Cerrada

Blog Original: http://bit.ly/2DaRUzM

By Mikel Del Rosario

Does the Bible really come from God? I recently conducted a workshop on this topic for fifth and sixth graders at Bayside Church in Granite Bay, CA. I wanted to help the Christian kids talk about this topic with their friends. But I knew it had to be something simple to understand and easy to remember. We ended up having a lot of fun with games, activities, stories, and illustrations that helped them stick with these ideas.

After each session, parents told me how much they appreciated the lesson. Another reminder that adults value “simple” things, too.

In this post, I’ll show you a quick way to answer the question, “Is the Bible really from God?” and give you a little reminder so you can remember 3 reasons skeptics should pay attention to the Bible. But first, you should know that when it comes to the Bible, there are only two ways to look at it.

Only 2 options

The Bible says it is God’s message to us (2 Tim 3:16-17). That’s either true or false. So is there any reason to think the Bible is more than a book written by men? What kind of book is the Bible? We have only two answers:

  1. It’s just a bunch of stories and ideas about God written by people.
  2. It is truly the Word of God given to the people.

Here’s how I started the kids segment:

  • Mikel: “How many of you have read a book that you really enjoyed this summer? Tell me the name of an author you like.”
  • Students: (Different answers, including Agatha Christie, JK Rowling, CS Lewis, etc…)
  • Mikel: Now, do you think that all these authors would have the same opinion about the things that adults say we shouldn’t talk about at parties: politics and religion? Do you think they would agree?
  • Students:
  • Mikel: Of course not. No big surprise, right? No, the big surprise is when you consider the Bible…

3 Reasons Skeptics Should Pay Attention to the Bible

Imagine a UPS truck delivering Bibles, because the letters U, P, and S can help you remember 3 reasons why skeptics should pay attention to the Bible. These are 3 simple discussion points you can share with a friend or even your own children.

Think of it in terms of cause and effect. The Bible is an effect. What is the cause? If the Bible were just a book written by men, it would be pretty hard to explain the following:

  1. Your unit

The “U” can help you remember the word for  unity . The Bible is surprisingly united. When you hold a Bible in your hands, you are holding a collection of 66 ancient documents. They were originally written in 3 languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. We’re talking about 40 different authors, writing over a period of over 1,500 years! Imagine these guys writing in different times, places, languages, and cultures.

And yet the authors agree with each other on highly controversial ethical and religious issues. And most importantly, they all arrived at a single message about God.

  1. His prophecy

The “P” can help you remember the word prophecy. The Bible records exact predictions about the future that came true. A couple of examples are specific prophecies about Jesus and Israel.

Predictions about Jesus

The Old Testament prophets said that the Messiah would be from the tribe of Judah (Gen. 49:10), from the lineage of King David (2 Sam. 7:12-13), and that he would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2). 700 years before Jesus was born, the Jewish prophet Isaiah foretold very specific things about the Messiah (ch. 53). For example:

  • That would be whipped
  • That I would die with evil people
  • That he would be buried as a rich person

More than 1,000 years before Jesus was born, King David predicted that the Messiah’s hands and feet would be pierced, but not one of his bones would be broken (Psalm 22). All of these things about Jesus, the Messiah, came to pass.

Predictions about Israel

Isaiah also predicted that the Jewish people would return to their lands for a second time (11:11-16). The first time they returned was in the 6th century with Ezra and Nehemiah. But Israel was expelled in 70 AD when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem. Their second return was when Israel became a nation in 1948. I told the children:

This is something that really happened and maybe some of your grandparents saw it! And if not, your parents must have seen it on the news.

  1. Follow here!

The “S” can help you remember that the Bible is still here !  And why is this so important? Because people have tried to wipe the Bible off the face of the earth and they won’t succeed. Not only that, it’s still the number one best-seller.

This is just the beginning. If you really take the time to look more closely, you will see that we have good reason to believe that the Bible is not just people’s ideas about God written down. The Bible is God’s Word given to people.

Lesson 4

Fact or fiction:

Can I Trust My Bible? This workshop was based on lesson 4  of my Accessible Apologetics curriculumfor youth and adults. It includes games, illustrations, PowerPoint, and more. Download a free lesson from the series. 

 


Mikel Del Rosario helps Christians explain their faith with courage and compassion. He is a PhD student in the New Testament department at Dallas Theological Seminary. Mikel is a professor of Christian apologetics and world religion at William Jessup University. He is the author of Accessible Apologetics and has published over 20 journal articles on apologetics and cultural engagement with his mentor, Dr. Darrell Bock. Mikel holds an MA in Christian apologetics with highest honors from Biola University and an MA in divinity from Dallas Theological Seminary, where he serves as Cultural Engagement Manager at the Hendricks Center and host on “the Table Podcast.” Visit his website at ApologeticsGuy.com.

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

Translated by Natalia Armando

Edited by Maria Andreina Cerrada

By Ken Mann

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My top priority this morning is to be understood, so I want to be clear about what I mean. I also want to inform, which means some of what I share may be challenging and new to some of you. I ask for your patience as we move forward. I’ll be here to answer questions and the content of this talk, along with a list of some relevant books that you can find on my website under “resources.”

I’m going to cover two things this morning. First, I’m going to discuss some terms that are central to this topic. Next, we’re going to consider theological ideas that were at work in the 19th century and that still influence public perception of the relationship between science and Christianity.

Terminology

Whether you’re interacting with someone with a different worldview or just trying to learn more about a topic, navigating terminology is a crucial task. You have to be aware of words you haven’t heard or seen before. Whether I’m reading or having a conversation, I’m always on the lookout for these words. If I’m reading, I’ll stop and look up the word. In a conversation, it’s difficult, but still important to interrupt and ask the other person what that word means. If they can explain the term to you, it will definitely improve the conversation greatly. If they can’t, you may or may not be able to continue. Regardless, it’s important to avoid either party in a conversation assuming what certain words mean.

Evolution

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

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

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

  • Universal common descent.  This definition of evolution states that every organism descends from a single original organism. As controversial as it may seem, it is not the final word on what most scientists believe evolution is all about.
  • Thesis “The Blind Watchmaker”

The term “blind watchmaker” was coined by Richard Dawkins in the title of his 1986 book, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence for Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design. Dawkins was ridiculing an argument made by William Paley published in 1802. Paley argued that the existence of a watch implies the existence of a watchmaker, whereas a rock merely implies the processes of geology over time.

This definition of evolution says that all organisms have ascended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless material process. This process is entirely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.

Or more succinctly, “Molecules to men by means of chemistry and physics.”

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

While you should always push for definitions, when you hear Darwin or evolution invoked in a discussion of human origins or the development of life, you can be sure that the idea of ​​”molecules for men” is what is meant.

Science

The term science does not need a definition with so many warning labels. Since it is in the title of my specialization, I will not be surprised if I have developed some opinions on the subject. I will limit myself to two ideas.

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

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

Theology

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

Human nature

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

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

Darwinism denies the possibility of the soul; it leaves no room for the existence of the immaterial. As a consequence, one must confront the idea that everything we do, everything we think, everything we feel is not evidence of our soul, but is simply the result of a physical process.

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

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

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

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

According to Christianity, human beings are unique in creation, a completely different kind of creature from any other animal. We are physical creatures. We are similar to other animals in many ways. However, we also have an immaterial nature, a soul if you will. I have always liked this passage from Screwtape’s letters:

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

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

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

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

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

Consider just three ways we are similar to God.

  • We are spiritual. Part of our nature is an immaterial soul or spirit united with a physical body.
  • We are personal, that is, we are conscious and rational beings. We have a mind, will and emotions.
  • We have the power to choose. Sometimes called free agents, we have the ability to deliberate and make decisions.

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

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

Christianity explains the existence of evil, our acceptance and repulsion of it, and offers a solution in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Theological foundations of Darwinism

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

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

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

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

Natural Theology and the “Theory of Creation”

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

In the 18th and 19th centuries, the view of creation was that from the movement of the heavens to the myriad animals and plants occupying the earth, all of creation was a perfect, harmonious system that reflected God’s wisdom and benevolence. Beginning in the 17th century, a variety of theologians and scientists promoted the idea that evidence for God could be found in the study of nature. Known as “natural theology,” this field reached its peak in the works of William Paley in the early 19th century. Natural theology argued, some would say brilliantly, that evidence for design could be found in nature.

However, there was a significant flaw in Paley’s view. Paley believed that God’s purpose in creation was the happiness of his creatures. Creation was idealized in such a way that God’s Benevolence and Wisdom were seen everywhere. Let me read a quote from Paley’s book, Natural Theology:

“Es un mundo feliz después de todo. El aire, la tierra, el agua, rebosan de una existencia encantada. En un mediodía de primavera o una tarde de verano, en cualquier lado que gire mis ojos, multitudes de seres felices se amontonan ante mi vista. Los insectos jóvenes están volando. Enjambres de moscas recién nacidas están probando sus alas en el aire. Sus movimientos deportivos, sus laberintos, su actividad gratuita, su continuo cambio de lugar sin uso ni propósito, dan testimonio de su alegría y de la exaltación que sienten en sus facultades recientemente descubiertas. Una abeja entre las flores en primavera es uno de los objetos más alegres que se pueden contemplar. Su vida parece ser todo un placer, tan ocupada y tan feliz: sin embargo, es solo un ejemplar de vida de insecto”.

En resumen, los teólogos naturales afirmaron que la naturaleza demostró la sabiduría y la bondad de Dios, pero ignoraron su providencia, juicio o uso del mal.

El problema del mal natural

El problema del mal es algo que ha acosado la creencia cristiana durante mucho tiempo. Si no has escuchado esa frase antes, se refiere a la tensión que existe entre las instancias obvias del mal que encontramos en el mundo y las características típicamente atribuidas a Dios. A veces se plantea como una pregunta: “¿Cómo puede Dios ser benevolente y omnipotente, y permitir el mal que experimentamos en el mundo?”

La mayoría de las discusiones sobre este tema hacen una distinción entre el mal moral y el mal natural. El mal moral es simplemente lo que las personas han estado haciendo desde que Adán y Eva se rebelaron en el Jardín. El mal natural, en términos generales, es cualquier cosa en la naturaleza que causa la muerte o el sufrimiento. Esto podría incluir desde terremotos, enfermedades y todas las cosas horribles que los animales le hacen a los demás.

Darwin, como otros naturalistas, no vio felicidad y alegría en la creación. Vio la muerte, el sufrimiento y el desperdicio que no podía conciliar con la creación “feliz” de Paley. Estaba particularmente molesto por el sufrimiento y la muerte que se encuentran en el reino animal. Un ejemplo particular fue un tipo de avispa que deposita sus huevos en el cuerpo de una oruga. Después de la eclosión, la larva comienza a consumir el huésped mientras aún está vivo.

La solución de Darwin, consistente con la gran teología de Dios, era que Dios no creó la avispa parásita ni ninguno de los otros males naturales en el mundo. Más bien, Dios creó un sistema de leyes naturales que resultó en el mundo que estudió. En una carta a Asa Gray (un botánico estadounidense) Darwin resumió su punto de vista de esta manera. “Me inclino a considerar todo como resultado de leyes diseñadas, con los detalles, ya sean buenos o malos, dejados a la resolución de lo que podemos llamar azar”.

Para decirlo de otra manera, Dios, directamente actuando en la creación, fue rechazado con el fin de hacer que la existencia del mal natural sea comprensible para los seres humanos. Si Dios no creó directamente cada especie individual, sino que simplemente creó el sistema natural que resultó en la especie que tenemos hoy, entonces Dios no es directamente responsable del mal natural.

“La naturaleza no es perfecta”

Un segundo aspecto de la teología natural al que objetó Darwin, es que toda la creación reflejaba la perfección de Dios. Por supuesto, lo que se entiende por perfección aparentemente estaba abierto a una gran variedad de interpretaciones. Para Darwin y muchos otros, ésto ha sido la afirmación de que muchas cosas que se encuentran en la naturaleza están mal diseñadas.

Tal vez el ejemplo más popular de mal diseño en la naturaleza es el órgano vestigial. Cuando un órgano o estructuras ya no se necesitan, es un “vestigio” del proceso evolutivo. Fue necesario en una especie ancestral, pero la evolución todavía tiene que eliminarlo. En 1895, un anatomista alemán publicó una lista de 86 órganos vestigiales en el cuerpo humano. No estoy al tanto de un solo ejemplo creíble hoy. Los órganos vestigiales no son evidencia de evolución. Son una combinación de asumir que la evolución es verdadera e ignorar la función de un órgano en particular.

Un ejemplo más moderno de un reclamo de mal diseño se conoce como “ADN basura”. Este término fue originalmente acuñado en 1972. Cuando comenzó la investigación sobre cómo funcionaba el ADN, lo primero que se descubrió fue la correlación entre ciertas secuencias de bases de ADN (“peldaños” en la escala de ADN) y la producción de ciertos aminoácidos (20 moléculas orgánicas diferentes que componen las proteínas). La función de vastas regiones de ADN fuera de esta “codificación de proteínas”, más del 98% del genoma humano fue descartada como “basura”, hasta hace unos cinco años. El proyecto Enciclopedia de elementos de ADN (ENCODE) comenzó a publicar resultados que demuestran que se están utilizando vastas regiones del “ADN basura” en el genoma humano.

Similar a los órganos vestigiales, la ignorancia combinada con una aceptación de la evolución, resultó en la conclusión de que la investigación posterior ha demostrado ser incorrecta. En resumen, la existencia del “ADN basura”, algo que una vez fue dogma, ahora se está convirtiendo en otra predicción fallida del darwinismo.

Naturalismo teológico

Una tercera idea teológica que motivó Darwin y muchos otros en el siglo XIX tiene que ver con: cómo Dios actúa en la creación. Para aclarar esto, debo hacer una distinción entre causas primarias y causas secundarias. Un evento que es causado por Dios e imposible por cualquier otro medio, un milagro, es un ejemplo de causalidad primaria. Algo que ocurre de acuerdo con la ley natural es un ejemplo de causalidad secundaria. Por ejemplo, la separación del Mar Rojo cuando los judíos huyeron de Egipto fue la causa principal, la muerte del ejército egipcio capturado cuando se liberó el agua era una causalidad secundaria.

Para muchos teólogos y científicos, desde antes de Darwin hasta nuestros días, la ciencia no es posible si Dios actúa en el mundo. Si la causalidad primaria es posible, entonces es imposible saber la diferencia entre un evento causado por la ley natural y un evento causado por Dios. Para estudiar la naturaleza, para entender la estructura de las “leyes” que la rigen, debemos suponer que Dios nunca actuó en la creación.

El efecto neto de esta visión no niega que Dios fue el creador del universo, simplemente significa que no hay evidencia de que lo haya hecho. Por supuesto, eso no es lo peor. Si Dios no ha hecho nada desde el momento de la creación, la encarnación y la resurrección de Jesús no podrían haber sucedido.

Tal vez la forma más sencilla de resumir este punto de vista es que no se puede confiar en Dios. Si Él es capaz de actuar en la creación, Él es capaz de engañarnos. La ciencia se convertiría en el “estudio” de los caprichos y el comportamiento impredecible de un ser omnipotente.

El naturalismo afirma que todo surge de las propiedades y causas naturales; las explicaciones sobrenaturales o espirituales están excluidas o descontadas. Para los teólogos en el siglo XIX, esto significaba que Dios actuó en la creación a través de las leyes que Él creó. Argumentaban que Dios era más grande, que se glorificaba más si no intervenía en la creación. El Dr. Cornelius Hunter se refiere a esto como   naturalismo teológico porque el razonamiento teológico lo motivó.

Hoy la posición predeterminada de la ciencia es una vista conocida como naturalismo metodológico. Esta es la idea de que cuando estás haciendo ciencia, solo puedes considerar las causas naturales. Las acciones de un agente inteligente no pueden ser consideradas.  Dios no actúa en la creación. A partir de ahí, es un viaje corto al ateísmo, donde Dios no existe.

Pero permítanme enfatizar este punto: los orígenes del naturalismo que motivaron a Darwin y que se han convertido en dogmas dentro de la ciencia hoy en día fueron filosóficos. El naturalismo no fue una conclusión de la ciencia; fue un punto de partida.

Conclusión

La naturaleza humana según Darwin, ¿cómo debería responder el cristiano? Primero y, ante todo, cuando te enfrentas a una cosmovisión opuesta, debes entender lo que cree y por qué. Al explorar algunos términos y fundamentos teológicos, les ofrezco una introducción a la cosmovisión del darwinismo.

Proporcioné un resumen de algunas de las ideas sobre Dios y su papel en la creación que motivaron a Darwin. Ya que en el origen de las especies fue publicado hasta el día de hoy, el darwinismo se ha basado en una percepción de Dios que no se puede encontrar en las Escrituras. O Dios está ausente de la creación y no puede intervenir, o es incompetente porque la naturaleza está llena de “mal diseño”. La evolución se acepta como verdadera porque una visión distorsionada de Dios y la creación parece ser falsa.

Esto no es solo acerca de la ciencia. No se trata solo de religión. Es un ejemplo de cómo las suposiciones sobre Dios y la religión dirigen el proceso de la ciencia. El darwinismo no es una realidad. El darwinismo es menos que una ciencia, es menos que un punto de vista teológico que reclama el apoyo empírico de la ciencia.

La naturaleza humana según el darwinismo, incluida su negación del alma y la negación de la singularidad humana, no se aprende de diversas disciplinas científicas. Es implícito por la ciencia y, por lo tanto, es aceptado porque el darwinismo es aceptado. Sin embargo, si el darwinismo es falso, entonces todo lo que dice sobre la naturaleza humana también es falso.

El tiempo no permitió abordar la evidencia utilizada para apoyar y criticar el darwinismo. Lo que puedo decir en términos de un resumen es que la evidencia del darwinismo solo es convincente si ya estás convencido de que es verdad. En la página de recursos en mi sitio web, la charla de hoy está disponible junto con una lista de varios libros que cubren el material de hoy en más profundidad. También te animo a que revises los libros que se centran en las críticas científicas del darwinismo.

Me gustaría dejarte algunas preguntas para hacerle a alguien que cree que en “de moléculas a hombres por medio de la física y la química” es la mejor explicación para la gran diversidad de vida que encontramos.

  1. ¿Cuál es la evidencia de la evolución?
  2. ¿Cuál es la visión cristiana de la creación?
  3. ¿Cómo se originó la vida?

Cada una de estas preguntas, dependiendo de las respuestas que recibas, podría seguirse con dos preguntas. (1) ¿Qué quieres decir con eso? (2) ¿Cómo llegaste a esa conclusión? Estas dos preguntas de la técnica de Columbo de Greg Koukl buscan aclaración y evidencia que lo ayudarán a comprender mejor la perspectiva de la otra persona.

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

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

 


Translated by Malachi Toro Vielma.

Edited by Maria Andreina Cerrada.

Original Blog: http://bit.ly/2QaZJJ5

Some time ago Tim Stratton wrote a blog that dealt with the Omnibenevolence of God . Tim said regarding Allah, that He is not an all-loving God, “and whatever Allah does is simply called ‘good’ even if it is abhorrent.” Of course, the reactions from the atheist camp were not long in coming and in response he received the following objection:

This sounds like the Christian view, too. If God is the standard of “good” then everything God does is by definition good. By that argument, hatred would be, by definition, “good.” What makes benevolence inherently “good” if you’re getting the standard of “good” from God? By that argument, if God is benevolent then benevolence is good, but if God happens to be a hateful being then one has to call it “hate” rather than benevolence. Unless you’re saying that benevolence is inherently good, apart from God, and therefore benevolence is a necessary trait of an “all-good” God. But that would mean that God has these traits because he’s good, and his goodness is distinguished from his possession of them—they would be good independently of God’s existence.

Tim Stratton called this objection a version of the Euthyphro Dilemma and offered an answer that evades the dilemma; however, it seems to me that while his answer clears up a lot of doubts, it does not fully resolve the problem; so I decided to address the objection directly with my friend Anton Schauble and see if we could refute the argument at its root.

Jairo: Anton, what do you think about this objection to the attribute of Omnibenevolence?

Anton: That argument is complete nonsense. What we are saying is that God (or the Good) is the standard for good and evil, not only because He is a criterion by which we measure good and evil, but because He is the ultimate source and paradigm of good, which is the same as unity and being.

Benevolence is good because it is positively real; whatever is positively real is both like and derived from God. In the same way, God cannot be anything else, He is the paradigm of good; benevolence is good, and malevolence is evil; for benevolence is a likeness to Good and malevolence a deviation from it. There is no way that Good could be anything else, so that it would be more like malevolence than like benevolence.

Take being, for example. God is the paradigm of being as it is of good. He is the best, and also the most real. Light is positive and darkness is negative, because light is as it is to be (it is something) and darkness is different from being (it is not something), but to imagine being being different, so that it is more like darkness than light? That is just nonsense. Being is what it is, necessarily. It cannot change, nor can it even be imagined to be different. This objector is thinking of God as a substance susceptible of different attributes—benevolence or malevolence—such that it could have one or the other.

Jairus: He also seems to point out that there is some contradiction in God’s attributes of being all-loving and of hating when he says, “If God is the standard of ‘good’ then everything God does is by definition good. By that argument, hatred would be by definition ‘good’.” He is completely lost, because the Scriptures teach that God does indeed hate, but He hates sin! And that is certainly a good thing. God being a Holy, Omnibenevolent Being, it follows that He cannot love sin, for to do so would be contradictory to His being. Hatred in God arises as a reaction to evil, to sin; it does not arise in God indiscriminately or for no reason or for petty reasons as in human beings, where such hatred that arises in us is certainly evil and is condemned by God. So hating sin, contrary to what the objector thinks, is perfectly consistent with God’s Omnibenevolence.

Anton: Correct. The objection would make sense if God were a substance rather than an essence. For example, it is like taking “love” univocally, but “love” does not mean the same thing in the statements “God loves” and “John loves” because John is a substance modified by the accident of love, whereas God is an essence identical to essential Love. Therefore, Scripture says not only that “God loves,” but that “God is love.”

Let us put it this way: if we abstract love from John, what remains is the substance, the man John, who exists but does not love. But if we abstract love from God, what remains is nothing; there is no God who does not love; in fact, the idea of ​​a God without love is an absolute absurdity.

Jairo: Yes, that is right. In my opinion, God’s love is an essential property of Him, so there is no possible world where God is not love.

In conclusion, we can say that the objection is a total failure for the following reasons:

  1. God cannot be anything other than what He is, it is absurd that benevolence can be malevolence.
  2. The hatred that arises in God is not a hatred towards anything; rather, His hatred is directed towards sin because He is Holy, a God who would tolerate sin in His being would not be worthy of worship.

 


Jairo Izquierdo Hernández is the founder of Christian Philosopher . He currently works as a Community Manager for the Christian organization Cross Examined . He is a member of the Christian Apologetics Alliance and a worship minister at the Christian Baptist Church Christ is the Answer in Puebla, Mexico.

Anton Schauble is a philosophy major at DeSales University, currently living in Congers, NY, United States.

Por Natasha Crain 

En mi último libro, Talking with Your Kids about God (Hablando con tus hijos sobre Dios), hay seis capítulos que se centran en el cruce entre la fe y la ciencia. Responden a las preguntas: ¿Puede la ciencia probar o refutar la existencia de Dios? ¿La ciencia y la religión se contradicen entre sí? ¿La ciencia y la religión se complementan entre sí? ¿Es Dios solo una explicación de lo que la ciencia aún no sabe? ¿Puede la ciencia explicar por qué las personas creen en Dios? ¿Y qué creen los científicos acerca de Dios?

Estuve particularmente emocionada de escribir estos capítulos porque sé cuán importante es, que estos temas sean comprendidos por los padres y los niños hoy en día, aun así, muchos de ellos no están seguros de cómo abordarlos. Sin embargo, en los últimos meses, una parte de los lectores con los que he hablado en eventos o en línea, me han dicho tímidamente que se saltaron esa sección del libro porque (estoy parafraseando) según ellos, la ciencia está fuera de su “zona de confort”.

Esto es profundamente preocupante; no que alguien omita una sección de mi libro, sino que los padres a menudo se resistan a participar en un tema de fe tan cuestionado hoy en día.

La creencia de que el cristianismo es anti-ciencia, se ha convertido en una razón principal por la cual muchos adultos jóvenes se estén alejando de la fe. Investigadores del Grupo Barna han descubierto que el 29 por ciento de los jóvenes entre los 18 y 29 años con antecedentes cristianos, señalan a las iglesias como entes que están “fuera de sintonía con el mundo científico en el que vivimos” y el 25 por ciento dice que “el cristianismo es anti-ciencia”. ” El hecho de que más de una cuarta parte de los niños de origen cristiano acepten esta narrativa dañina y falsa, debe levantar una gran bandera de preocupación en los padres cristianos.

¿Crees que este tema está siendo manejado o será manejado por el grupo de jóvenes de tu hijo? Piensa otra vez. La investigación de Barna también descubrió que solo un por ciento de los pastores jóvenes aborda cualquier problema relacionado con la ciencia en un año o tiempo determinado. La desconexión entre la necesidad y la respuesta a esa necesidad es enorme en este momento.

Eso significa que los padres deben asumir la responsabilidad de discutir estas preguntas con sus hijos. Pero hay cuatro cosas que creo que tendrán que suceder antes de que más padres lo hagan.

  1. Los padres tendrán que entender que no importa si nos preocupamos personalmente por la ciencia o no, nuestros hijos aún necesitan involucrarse en estos asuntos.

En mi experiencia hablando con los padres, creo que esta es la razón número uno por la cual la mayoría no está teniendo estas conversaciones: simplemente ellos no se preocupan personalmente por la ciencia. Ciertamente, nadie dice eso como la razón. Por lo general, los padres solo dicen que es algo que “deben analizar” o que es “demasiado complicado” (más sobre esto en el punto cuatro). Pero como sucede con la mayoría de las cosas en la vida, si realmente creemos que algo es importante para el bienestar de nuestros hijos, nos haremos cargo de la tarea. Cuidamos por necesidad.

Por ejemplo, mi hijo recientemente tuvo una reacción alérgica a los anacardos después de comer uno por primera vez. Entré en el modo de mamá médico e investigué todo lo que pude en línea para saber cómo ayudarlo mejor. ¿Hay mucha información sobre las alergias a los frutos secos? Sí. ¿Hay diferencias de opinión sobre qué hacer? Sí. ¿Me sentí abrumada al aprender todo esto? Absolutamente. ¿Por un minuto decidí que era muy difícil resolverlo, así que no iba a hacer nada para ayudarlo? Absolutamente no.

Te aseguro que normalmente no me preocupo por las alergias a los frutos secos; pero tan pronto supe que era importante para mi hijo que me educara sobre ello, me equipé. De la misma manera, no importa si nos “preocupa” la ciencia; la pregunta es si el conocimiento de la fe y las cuestiones científicas son importantes para nuestros hijos. La investigación (como señalé anteriormente) ha respondido eso con un sí inequívoco.

  1. Los padres tendrán que entender que no importa si a nuestros hijos les preocupa la ciencia o no, aún deben involucrarse en estos asuntos.

Un padre me dijo recientemente que sus hijos “simplemente no son científicos”. Dijo que están más metidos en las artes; por lo que no iba a tratar de entrar en los detalles de la problemática entre la fe y la ciencia, cuando eso no es un área de preocupación o interés para ellos.

Asumir que las preguntas acerca de la ciencia no afectarán la fe de sus hijos porque ellos no están involucrados en la misma, es un gran error. De hecho, creo que los niños que no se sumergen en la ciencia tienen la misma probabilidad de ser desafiados por estos problemas que los que sí lo hacen. ¿Por qué? Si carecen de interés en considerar personalmente los problemas en profundidad, simplemente pueden diferir a lo que parece culturalmente aceptado. La cultura dice que la ciencia y la fe son opuestas y tengo que elegir solo una. Bueno. La cultura dice que la ciencia ha refutado a Dios y que la fe es simplemente la aceptación ciega de algo sin evidencia. Creo que elegiré la ciencia porque no quiero sentir vergüenza.

¿Eso significa que todo niño necesita entender las complejidades del debate científico? De ningún modo. Pero como lo explico en mis capítulos sobre ciencia, todos deberían comprender los términos y conceptos claves en los que gira el debate y las suposiciones que se hacen al variar las visiones del mundo.

  1. Los padres tendrán que reconocer que las preguntas sobre la relación entre la fe y la ciencia son multifacéticas.

Si bien muchos padres se sienten abrumados ante la idea de aprender sobre cuestiones científicas, otros han simplificado demasiado el asunto. Veo esto mucho en grupos de Facebook. Alguien publica una pregunta sobre cómo su hijo comienza a cuestionar su fe debido a la “ciencia”, y en segundos, todos en el grupo han resuelto el problema pegando alegremente un enlace a la organización que defiende su punto de vista; sobre la edad de la tierra. No me mal interpreten: las preguntas sobre la edad de la tierra y de la evolución son extremadamente importantes (¡escribí ocho capítulos sobre esto en Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side (Mantener a los niños del lado de Dios), pero hay muchos contornos de la conversación más allá de esos temas en particular. Los niños que tienen conocimiento en una sola área, y solo una vista dentro de esa área, no tendrán la base necesaria para interactuar con el mundo de hoy.

  1. Los padres tendrán que aceptar que no tenemos que ser expertos en ciencias para ser guías conocedores.

Mi hija de nueve años se ha estado preparando para su primera competencia de piano. Después de escucharla practicar su pieza recientemente, muchas veces, me di cuenta que ella seguía luchando con los mismos errores. Ella insistió, sin embargo, que no había ningún problema. No pude captar dónde estaba el problema, así que le pedí que tocara la pieza mientras miraba la lectura de la música.

A pesar de que no toco el piano, he estado en bastantes de sus lecciones en los últimos tres años y he podido entender los conceptos básicos de cómo leer música. Puedo seguir y ver el ritmo, los silencios, la dinámica, etc. Cuando llegó a la parte del problema, dije: “¡Aquí! ¡Ésta es la parte que necesitas prestar atención!” Mi hija, que es muy independiente y nunca quiere ayuda con nada, no estaba exactamente muy contenta con mi dirección. Ella respondió: “No eres una experta en piano. ¡Ni siquiera sabes tocar el piano! ¿Cómo sabrías si algo está mal o dónde está mal?”

Es cierto que no soy una experta en piano, pero mi hija no entendió que no necesito ser una experta para ser una guía conocedora de ella. Había aprendido lo suficiente sobre los conceptos básicos y el marco teórico para mostrarle dónde estaban los problemas, aunque no pudiera sentarme y tocar la pieza yo misma.

De la misma manera, los padres no necesitan ser expertos en ciencia para ser guías conocedores de sus hijos en el cruce entre la fe y la ciencia. Pero muchos padres se “retiran” de la conversación porque simplemente no se sienten capacitados para tenerla. No hay razón para hacerlo. El hecho de que no pueda enseñar a sus hijos las complejidades de la teoría evolutiva (o cualquier otra cosa) no significa que no pueda estar equipado para guiar a sus hijos de una manera significativa y que honre a Dios.

Con un poco de motivación y esfuerzo, puedes aprender y mostrar cuán hermosa la ciencia describe la creación de Dios, no la refuta.

 


Natasha Crain es una bloguera, autora y oradora nacional que siente pasión por equipar a los padres cristianos para educar a sus hijos en la comprensión de cómo presentar un caso y defender su fe en un mundo cada vez más secular. Es autora de dos libros de apologética para padres: Talking with Your Kids about God (Hablando con tus hijos sobre Dios) (2017) y  Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side (Manteniendo a tus hijos del lado de Dios) (2016). Natasha tiene un Maestría en marketing y estadísticas en la UCLA y un certificado en apologética cristiana de la Universidad de Biola. Ex ejecutiva de mercadotecnia y profesora adjunta, vive en el sur de California con su esposo y sus tres hijos.

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

Traducido por Malaquias Toro Vielma

Editado por María Andreina Cerrada