Tag Archive for: Logic

Arguing from the Extremes

There is a very common type of fallacious reasoning that I have termed arguing from the extremes. Once you see this, you’ll notice that it’s everywhere in our society and especially political discourse. Roughly speaking it’s the idea that one or an extremely small number of counter examples disproves a whole theory. This is simply not how to do good reasoning. If you see x follow y 1,000 times you will rightly conclude that there is some type of causal link between x and y. If on try 1,001, x does not follow y, that should give you pause, but it shouldn’t prompt you to conclude that your established theory (x follows y) needs to be completely thrown out.[1] That would be stupid. But a lot of people do reason like this.

So, for example, it has been widely demonstrated in social science data that children with both a mother and a father present in the home do better in life. The fallacious example of arguing from the extremes would be to counter that this cannot be true because you know a person raised by both a mother and father who turned out to be a con-artist, and you also know a man raised by a single mother who founded and runs a multi-million-dollar company. This is a fallacious objection because it is treating the theory as if it were a deductive argument. One genuine counter example proves that something is wrong with a deductive argument. Conversely, theories are much more akin to inductive arguments which simply say what is likely to be true, or what is true more often than not. As Nicholas Rescher says, “our acceptance policy is based on considerations of overall best-fit, where the fit at issue is one of consonance and coordination with our prevailing commitments.”[2]

So, if I argue that far more often than not it is better for children to be raised by both a mother and a father, a few counter examples do not in any way undermine that argument. Or the existence of seemingly genuinely intersexed people does not undermine a theory of gender that says that human beings are male or female.[3] Estimates of the number of people who claim to be transgender vary, but seem to fall between a high of 0.7% and a low of 0.39%. Even assuming that all the reported instances of transgenderism are accurate (none of the people involved are confused, lying, suffering from mental problems, etc) which seems very unlikely, that still gives us a more than 99% correlation between biological sex and gender.[4] If the correlation was this high for anything else we would call people insane and stupid for challenging it. And yet this is only the people who make the trans-claim. The number of actually intersexed people is significantly smaller still.[5] Reasonable people can disagree about how big a number would be a genuine challenge, but it certainly needs to be higher than 1%. Nonetheless many people make this fallacious appeal and claim that we need to throw out the traditional and historical understanding of human beings as male or female. An anomaly or error factor of less than 1% does not establish this. This is simply bad reasoning, as Timothy McGrew illustrates with an example from the philosophy of science, “This point tells against a naive form of falsificationism according to which even the slightest mismatch between theory and evidence suffices to overturn a theory. But it is a grave exaggeration to claim, as some social constructivists have done, that the existence of an interpretive dimension to scientific inference undermines the objectivity of science.”[6]

No reasonable and serious thinker would or should attempt to argue that because there are children born with birth defects such as missing limbs that we should then conclude that it is normal, fine, and even good for a person to have missing limbs. Likewise, just because there are some people who are born seemingly genuinely intersexed it does not follow that this is normal or good.

And this type of bad reasoning is everywhere in our society. Someone proposes a new law, system or idea that will help people or address a problem. Opponents do an analysis of it and find out that it will ignore or even hurt a small amount of people. They then claim that the whole thing is a terrible idea because it will hurt a small amount of people. But virtually everything that human societies do will ignore or hurt at least a small amount of people. For example, I use the VA health care system. Reworking the VA likely would cause problems for me and other veterans; however, it might also cause it to run better and more effectively. The balance of problems vs effectiveness is an empirical question that can be answered, but it’s quite likely that even if on balance reworking the VA is a good thing, it will still cause problems for me and other veterans. It doesn’t follow that we shouldn’t do it just because of those problems. Perhaps the good of the reworking outweighs those problems.

People do this all the time with abortion as well wherein they point to very rare and extreme examples to justify their positions. This is done because those examples are so extreme that they invoke emotional responses that cloud judgement and make it harder to see the error. Anti-war protesters often do the same thing. They find an emotionally heartbreaking example of a civilian (usually a child) who was killed in the fighting and start harping on about how the whole war is terrible.

War is terrible, but depending on who is fighting and why, peace might be even worse. Further are the civilians being deliberately targeted? Did the military forces act negligently? Or is the civilian’s death a rare thing and reasonable steps were taken to avoid it? If it’s the latter, this is arguing from an extreme. It’s just naive and stupid reasoning to argue, “some civilians/children died, therefore the war must be abandoned.”

Sometimes, but not always, young earth creationists will do this too. They will point to the rare instances wherein a dating method gave odd, contradictory, or clearly false results and then argue the whole method must be flawed. But this is the same style of bad reasoning as it ignores the numerous other times the method worked.

So, here’s the point. You have a theory or idea that has met a fairly high standard. Say it seems to work 999 out of 1,000 times. Someone doesn’t like your idea and starts harping on and whining about the 1 out of a 1,000 saying, “See this proves it doesn’t work.” No, it doesn’t. Almost nothing humans do works 100% of the time. An error factor of 1 out of 1,000 is astonishingly good. That’s arguing from the extremes and it’s stupid reasoning that’s usually covered up by highly provocative and emotional examples. So, watch out for people doing this and don’t do it yourself.[7]

References: 

[1] I know David Hume claimed that that one time over a thousand proved induction doesn’t work. But Hume was wrong and foolish as he contradicted himself regularly and rejecting induction is a standard that even Hume admitted he could not live up to.

[2] Nicholas Rescher, “Philosophy as Rational Systematization,” in “The Cambridge Companion to Philosophical Methodology,” eds. Søren Overgaard and Giuseppina D’Oro. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 37.

[3] Here I mean people who have something off with their genetics and/or body such that they display the standard traits of both male and female. It’s quite rare, but it does happen. This is distinct from transpeople who claim to be the other a gender other than what their body manifests.

[4] Ian T Nolan, Christopher J. Kuhner, and Gelani W. Dy. “Demographic and temporal trends in transgender identities and gender confirming surgery,” Translational Andrology and Urology 8, no. 3 (Jun 2019), 184-190. Since this source is from seven years ago it’s possible the number is higher now, but the point still stands.

[5] Editor’s Note: The estimated numbers of intersex conditions can vary widely because there’s some dispute, within the relevant circles, about what conditions should be included as “intersex.” The numbers can also be affected by some blurring between Transgenderism and intersex, as “LGBTQIA+” activists have been known to try to envelope both of those groups for political purposes. Strictly speaking, transgenderism and intersex conditions merit careful distinction from each other. Transgenderism entails some combination cross-gender trans-ideology and trans-practice. That ideology distinguishes gender from biological sex, and interprets gender as a separable, subjective, and fluid social construct. Meanwhile, intersex is a biologically rooted phenomenon referring to a range of physical conditions affecting sex-differences (anatomy, genetics, hormones, neuro-chemistry, etc.). The term “intersex” itself is disputed as conservative and liberal interpreters disagree over what conditions qualify. For example, gynecomastia is extremely common yet labeling it as an “intersex” condition can radically swell the reported numbers of “intersex” conditions, potentially increasing the numbers of any larger-group attempting to claim intersex people as their own (Trans-activists, LGBTQIA+, Sex-positive activists, etc.). In reality, gynecomastic is often a negligible/innocuous conditions where males manifest some breast tissue that’s often unnoticeable. Other disorders affecting “cis-gendered” people can inhibit or exaggerated hormones, and those conditions are often quite treatable except in states that ban “conversation therapy” and uncharitably envelope treatments for intersex conditions. In that way, a “cis-gender” biological female, with suppressed estrogren production because of an intersex condition, might not be able to get critical medical treatment in her home state because her physicians could be sued for performing “gender-conservation” therapy on a trans-male.

[6] Timothy McGrew, “Evidence” in The Routledge Companion to Epistemology, eds. Sven Bernecker and Duncan Pritchard, 58-67, (New York: Routledge, 2011), 63.

[7] Some of this article was taken from essays I’ve presented at both the Evangelical Philosophical Society and the Society for Pentecostal Studies.

Recommended Resources: 

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

How Can Jesus be the Only Way? Mp4, Mp3, and DVD by Frank Turek

Debate: What Best Explains Reality: Atheism or Theism? by Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, and Mp3 

How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)   

 

Phil Kallberg Host of “The Examined Life” podcast is a proud follower of Christ, Phil Kallberg has an MA in Philosophy from Holy Apostles College and Seminary where he wrote a thesis on the Modal Ontological Argument for God’s existence. He greatly enjoys a good story, follows politics far more than is warranted, and makes use of a PlayStation for breaks from all the work of raising children and doing philosophy. Before studying philosophy Phil spent time in the military, worked several jobs in different fields, and thanks to his love of stories got a bachelor’s degree in English. Phil lives in Missouri with his wife, son and daughter. He may be reached for comment at theexaminedlifewithphil@gmail.com

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4mbENBM

/by

What a Straw Man Argument is and What is Not.

[Editor’s Note: in November 2025, at the Evangelical Philosophical Society meeting in Boston Massachusetts, Tim Stratton and Phil Kallberg presented a coauthored essay, “Is Divine Determinism a Different Gospel?”. You can see it here or listen to here. The provocative essay – critiquing a major brand of historic Christian thought: Calvinism – evoked some controversy. Phil responds here to one of the critiques.]

I’m inspired to write this both for the accusations of “straw manning” that came from Tim’s and my essay at the 2025 EPS, and due to examples that I have seen. While no one accused me of this directly (all the interactions I had with people in relation to the essay were positive, even when they were pushing back), I heard through the grapevine that some people were complaining that Tim and I were straw manning Calvinists and other divine determinists. Additionally, I did see examples of people straw manning Calvinists in response to Tim and my essay. I’m pretty confident that Tim and I didn’t do this, but some other people have. And further “straw manning,” is one of those accusations that gets tossed around pretty liberally these days so this whole thing will be instructive and useful elsewhere. So let me explain.

What is the Straw Man Fallacy?       


The straw man fallacy is when you deliberately misrepresent your opponent’s position to make it easier to argue against. It’s why from time to time you hear internet atheists complain that people believe in the “sky daddy” instead of critiquing the Kalam Cosmological argument. If you want some good non-philosophical examples of this just watch any Democrat and/or Republican talk about the other side. The reason for the name is that it’s obviously easier to attack a man made of straw than it is a real man. Now it’s important to notice what this is not. The straw man fallacy is not when you are ignorant of your opponent’s position and/or just get something wrong. Nor is it when there is a disagreement about what the entailments of that view are, i.e., “I think physicalism and naturalism necessarily lead to an amoral universe.” There are physicalists and naturalists who disagree and argue for a real objective morality. I think they are being inconsistent and will argue as such. They disagree and will argue against me. I’m not “straw manning” them by arguing “this is what follows from your view.” I’m only doing that if I claim that they are moral nihilists. I don’t claim that they are, rather my claim is that they should be moral nihilists or else they are inconsistent.

An Example in Atheism


So, to carry the example further, suppose I’m arguing against an atheist who argues that morality is just an illusion caused by evolutionary adaptation, like the late Micheal Ruse. An atheist who believes in objective morality (they do exist) might want to accuse me of straw manning him as “You claimed atheists don’t believe in morality, but I do.” But this is a misunderstanding of the straw man fallacy. If I’m arguing against Micheal Ruse, and he really did think that (he did), then there is no straw man here. The other atheist is free to disagree with Ruse and then he and I can discuss and argue about what he actually does think, and if a belief in objective morality is a reasonable, plausible, or even a possible outlook on atheism (it is on some variants and not on others). The point here is that if I can cite someone in group B who really does claim X, then it’s not straw manning if I argue against X, even if other people in group B reject X. At that point I should just be happy that those other people in the group have seen the light by rejecting X and they should be happy that they have an ally in arguing against X. At the worst my criticisms just don’t apply to those other people.

Now it is possible (but it’s unlikely) for someone to do the above in a very dishonest way where the error becomes something like straw manning. I could claim that all atheists follow the philosophy of Nietzsche and Marx (I wouldn’t. This is obviously wrong but just go with it for the example). Then I offer critiques of Marx and Nietzsche and claim that I have defeated atheism. An atheist who rejects Marx and Nietzsche would rightly take offense. If I knowingly do this that is straw manning. If I do this out of ignorance (I’m naive enough to think that Marx and Nietzsche are the authority on all things atheism) then that is a problem, but it’s not straw manning. It’s me not knowing what I’m talking about.

An Example from Politics 

Or for a political analogy, I might argue, “You shouldn’t vote for a Democrat as they support trans-surgery for minors and that’s wrong.” It is true that there are Democrats who support this. But not all Democrats do, so if you are one of the Democrats who don’t support such things did I straw man you with that argument? Since I can point to Democrats who do support such things this is not a straw man, but the moment I start claiming that you have that view then it is. It’s still a poor argument as it’s uncareful and doesn’t appreciate the nuance that many Democrats think and support different things, but it’s not a straw man.

And of course, it’s possible for people to make arguments like that in bad faith wherein they attribute minority and/or fringe views of the group to the whole. I suspect if we could ask all the self-described Democrats, “Do you support sex-change operations for 8-year-olds?” the majority of them would say no. So given this, if the above exchange happens, and you tell me, “well I’m a Democrat and I think such things are barbaric” then my response should be something like, “Good I’m glad you are with me on this.” If at that point I insist that since you are a Democrat you must support sex change operations for 8-year-olds, then I am straw manning you (and I’m being an obstinate fool).

So, straw manning is when you deliberately misrepresent someone or something to make it easier to argue against it. It is not when you misrepresent things due to ignorance or a mistake. Nor is it when you have a disagreement about the entailments of the viewpoint. If you make a mistake or speak out of ignorance and are given correction but continue in the initial error, then that becomes straw manning.

What about Calvinism?  

      
So, if you call yourself a Calvinist or some other type of divine determinist and also don’t think that God determines everything then it’s pretty likely that Tim and my criticisms just don’t apply to you. I strongly suspect that if you and I sat down to hash it all out I’d end up claiming that you are, in some way, being inconsistent as it seems to me Calvinism and other variants of divine determinism just naturally lead to the problems that Tim and I point to. But if you reject those problems then I say, “Great!” We agree on that point and I’m happy to have any ally in claiming things like it’s ridiculous to believe that God demonstrates love for people by condemning them to hell (for example). If you and I disagree about what is entailed by your theological and philosophical system and we are both being honest (or at least trying to be) then no one is straw manning anyone. We just have a philosophical or theological disagreement.

This is an area where I saw the “anti-Calvinists” (for lack of a better name) commit this fallacy. A significant amount of them claimed things like Calvinists don’t believe in the Bible. Now this is plainly not what any Calvinist claims. Further it’s the opposite of what every single one that I’ve read and talked to claims. When I attempted to drill down where those “anti-Calvinists” were getting this from it turned out that they thought that the theological system of Calvinism undermines the Scriptures and our ability to know and trust them (this argument sounds awfully familiar). I agree with that critique, but that’s an implication of the view, not the view itself. Hence those “anti-Calvinists” are straw manning Calvinists as they are attributing to them a view that is flatly denied. Now I think that is denied on pain of a contradiction or inconsistency, but we still need to give Calvinists credit for denying the claim that they don’t believe in the Bible. It’s not reasonable, fair, or good practice to do otherwise.

Naturally this has many implications in a lot of other areas as “straw manning” is one of those phrases that just gets constantly thrown around now. And some people do indeed do this in a malicious way. But I’ve found that much of the time people are simply confusing a disagreement about what logically follows from a view with straw manning. For now, I’ll just avoid getting into specific examples of people who do straw man in a malicious way. It’s not worth the time it would take, as it would probably just alienate people.

So, the point here is if someone is knowingly and maliciously misrepresenting you, that is straw manning. It’s not only a logical fallacy, it’s a moral wrong. But if someone is just ignorant of what you think, genuinely doesn’t understand your view, or disagrees with you on the implications of your view, that’s not straw manning.

Recommended Resources:

How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (MP3 Set), (mp4 Download Set), and (DVD Set) 

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)     

The Great Book of Romans by Dr. Frank Turek (Mp4, Mp3, DVD Complete series, STUDENT & INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, COMPLETE Instructor Set)

How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide

Phil Kallberg Host of “The Examined Life” podcast is a proud follower of Christ, Phil Kallberg has an MA in Philosophy from Holy Apostles College and Seminary where he wrote a thesis on the Modal Ontological Argument for God’s existence. He greatly enjoys a good story, follows politics far more than is warranted, and makes use of a PlayStation for breaks from all the work of raising children and doing philosophy. Before studying philosophy Phil spent time in the military, worked several jobs in different fields, and thanks to his love of stories got a bachelor’s degree in English. Phil lives in Missouri with his wife, son and daughter. He may be reached for comment at theexaminedlifewithphil@gmail.com


Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4qUzEPe

/by

5 Ways to Know You Are Judging Rightly

It was the only way I knew how to explain my love of Fixer Upper to my bewildered husband. Since the show aired, I would plunk myself down, yell in frustration (who picks a midcentury modern over a classic Victorian, I mean, come on!?), and bask in the beauty of the big reveal. Yes, I loved the shiplap, but like other Christian fans, what I enjoyed most was having a show featuring a Christian couple who truly loved each other.

What Christian fans weren’t expecting was to watch the designing duo green-light the normalization of homosexuality when they partnered with HBO for the newest reality, Back to the Frontier. The fallout gave fans everywhere a front row seat to a Christian accountability meeting, and they had a lot to say.

“Christians shouldn’t judge (Matthew 7:1)!”

“…All you holier-than-thou scripture-spouting know-it-alls pick and choose your bible verses to quote.” Toni (People Magazine)

“I guess someone forgot Matthew 7:1.”

Yep, Matthew 7:1 became the theological “shiplap” of the comments section–That verse was everywhere! What none of those folks seemed to realize, however, was that they, too, were judging. Which got me thinking, if the anti-judgment crew didn’t realize this, would the new believer? Would our kids? That’s why we are going to evaluate whether Christians can judge, and if so, how we can judge well. Grab your spiritual tool belts, mama’s. It’s demo day (Colossians 2:8).

To Judge Or Not To Judge?        

At first glance, Matthew 7:1 appears to be on the side of the comment critics. Jesus warns, “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.” If taken at face value, then everyone from Franklin Graham to Matt Walsh owes the Gaines an apology, but that would be a mistake. Why? Because this verse isn’t banning believers from making any judgments; it’s warning against making improper judgments.

At that time, the Jews (particularly the Pharisees) struggled with two huge problems: legalism and double standards. Instead of leading people to God from a place of humility, they set themselves up as God and rejected anyone who didn’t follow their own subjective version of the law (Matthew 12:1-8).

Jesus was setting things straight by saying that man isn’t holy enough to condemn someone eternally, and that accountability can’t be hypocritically applied. His warning in Matthew 7:1 was meant to spark humility by showing that if people were held to their own “measure,” they would quickly be found wanting. Instead, Jesus told them to examine their own hearts, repent, and then “remove the speck” from the eye of their brother (Matthew 7:3-6).

This is the method of righteous judgment. It leaves eternal judgment to God, while allowing believers to correct one another from a position of humility. Righteous judgment is necessary for protecting believers from false teachings and enables the believer to stand firm against the pressure of secular culture (Colossians 2:8 & Ephesians 6:11-18).

So yes, to follow God, a Christian can make and use good judgment. We can help our kids learn how to judge rightly by following five important practices.

#1- Be Theologically Sound

“Teach Me Knowledge And Good Judgment, For I Trust Your Commands.”
Psalms 119:66

To make the right judgments requires an objective standard of right and wrong from which we base morality. Where does that standard come from? Not man, not culture, but God. God’s word is very clear on sex, sin, and marriage, so then why is there so much debate?

There is a very real war being waged over the heart, mind, soul, and body of each one of us. One of Satan’s goals is to distort the word of God into a counterfeit faith to lure people away from Him. This is why, to judge rightly, we need to be immersed in scripture.

For more help on how to read the Bible well, check out our podcast here.

Next, check yourself before you wreck yourself. . . hermeneutically speaking. Does the conclusion you made align with the world of God, His nature, our identity, the reality of sin, and the redemptive work of Christ? If so, well done![1] This will help you avoid a common but preventable error: cherry-picking verses.

Cherry-picking is when a single verse or part of a verse is (often) taken extremely literally to advance a person’s own desires or conclusions without regard to the verse’s context or application. Like when the Pharisees gave themselves a free pass to perform circumcisions on the sabbath but condemned the disciples for “working” when they plucked a handful of grain for a snack (Matthew 12:1-2).

Sorry-not-sorry critics in the comments section! If you posted Matthew 7:1, you’re guilty of making a judgment based on a verse you had cherry-picked.[2]

When a bumper-sticker-worthy verse pops up during your quiet time, guide your children to read the passages (or chapters!) around it to properly discern its meaning. As you read together, point out how the passage reveals God’s goodness, his grace, and his redemption through Christ. From there, you can play “spot the counterfeit” whenever culture tries to offer its own broken version of love, empathy, and acceptance.

Our ROAR method is great for this and perfect for your next movie night!

#2- Be Restoration Focused 

Every righteous judgement needs two important ingredients: love and humility. Love delights in the truth (1 Corinthians 13). Humility is the anchor that roots our judgement in love. Humility reminds the believer of their life before Christ and guides us when we need to hold each other accountable.

How we do this will look different depending on who we are addressing. If addressing a non-believer, our approach will be evangelistic in nature. The goal is to point them toward Christ by seeking to find out what led them to that conclusion, gently address its logical failings, and offer an account of how truth is rooted in Christianity.

If we’re addressing a believer, our approach is gracious accountability. We affirm our mutual call to submit to the truth of God, address the biblical error, encourage the believer to repent, and be restored in righteousness (James 5:20).

To help kids be restoration-minded, role-play how you would address a correction in love by using a character on a show or in their favorite storybook. What tone should you use? If this person were a believer, how would you speak to them? How would our approach change if they are an unbeliever? How would you correct a logical error while pointing to the truth of Christ?

Remember kids, Elijah may be the patron saint of sass [3], but in most cases our tone should be heaped with grace (Colossians 4:6).[3]

#3- Be Seasoned with Salt   

Grace, however, isn’t possible without a little thing called truth. Truth is what enables us to make a right judgement.[4] If our conversions aren’t rooted in truth, then we will lead people into bondage through progressive affirmation. This is exactly what progressives want.

Progressive theology rejects the truth of God in exchange for whatever feels right to each person.[5] It’s part relativism, part spiritualism, mixed into a deadly cocktail of bad theology by a guy who looks like Jesus without any of his redeeming qualities. Pun intended.

The goal is to convince the theologically weak and the empathetic folks into believing that the truth of God is harmful to those who live contrary to his commands. To truly love their neighbor, Christians have to reject the idea of dying to self and accept everyone without question. This, dear reader, is a pack of lies.

Our kids need to know that we are not ‘casting stones’ when we make a right judgment.[6]   The most loving thing we can do is speak the truth. As you practice your ROAR, remind your kids that empathy is a gift from God. To Chip’s point, we can rightly listen and understand a person’s past, but a person’s past doesn’t get to censor the truth of God. In short, a person’s past should alter how we preach God’s word, not if we preach God’s word.

#4- Be Consistent in Word and Deed   

Now for a little heart check, mamas. Before we confront another, we need to ask two questions.

  1. Am I Currently Living In Sin? 
    I’m not meaning the random times where we fall short…like yesterday in traffic. If that were the case, then no one could judge anything! I mean, is there a part of our lives where we are living in habitual sin? If so, we have no business removing the plank from the eye of someone else until the sawdust is removed from our own, Matthew 7:3-6.
  2. Am I Applying A Double Standard?
    This “good for thee but not for me” problem wasn’t unique to the Pharisees. We, too, can develop this spiritual blind spot when we justify our own sin as “less sinful” than that of another. Don’t be fooled, mamas. Our kids notice when we draw the line at shows normalizing LGBTQ lifestyles, only to erase it when we watch the saucy period drama. When we make a judgment, we need to be consistent with that judgment.

Kids need to see what it looks like to live an integrated faith through our example. Model how to sacrifice earthly pleasures for the glory of God. Show them how to love like Christ, ask forgiveness, and stand firm in the faith. Remind them that it’s not possible to fully unplug from everything ungodly, but to the best of our ability, we can direct ourselves and our money toward that which glorifies God.[7]

#5- Be Confident In Christ       

One of my favorite quotes is from Jason Whitlock: “When we are fearful before God, we are fearless before culture.” This fearlessness is the heart of 2 Timothy 1:7, “For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.”

When our identity is rooted in Christ, we are issued a set of spiritual armor and are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, who gives us wisdom and the boldness to speak truth. The problem is that too many Christians either callously lob truth grenades or cower the moment a cultural criticism comes blazing toward them, Ephesians 6:16.

Who Then Do We Fear?  

Our kids need to know that to be set apart in Christ means that we are set against culture (John 15:18-19) while still seeking people (Matthew 28:19). People will hate us for speaking truth, but we aren’t called to seek man’s approval; we are called to seek righteousness.

To build up your child’s confidence, affirm their identity in Christ. Remind them that the world is going to push back, but we can equip ourselves for the challenge by knowing God’s word and rebuttals to common objections to the faith. Train them to recognize faulty logic, so when someone attacks their character (or their grammar), the baseless insult will bounce right off their shield of faith.

Final Thoughts     

It’s not easy to watch a believer defend their own worldly compromise, but it shouldn’t wreck us. Here’s the truth: if we are still breathing, and they are still breathing, the Holy Spirit is still working. We can encourage them in truth and lift them up in prayer, whether it’s a TV couple or a family member.

Additonal Resources:

Fallacy Detective by Nathaniel and Hans Bluedorn
The Theology Handbook by The Daily Grace Co.
10 Questions Every Teen Should Ask (and answer) about Christianity by Rebecca McLaughlin
Mama Bear Apologetics Edited by Hillary Morgan Ferrer

References: 

[1] If not, it could be due to a hermeneutical error. Check out our blog here. For some, however, it could be a worldview issue. See if you add anything to these two statements: I am a _______ Christian.  I am a Christian, but/and I believe__________. Whatever is added into those blank spaces will usually reveal what someone truly worships. For example, someone who calls themselves a “progressive Christian” is a person who doesn’t believe in the gospel but a filtered view that Jesus affirms whoever we say that we are and cheers us on as we live our best life now. It has a guy who looks like Jesus, but it’s a false worldview that, if believed, will lead away from Christ. Secondly, if anything was added after the “I am a Christian” statement, it too is usually what the person actually worships, be it social justice, LGBTQ+, BLM, etc. Please know that each of those movements is a separate worldview that is in direct opposition to God. You cannot be a Christian and follow a pop-cultural religion. Only Christ saves; every other religion falls short.

[2] Fair warning: critics will use the “cherry-picking” accusation when a believer rightly quotes scripture. So long as judgment you have taken the verse within context you aren’t cherry picking, you are quoting. There’s a big difference.

[3] 1 Kings 18 records his snarky mocking of the prophets of Baal. This is a description, not a prescription, folks.

[4] It is also a vital aspect of the nature of God, John 14:6.

[5] See chapter 15 of Mama Bear Apologetics.

[6] You practice your discernment with this comment posted on an article from the NY Post. Matt Lustig said: “…A true religion preaches love and acceptance. Jesus would tell us to love, accept, and be kind to everyone. Reverend Graham and those like him are false Christian’s.”

[7] To put this in perspective, you have supported a company who affirms LGBTQ+ & DEI if you have: electronics by apple or android; ate at Chik-Fil-A; shopped at Home Goods, Target, Wal-Mart, Costco, or Amazon; ate a Kellog’s product; had Starbuks; flew United, Delta, or American; have an American Express card; used Pinterest; and more!

Recommended Resources:

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)      

How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

 

Amy Davison is a former Air Force veteran turned Mama Bear Apologist. She graduated from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary with an MA in Christian Apologetics. She and her husband Michael (also former Air Force) have been married for over 17 years and have 4 kids. Amy is the Mama Bear resident expert on sex and sexuality, and she’s especially hoping to have that listed on her Mama Bear business card.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4rB6jLb

/by

What Philosophy Is, And Why You Can’t Avoid It

Many Christians believe that philosophy is a pagan discipline practiced either by ivory tower professors or Starbucks hippies. This belief has led some to object to the relevance of philosophy, as either they believe only a few can do it, or that it deals with such weird and abstract issues that it is a waste of time. Many Christian theologians object that philosophy is rooted in paganism, and thus has no place in Christian theology. After explaining what philosophy is, it should become clear that not only do these objections fail, but philosophy is unavoidable.

For the Love of Wisdom…

‘Philosophy’ literally means “love (phil) of wisdom (sophia).” It is the quest for knowledge, truth, and how to live the good (moral) life.

Fields of Philosophy

There are several branches of philosophy. One, and the most foundational, is metaphysics. Metaphysics is the study of being, or what it means to be real. While biologists study life insofar as things are living, and mathematicians study being as quantified, and physicists study being that is physical or in motion, the metaphysician studies what it means to “be” in general. They ask questions like, what is the difference between Snoopy and a beagle one can take for a walk?

Another branch of philosophy is epistemology, which is the study of knowledge. Epistemologists ask questions like, “How can knowledge be attained,” “What is knowledge,” and “Is there a difference between knowledge and belief?”

Moral philosophy seeks to know what it means to be good in the moral sense. Where does goodness come from, and what makes something good?

Logic studies right reasoning and the mistakes (fallacies) that are sometimes made when trying to make a rational argument.

Aesthetics studies the nature of beauty, and asks “What does it mean to be beautiful? Is beauty objective?” And so on.

From these categories there are any number of other philosophical fields. The philosophy of math deals with the nature of numbers, and asks if numbers are real (e.g. does the number 4 actually exist). In other words, it deals with the nature of math. Philosophy of science deals with the nature of science. The philosophy of history deals with the nature of history and historical knowledge. My area is philosophy of religion, which deals with issues like God’s existence, nature, how we talk about him, the problem of evil, and the nature of miracles.

Is Everyone a Philosopher?

When you say something that purports to be true, you are talking about reality, and are claiming to know something. You are also making a logical claim. Further, you are assuming (explicitly or implicitly) a certain view of how language works (philosophy of language). Even if you are just talking about the tree in your front yard, you are saying something about the tree’s existence and nature. I am not saying that everyone is a “philosopher” in the strict, academic sense. What I am saying, is that it is not possible to make statements about the world, God, or the Bible without taking philosophical positions, regardless of if you are aware of them or not.

Theology Can’t Avoid Philosophy

The same holds true for theology and biblical studies/interpretation. We cannot make theological claims without using philosophy. For example, when we talk about Jesus taking on a human nature, we must understand what a “nature” is. This is a philosophical category. When a scholar says that biblical interpreters cannot be objective due to their biases, this is a philosophical statement about the nature of objectivity, bias, the knower, and the knowing process.

Far from this being a pagan practice, it is how God made us. He made us rational beings. This is what makes us different from other animals. Philosophy is useful and unavoidable. Instead of trying to avoid it, we should try to become better philosophers, and worship God with our minds.

“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment.”
Matthew 22:36-38

Recommended resources related to the topic:

How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (MP3 Set), (mp4 Download Set), and (DVD Set)

Your Most Important Thinking Skill by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, (mp4) download

Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)

When Reason Isn’t the Reason for Unbelief by Dr. Frank Turek DVD and Mp4

 

J. Brian Huffling, PH.D. have a BA in History from Lee University, an MA in (3 majors) Apologetics, Philosophy, and Biblical Studies from Southern Evangelical Seminary (SES), and a Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from SES. He is the Director of the Ph.D. Program and Associate Professor of Philosophy and Theology at SES. He also teaches courses for Apologia Online Academy. He has previously taught at The Art Institute of Charlotte. He has served in the Marines, Navy, and is currently a reserve chaplain in the Air Force at Maxwell Air Force Base. His hobbies include golf, backyard astronomy, martial arts, and guitar.

Original Blog Source: Brian Huffling

 

/by

Is teaching kids about God child abuse?

People always tell me not to look at the comment section of a social media post. I didn’t listen.

We just promoted the new kid’s curriculum Let’s Get Real: Examining the Evidence for God, based on Turek and Geisler’s best seller:  I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. I anticipated backlash. I know the drill. You post something about God and the evidence that points to His existence and suddenly every atheist saddles up behind their keyboard to tell you why you’re wrong. What I didn’t expect was to be accused of child abuse.

Is teaching kids about God child-abuse?

This isn’t a new accusation against Christians. In Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion, he asserts that religious indoctrination is child abuse. However, Nicholas Humphrey, a neuropsychologist from Cambridge University, arguably said it first. In his 1997 lecture, “What Shall We Tell The Children,” he said, “In short, children have a right not to have their minds addled by nonsense. And we as a society have a duty to protect them from it. So we should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, in the literal truth of the Bible, or that the planets rule their lives, than we should allow parents to knock their teeth out or lock them in a dungeon.”

Here, Humphrey equates protecting children from religious indoctrination with protecting them from getting their teeth knocked out by their parents. Both are child abuse. So those who invade the comment sections and accuse parents of child abuse are only repeating what they’ve been indoctrinated with themselves. Although, I’d bet they don’t see it that way.

Christians indoctrinate their kids, but so do atheists.

Whenever I see accusations of child abuse because we are “indoctrinating our kids”, I think to myself, this guy doesn’t understand the meaning of indoctrination. So, let’s define our terms before we move on. “Indoctrination” has a negative connotation, but it didn’t used to. According to Dr. Lawson Murray, the word indoctrination entered the English language in the 17th century. Back then it meant to “teach doctrine.” Doctrines are a set of beliefs and ideas held by a church, political party, and many other groups. According to this definition, we all hold to specific doctrines – including atheists. Not one person is exempt from indoctrination or from indoctrinating others – including Humphrey, Dawkins, and those invading the comment section of a social media post.

It wasn’t until the 19th century that the definition of indoctrination changed to mean pushing an ideological viewpoint. In fact, indoctrination is often equated to brainwashing. You can find a simple definition of indoctrination from the Oxford dictionary which reads, “The process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.” Since that is the definition our current culture uses to define indoctrination, we’re going to roll with it as we examine the claim that indoctrinating kids about God and religion is child abuse.

None of us are neutral.

People who accuse Christians of indoctrination often say we should just let the kids figure out whether or not God exists on their own. That’s a nice thought, but they’re forgetting one thing: the world is not neutral. Everyone has a worldview that is filled with doctrines – things they believe about how the world operates. Everything you watch, read, or listen to comes from the creator’s worldview. Before a belief is adopted, it is first filtered through the mind. Everyone knows this, and they are not neutral about the ideologies they push through these mediums.

A Gen Z’er can’t watch TikTok these days without an elementary school teacher bragging about how her first graders are learning to accept her gay marriage. A teacher cannot open her laptop without getting an email from the teachers’ association on “Pride activities” to do during the month of June (raise your hand if you teach in California). A parent can’t send their kids to school without wondering if their child is going to come back with a new name, new pronouns, or come back at all (see California’s AB957).

If these examples aren’t enough to prove my point, I’ll mention Disney, Netflix, public libraries, and the latest Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie that made sure to drop a trans flag and an LGBT+ flyer in the background. I don’t think they got the message from the “don’t indoctrinate the kids” crowd.

Richard Dawkins had it right, almost.

In an article by the Daily Mail, Dawkins is reported as saying, “What a child should be taught is that religion exists; that some people believe this and some people believe that.” Wait, that almost sounds like unbiased education – educating a child to examine worldview claims and come to an informed conclusion. Do those who advocate against the religious indoctrination of children provide an honest case for conflicting worldviews? Not quite. As the Daily Mail also reports, “Professor Dawkins said at the festival that children should be taught religion but scorn should be poured on its claims.” Dawkins almost wasn’t hypocritical. Almost.

Why is it okay to indoctrinate kids against religion but not to indoctrinate them with religion?

It’s not only about what you teach but how you teach it.

I’m not here to suggest it’s okay for Christians to indoctrinate anyone. In fact, there is a critical piece of information that makes indoctrination brainwashing. Let’s revisit the definition so we’re on the same page. Indoctrination is “The process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.”

That means we have a responsibility to teach our children and students not only what to believe, but why we believe it. If you only tell your students what to believe but do not teach them how to examine the evidence, scrutinize worldviews (including Christianity), and ask questions, then you are, in essence, indoctrinating them.

To educate rather than indoctrinate, these three components must be an essential part of your teaching technique:

Three Essentials for Education over Indoctrination

1. Question: Every teacher knows that asking questions is one of the best ways to learn. In fact, further examination of the New Testament gospels show Jesus used questions to teach His disciples and the crowds. When Jesus was alone with His disciples, they had the opportunity to ask questions about His teachings, and Jesus took them to deeper depths of knowledge. To indoctrinate means the student is to accept the belief and ideology without question. But God does not require us to accept Christianity without question. If He did, why would Jesus ask so many questions to get people to think, inquire, critique, and examine His words and the world around them?

2. Analyze: To analyze means to carefully understand something, often by breaking it down into smaller easier-to-understand pieces. The Bereans were commended for this in Acts 17 by Luke the historian when he wrote, “Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” (Acts 17:10-11). A responsible teacher who passes knowledge to another does not expect them to accept what they believe without question. In fact, if any Christian teacher does not expect to be questioned, they shouldn’t be teaching. That’s my personal rule and I’m sticking to it. When we teach students to analyze the information like the Bereans to see whether or not it’s true, we teach our students how to think, not what to think. In other words, we educate, we don’t indoctrinate.

3. Evaluate: To evaluate means to assess the value of something: How good is it? Is it useful? Does it reflect beauty? Is it likely true? The apostle Paul wrote that we are to be careful not to be taken captive by “hollow and deceptive philosophy” (Col 2:8). How do we prevent that? By evaluating opposing worldviews and ideas to see which one best answers the worldview questions. Because they all have to. One of my favorite ways to teach my own kids is to watch secular movies with them and identify the worldview behind each one. We evaluate what is being promoted and why. There is always a problem and the problem has a solution, but does it work? Teaching our students to evaluate opposing worldviews keeps us on the side of educating them rather than indoctrinating them.

Secular Neutrality is a Myth

Just like everyone has a worldview, everyone has a belief about God. They either believe He exists or they don’t. They’re either with Jesus or they’re against Him. And everyone is coming from a worldview that is embedded into everything they write, post, sing, or film. And embedded throughout each of these mediums are doctrines – what they believe about how the world operates. They aren’t neutral about it.

So, is teaching your kids about God child abuse?

It’s no more a myth than when an atheist teaches them God doesn’t exist. The real question is, if you believe you have the truth, why not teach your students to question, analyze, and evaluate all worldviews and give them the tools to make an informed decision?

For More on this Important Topic check out: Train Your Brain

If you want your kids to learn how to think, sign them up for our new course Train Your Brain. Class begins October 1st. And if you’re an adult who needs to learn how to think, take the self-paced course to learn more. If you’re a teacher who wants to teach your students how to think, purchase the hard copy curriculum here.

Recommended

 Resources Related to this Topic

Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)
Your Most Important Thinking Skill by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, (mp4) download
How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)
When Reason Isn’t the Reason for Unbelief by Dr. Frank Turek DVD and Mp4
Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek
Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl (Book)
Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Shanda Fulbright is a credentialed teacher and has a certificate in Christian Apologetics from Biola University, a certificate from the CrossExamined Instructor’s Academy as well as several certificates from Online Christian Courses. She hosts Her Faith Inspires podcast where she takes cultural issues and aligns them to biblical truth. You can read her blogs and find out more about her at shandafulbright.com.

 

/by
The Decline of Christianity—and Rationality—in the West

The Decline of Christianity—and Rationality—in the West

, ,

By J. Brian Huffling

The Issue

On August 22, 2021, the Christian Post published an article that claimed greater “than 60% of born again Christians in America between the ages of 18 and 39 believe that Buddha, Muhammad and Jesus are all valid paths to salvation and over 30% say they either believe that Jesus sinned like other people” or that they “aren’t sure.” Further, the survey of “3,100 Americans ages 18 to 55 in 2020” saw a significant decline in what they call a “basic biblical worldview,” which includes issues such as the nature of God, the reliability of the Bible, salvation, as well as the sinlessness of Jesus. The number of people in that category dropped “from 47% in 2010 to 25% in 2020 among born again Christians.” What is referred to as “expanded biblical worldview” (beliefs regarding Satan and objective morality) fell “from 32% in 2010 to 16% in 2020.” There was a noticeable drop among “the general population” as well regarding basic biblical worldview beliefs (13% to 6%) and for expanded biblical worldview (9% to about 3%).

Assessment

Why is there a decline in such beliefs? According to Kirby Anderson, ethicist and president of Probe Ministries, such is “due to pastors not consistently teaching biblical theory” and to “young Christians who are not paying attention” due to being distracted by other issues, such as social media and whatever is more important to them.

Can people hold to these unbiblical positions and really be genuine “born again” Christians? The latter question is one for another time. I will focus on the former. I agree with Anderson on the point that to a degree pastors and church leaders share a blame in this situation. Churches are typically more interested in other issues than discipleship and genuine learning. Many if not most Christians cannot even articulate the basic beliefs of their faith. For example, such doctrines as the Trinity and the divinity of Christ are usually, or at least often, distorted by everyday Christians. Often, even pastors cannot accurately describe the basics of such doctrines. In some circles, a lack of theological education is actually celebrated as it allegedly takes the focus off of the Holy Spirit’s leading and teaching. If God tells us what to believe and what to talk about in church, then why go to school? I discuss these issues in another post I wrote about having an intellectual faith. However, simply knowing what the Bible says is not enough anymore. It is imperative that we not only know what Christianity is, but know whether we believe it, why we believe it, and how to defend it. The latter point is hardly discussed in churches.

However, pastors are not the sole cause of this problem. There are a host of such causes. While church is meant to foster and nourish our spiritual life, it is not meant to be the primary means to attain it. Our spiritual life should start at home.

Another issue is education in general. Students are often not allowed to fail in school. General knowledge of the world and the history of ideas has decreased. Critical thinking and logic have been taken out of the general curriculum. The list goes on and on. Feelings now trump logic, and the cardinal rule is not to offend others. Today, offending others is the unpardonable sin. A lack of logic and an abundance of feeling-driven inclusiveness has been a surefire formula for irrationality. Need an example? Who would have thought just a decade ago, let alone a generation ago, that one’s gender would not be an objective, scientific fact, but instead merely based on wants and feelings? Why do allegedly rational people go along with such insanity? Because we don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings and we want to be inclusive.

The same applies to religion. If one says that Jesus is the only way to salvation, then he necessarily is exclusive, unloving, bigoted, etc. Thus, the cardinal rule has been violated. Feelings are indeed elevated above reason and reality. So what is a person to do? I’m glad you asked.

Study Logic

Many of the ridiculous claims made today, such as every religion is true, can be disproven simply by understanding the basic rules of thought and reality. For example, the law of non-contradiction states that something can’t be X and not-X simultaneously. In other words, if one religion, such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, teach that a Creator brought about the existence of the universe, and pantheistic religions, such as Hinduism, teach that there is no Creator and the universe has always existed, then those two teachings cannot both be true. Since the existence of God is kind of a big deal in most religions, the denial of a deity would falsify many if not most religions. In other words, not all religions can be the same. Jesus cannot be the only way to salvation and not be the only way to salvation. It’s either one way or the other.

It is also important to note that every claim is exclusive as it says the opposite of it is false. While asserting that Jesus is the only way is exclusive and narrow, the opposite is just as exclusive and narrow. The number of people in consideration has nothing to do with the nature of the exclusiveness or narrowness of the actual claim. This brings us to another point:

Knowledge of Religious Teaching 

Many Christians might assert that the Bible does not say Jesus is the only way. However, the Bible makes such claims in abundance. For example, Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6. Further, Acts 4:12 states, “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” Thus, the Bible can logically be wrong, but it can’t be right and wrong on the same point at the same time, per the law of non-contradiction. It clearly asserts Jesus is the only way to salvation. If he isn’t, then the biblical claim is simply false. Thus, one can deny the Bible, but he can’t rewrite it. We are stuck with what it says, regardless of whether it breaks our cardinal rule of not offending others. The point: if this is a necessary belief for being a Christian, then one can deny it, but one can’t deny it and remain a true Christian. Rather than placing our emotions and desires as the standard of truth, the Bible inconveniences us with reason and reality—two inconvenient aspects to our current cultural milieu.

Pastors and Churches Can Prepare Their Congregants

There have been many polls like the one cited here that talk about 75% or so of youth ditching Christianity after their first semester of college. While I take exception to such numbers since many were probably not really believers to begin with, as a matter of principle it is absolutely true that parents and pastors should prepare youth for college. Motivational talks in church, church camps, and Christian concerts are great, but they don’t begin to teach young people how to articulate and defend their faith. Nonbelievers are ruthless in their hatred for Christianity and everything rational; so, it is important to train our youth to not only know the basics of Christianity but also be able to explain why they believe it.

Parents Should Train Their Children

While churches share in the culpability of these issues, parents also have a vital role to play in the education of their children. Schools and churches help with that, but ultimately, if we have children brought up in our homes and church, and their Intro to Philosophy professor wrecks their faith in just a few weeks, then they probably weren’t very well-educated about their faith to begin with. (All of this says something about the notion that one should simply take Christianity’s claims on faith alone, where faith means unreasonable or blind faith. Not only is this irrational and unbiblical, but it is also dangerous since it leaves one open for serious doubt when faced with it.)

Where to Go for Answers

When I was fifteen, I started asking myself questions about my faith. I didn’t doubt it, but I wasn’t sure why I believed it. It dawned on me one day that when it comes to religion, everyone thinks he is right. Well, we can’t all be right, per that persistent law of non-contradiction. So, how did I know I was right? I started studying apologetics (being able to defend one’s position, in this case on Christianity) at a very lay level. In college, I decided I wanted a more in-depth knowledge of such issues. I discovered Southern Evangelical Seminary. SES is one of the top schools in the world for studying apologetics. (Disclaimer: I currently am a professor at SES.) SES offers certificates, a bachelor’s degree, several master’s degrees, a doctor of ministry, and a Ph.D. All programs of study have an apologetic component integrated into the fabric of the courses. If you are interested in learning how to better understand and defend your faith, or help your family do so, let SES help you!

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Counter Culture Christian: Is There Truth in Religion? (DVD) by Frank Turek

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD) by Frank Turek

How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)  

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Brian Huffling, PH.D. have a BA in History from Lee University, an MA in (3 majors) Apologetics, Philosophy, and Biblical Studies from Southern Evangelical Seminary (SES), and a Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from SES. He is the Director of the Ph.D. Program and Associate Professor of Philosophy and Theology at SES. He also teaches courses for Apologia Online Academy. He has previously taught at The Art Institute of Charlotte. He has served in the Marines, Navy, and is currently a reserve chaplain in the Air Force at Maxwell Air Force Base. His hobbies include golf, backyard astronomy, martial arts, and guitar.

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/REXYwwu

 

/by

It’s Logically Impossible To Avoid Logic

By Alex McElroy

The only foundation upon which one should build their life is the truth. The truth should be sound, logical, and justifiable. Most, if not all, people would agree with that sentiment. However, the factors that one uses to determine what is true and what role truth ultimately plays in one’s life are where worldviews tend to diverge. Therefore, it is necessary for each individual to build or understand the epistemic structures that are reliable guides on how to determine what is true about the world around them.

Scottish poet and Christian minister George MacDonald said, “to give truth to him who loves it not is but to give him more plentiful material for misinterpretation.” Therefore, the first question to be asked and answered is, are you open to the truth wherever it may lead? Additionally, whether one presupposes a Christian or atheistic worldview, there are further delineations that exist in either framework. Within a Christian worldview, some believe that reason or philosophy as a means to acquire truth subverts the essence of faith. Others believe that without some level of reasoning ability, we can never truly come to faith. Let’s explore the perceived tension between faith and reason with a particular focus on the potential ramifications for misunderstanding how the Bible supports and encourages our reasoning capabilities. The fact is that the ability to reason soundly is wholly intertwined with sustaining Christian faith, which is trust in Jesus Christ.

Faith Is…

Noah Webster, the creator of the dictionary that bears his name and the Father of Christian Education, famously said, “education is useless without the Bible.”[1] In 1828, he published the first edition of his dictionary. Within that dictionary, the word faith was defined as affectionate practical confidence in the testimony of God. It was further defined as “a firm, cordial belief in the veracity of God, in all the declarations of his word, or full and affectionate confidence in the certainty of those things which God has declared, and because he has declared them.” [2] The current definition of the word faith in the subsidiary dictionary of Noah Webster, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary reads, “a firm belief in something for which there is no proof.” [3] That is quite a departure from how faith was once defined, and it adequately reflects the current societal disengagement with anything remotely religious.

The idea that Christians place their faith or trust in a God for whom no evidence exists is popular, but apologists, scientists, and philosophers are providing the material to combat that notion. Craig and Moreland write, “One of the awesome tasks of Christian philosophers is to help turn the contemporary intellectual tide in such a way as to foster a socio-cultural milieu in which Christian faith can be regarded as an intellectually credible option for thinking men and women.”[4] Christian faith can, therefore, be defined as trusting in the eternal person, presence, and work of God. The Bible clearly states that without faith, it is impossible to please God. [5] However, the Bible never calls us to have blind faith. As we will see, God the Father, Jesus, and the Biblical authors place a high view on evidence, thinking, and reasoning.

Reason Is…

Unfortunately, there exists within current Christianity a wave of anti-intellectualism. Moreland notes that as early as the mid-19th century, anti-intellectualism was beginning to have an impact. He writes:

But their overall effect was to overemphasize immediate personal conversion to Christ instead of a studied period of reflection and conviction; emotional, simple, popular preaching instead of intellectually careful and doctrinally precise sermons; and personal feelings and relationship to Christ instead of a deep grasp of the nature of Christian teaching and ideas. Sadly, as historian George Marsden notes, ‘anti-intellectualism was a feature of American revivalism.’[6]

The impact of anti-intellectualism has only been accelerated with the advent of postmodernism. Reason is necessary in order to push back against a postmodern mindset, which denies absolutes and objective realities. Such a mindset actually becomes self-refuting, and that fact can only be demonstrated by engaging in sound philosophy. It is to this task that the Christian and especially the apologist, must not retreat. Therefore, in order to move forward, we must define reason. Moreland writes, “By reason, I simply mean the faculties, in isolation or in combination, I use to gain knowledge and justify my beliefs.”[7]

The point was made that postmodernism, in many instances, becomes self-refuting. For example, Nicolas Wolterstorff references:

A lecture by Anthony Flew, which contended that if one scrutinizes how people guard their religious convictions one sees that they treat them as compatible with the happening of anything whatsoever. In other words, these beliefs are not falsifiable. And because they are not falsifiable they do not constitute genuine assertions. They make no claims on actuality… scientists convinced of the truth of some scientific theory behave exactly the way Flew says religious believers do.[8]

Here we can see that such a scientist becomes guilty of the same type of faith they falsely accuse the Christian of exercising.

Already, it has been demonstrated how accurate reasoning can be employed to diffuse the often-incomplete reasoning of naturalists and how a lack of philosophy can do much to hinder the advancement of the church. In order to apply this understanding of reason and its necessity, one should also consider the futility of eschewing reasoning in the attainment or sustainment of the Christian faith. Even if someone got saved in a miraculous spiritual experience, they would still have to make a decision not to simply write that experience off as a freak event. A choice must be made regarding whether or not one will acknowledge that experience as evidence of God’s existence. Once that choice is made, you have engaged your reasoning ability.

Even to come to the conclusion that faith, which often comes from reading the Bible, is the essential component for acquiring faith or a proper understanding of Christianity, you have arrived at that conclusion by employing your reasoning abilities. To say otherwise would be akin to an atheist like Richard Dawkins writing about the nonexistence of God but not recognizing that the rationality necessary to make such a statement only exists if God exists. If our brains are simply a product of time, matter, and chance, that would hardly be the recipe for a source of sound reasoning. Or it is like the postmodernist who writes that no objective truths exist while desiring us to believe their own reasoning embedded in such a statement. Reason, if real, presupposes the ability to know that we have the structural components to choose between a range of options.

The naturalist cannot sustain this proposition, and the theist who places an undo emphasis on faith without reason equally cannot sustain the proposition unless they posit that God miraculously causes only some people to have faith in Him. “The law of the excluded middle says that P is either true or false; or, put somewhat differently, either P is true or its negation, not-P, is true.”[9] In other words, we all must make a choice. The option to not choose is invalid. Either reason is firmly grounded in the mind and nature of God, our Creator, or we don’t have the ability to reason at all. However, if we do have it, it must be because God desires that we use it.

How Faith And Reason Work Together

Apologetics helps us to grow in confidence as disciples of Jesus as we begin to see the value of reason and how unbiased reasoning actually affirms the tenets, mandates, and principles of Christianity. With such understanding, a Christian worldview is no longer our version of the truth; it is communicated as an accurate depiction of reality. Peter tells us to “always be ready to give a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you.”[10] The Apostle Paul, in his brilliant oration on Mars Hill in Acts 17, confidently and thoughtfully provided an explanation for the truth of the gospel, who God is and what He desires of us. Klein and Blomberg note that “in each case, these preachers sought to establish common ground with their audiences in order to gain the greatest possible acceptance of their message.” [11] Neither Peter nor Paul assumed that those they spoke to would simply be able to look at nature and come to faith in God. In fact elsewhere, Paul writes, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them because God has shown it to them.” [12] This implies that some other method may be of use to prevent the truth from being suppressed.

This is not to say that unless Christians become master philosophers and apologists that God will never be able to save anyone. Rather there is a partnership that should exist between faith and reason. Romans 10:9-10 informs us that salvation comes through confident confession in Christ as our Lord and Savior and a belief in our hearts. That belief is the result of choice based upon sound logical, historical, and experiential evidence. Belief should always be justified and warranted. John Skorupski raises and answers some important questions. He writes, “Rational explanation raises questions at the philosophical level. What connection must hold between your response and the facts that warrant it, for you to be said to respond from that warrant? What is it to be aware of, to recognize, a warrant? Do you have to believe that you have a warrant?” [13] Do Christians have a responsibility to have good reasons for believing what they believe, or is the internal witness of the Holy Spirit enough? Skorupski goes on to write those rational explanations are, “to be understood as short for explanations which explain an actor’s response by showing that it proceeded from the actor’s recognition that it was warranted. A rational explanation explains a person’s response (belief, feeling, action) as proceeding from a warrant.” [14] Whatever factors (philosophical, moral, spiritual, or academic) motivate the individual to come to salvation, they will always have a warrant.

The Inescapability Of Philosophy

Some Christians distrust our ability to reason well due to our fallen nature. Therefore, they believe there should always be a tension between faith and philosophy. Steve Wilkens notes that “many who embrace the Tension view emphasize the vast ontological distance that distinguishes Creator from creation. God’s transcendence, this perspective argues, necessitates that the means by which we know of God differ from the process by which we come to other types of knowledge.” [15] Our sinful nature should cause us to examine our reasoning against the truth of Christianity. However, those who avow the faith and philosophy in tension perspective “view that sin’s lingering effects continue to diminish and distort reason’s capacity to comprehend divine truth even after regeneration. Thus reliance upon rationality to discern the nature and ways of God does more harm than good.” [16]

This seems to present problems because what follows from such a view is that at no point are we able to reason well. This means to be able to support a tension view; you have to be able to trust that your perspective is not corrupted by your continued inability to reason well! Furthermore, an overemphasis on keeping faith and philosophy in tension will prevent Christians from engaging in the necessary activity of combating purely secular philosophy.

What Is At Stake

Much is at stake in determining the proper relationship faith should have with reason. Were philosophy and thereby reason to be completely removed from matters pertaining to faith, what could our children do when challenged in school by seemingly well-reasoned arguments? Conversely, if philosophy and reasoning are given too large a platform in Christianity, they may overshadow the uniqueness and beauty of the gospel. The Greek word most commonly used for ‘faith’ in the New Testament is pistis, which, according to Strong’s Lexicon, means a conviction of the truth of anything. In order to hold to orthodox Christian beliefs and defend those beliefs against heretical beliefs, a mature Christian should be willing and able to delineate reasons for their belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who was crucified, buried and rose from the grave. To say to someone “just have faith” when God has graciously provided us with evidence seems unnecessarily antagonistic and does not, in the end, affirm the person of God.

In practice, the ability to reason soundly is entirely interlaced with actualizing and sustaining faith in Christ. The reason we fellowship with other believers is in order to grow in our understanding of God. The reason we evangelize to non-believers is to see them enter into a relationship with God as well. There are, however, many Christians who have placed their faith in Christ but who don’t evangelize. Sometimes this is due to a lack of certainty about the validity of Christian claims. Perhaps, reason and philosophy could aid such a Christian in gaining confidence in their faith, which would compel them to be more active in the work to which we have all been called.

C.S. Lewis wrote:

“If all the world were Christian, it might not matter if all the world were uneducated. But, as it is, a cultural life will exist outside the Church whether it exists inside or not. To be ignorant and simple now — not to be able to meet the enemies on their own ground — would be to throw down our weapons, and to betray our uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defense but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered. The cool intellect must work not only against cool intellect on the other side, but against the muddy heathen mysticisms which deny intellect altogether. [17]

Christians would be wise to heed the words of a man who referred to himself as “England’s most reluctant convert.” C.S. Lewis was converted through conversations with other Christians who challenged his reasoning and philosophy and provided him a more coherent, well-reasoned worldview. [18] This is why the ability to reason soundly is wholly intertwined with initiating and sustaining Christian faith, which is trust in Jesus Christ.

References

[1] Luteria Archambault, Challenges, and Objections: Meeting Them Head On. (Bloomington, IN Westbow Press, 2013)5.

[2] Noah Webster, A Dictionary of the English Language. (London, England: Black, Young, and Young, 1828).

[3] The Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (Martinsburg, WV: Quad Graphics, 2016).

[4] J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2017)4.

[5] Hebrews 11:6 NKJV

[6] J.P. Moreland, Love Your God With All Your Mind. (Colorado Springs, CO: NAVPRESS Publishers, Inc., 1997), 16.

[7] Ibid., 45.

[8] Nicolas Wolterstorff, Reason Within the Bounds of Religion. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984), 24.

[9] Moreland, Philosophical Foundations, 120.

[10] 1 Peter 3:15

[11] William Klein, Craig Blomberg & Robert Hubbard Jr., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation: Third Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017)541.

[12] Romans 1:18-19

[13] John Skorupski, The Domain of Reasons. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2010), 2 of 33.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid., 13.

[16] Ibid.

[17] C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory. (New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, 1949), 58.

[18] David C. Downing, The Most Reluctant Convert. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 147-8.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)   

Right From Wrong by Josh McDowell Mp3

When Reason Isn’t the Reason for Unbelief by Dr. Frank Turek DVD and Mp4

Counter Culture Christian: Is There Truth in Religion? (DVD) by Frank Turek: http://bit.ly/2zm2VLF

 

Alex McElroy is an international speaker, apologist, leadership advisor, author of the book “Blueprint for Bible Basics” and writer for the blog “Relentless Pursuit of Purpose.” He is one of the founding Pastor of at Engage Community Church and formerly the Pastor of Education at New Life Covenant Southeast Church, led by Pastor John F. Hannah with 20,000 members. For over 14 years, Alex has served in both youth and adult teaching ministries. Alex has also trained hundreds of teachers and ministers, so they are equipped to deliver lessons in Biblical study, purpose, leadership, and Apologetics in order to maximize their effectiveness in and for the Kingdom of God. He is a firm believer that everyone is born on purpose with a purpose. He teaches people all over the world to find the purpose God has placed inside of them and to deliver it to the world.

/by

Does logic apply to God? And other questions

Podcast: Play in new window

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

Can we put God in a box of our own logic?  Aren’t His ways higher than our ways?  Did God invent logic?  Did human beings invent it?

Frank goes deep into those questions to the foundation of reality.  He also takes a fresh look at an often-misinterpreted passage in Isaiah 55 about God’s ways being higher than ours.

Other questions addressed in this show include:

  • Is morality subjective and based on the majority vote?
  • Does every negation really imply an affirmation?
  • How can Hell be separation from God if God is everywhere?

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!

Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google

Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

/by
No, the argument from miracles has not been debunked

No, the argument from miracles has not been debunked (Pt. 1)

,

By Erik Manning

Is the argument from miracles full of fallacies? Popular atheist YouTuber ‘Rationality Rules’ argues that’s the case. Rather than examining miracles on a report-by-report basis, he opts to say that the case for miracles is doomed from the start. This reasoning follows the tradition of the famous 18th-century philosopher David Hume.

For those of you who aren’t into YouTube, Rationality Rules has had his channel since March of 2017. In that short time, he’s gained over 200k subscribers and has had nearly 15 million views.

There’s a cottage industry of channels similar to his and we shouldn’t underestimate their influence. These are sharp skeptics making entertaining and digestible videos packed with thought-provoking content. As believers, we’d be lazy not to respond to their arguments.

Here’s his video on miracles in full. Here I’ll focus on his main points:

Does the argument from miracles fail to support Theism?

Here’s Rationality Rules first objection to the argument from miracles:

“The vast majority of miracles wouldn’t prove the existence of a god, even if they were indeed true. Or in other words, they don’t support theism. For example, even if it were unimpeachably true that a man called Jesus resurrected, this would not, in the slightest, prove that the universe had a creator! Nor would prove that Jesus turned water into wine; that he healed the blind; that he walked on water; or that he was born of a virgin… all it would prove is that a man called Jesus respawned and that he had terrible lag because it took him three days!…”

While I appreciate the video game reference, this argument against miracles is hardly a “game over” for the Christian. Jesus’ resurrection absolutely supports theism and fits poorly in a naturalistic worldview. For starters, the gospels report that Jesus said that the resurrection would prove his message:

“Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.” He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” (Matthew 12:38-40)

Secondly, the resurrection didn’t happen in a vacuum. Jesus’ preached the kingdom of God and called himself the Son of Man. The Jewish expectation at that time was the Messiah was coming and bringing his kingdom. That’s a historical fact.

The Roman historian Suetonius says this regarding the Jewish revolt against Rome “There had spread over the Orient an old and established belief, that it was fated at that time for men coming from Judea to rule the world.” 

Tacitus also picks up on this prophetic expectation: “…in most, there was a firm persuasion, that in the ancient records of their priests was contained how at this very time the East was to grow powerful, and rules, coming from Judea, were to acquire universal empire…”

The 1st-century Jewish historian Josephus also mentions this hope: “But now, what did most elevate them in undertaking this war was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how “about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth.” 

All three of these ancient historians applied these Jewish predictions to the Roman Emperor Vespasian, including even Josephus, oddly enough. He was, after all, a turncoat from the Jewish side to Rome.

So where did this expectation come from? If you read the prophecies from Daniel 2, 7, and 9, there was an understanding that there would be four great kingdoms before the kingdom of God would come.

Those kingdoms were believed to be Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. During the time of the Roman kingdom, the Son of Man would bring his kingdom and reign over the whole earth. (Daniel 7:13-14) The Messiah would come some 490 years after the rebuilding of Jerusalem, which had been destroyed by the Babylonian Empire.

You can also see this expectation in the New Testament writings. Even John the Baptist had to deny that he was the Christ. (John 1:20) Luke 3:15 says “Everyone was expecting the Messiah to come soon, and eager to know whether or not John was he.” (TLB)

This is also why Paul said things like: “At the right time, Christ died for the ungodly, or “…when the time had fully come, God sent his Son….” (Romans 5:6, Galatians 4:4) And the gospel writers have Jesus repeatedly referring to his appointed hour. (John 2:4, 7:30, 8:20, 12:23-24, Mark 14:41)

These prophecies are extremely fascinating and it would take another blog post to fully unpack their importance, but here’s the point: Jesus’ resurrection wasn’t some anomalous event devoid of spiritual significance. While it wasn’t the way many Jews expected the Messiah to come, the resurrection reportedly happened in an atmosphere charged historical and religious meaning.

Furthermore, his closest followers boldly proclaimed that God raised him. And they didn’t say the resurrection was the work of some generic god, but the God of Israel who performed this amazing sign. (Acts 2:22-24) Jesus’ disciples had the best vantage point to interpret the significance of this event. The one that was raised must have said that it was God who raised him. This is hardly some random miracle.

Let’s turn to Rationality Rule’s second objection:

Is the argument from miracles an argument from personal incredulity?

“The second and perhaps most obvious flaw with miracles is that they almost always commit either an Argument from Ignorance or a Personal Incredulity Fallacy.

To illustrate this, consider the following: Throughout history, there have been numerous accounts of flightless animals raining from the sky – and needless to say, on just about every occasion, someone somewhere has asserted that a miracle has occurred, because, “there’s no other explanation”. 

Now, of course, it’s fair to say that flightless animals don’t just fall from the sky, but one can’t simply assert that a miracle has occurred simply because there’s “no other explanation”… that would be, and is an outrageous Argument from Ignorance! 

It is, in essence, “we don’t know, therefore god”. Anyhow, as it turns out, we now actually do have an adequate explanation (which, by the way, perfectly demonstrates why Arguments from Ignorance are flawed). 

This explanation is, quite simply, a tornado that’s formed over a body of water (otherwise known as a waterspout), that’s then hurled water and aquatic animals over land… it’s is a bizarre phenomenon, incredible even, but it’s not a miracle, because it doesn’t violate the laws of nature. 

Yet, despite the fact that we now know exactly how flightless animals can rain from the sky, many people still assert that the only explanation is divine intervention, because they either don’t personally know about waterspouts, or they don’t understand them, which…is a Personal Incredulity Fallacy.”

Rationality Rules is right about one thing: Nature does some weird things sometimes and we’re not justified in attributing miracles to every gap in our understanding. That would be an argument from ignorance.

But let’s think about it for a moment: When it comes to the resurrection of Jesus, will there ever be a time when scientists discover a law shows that dead people do not stay dead after three days?

Given everything we know, that seems just as likely as discovering new laws that overturn the law of gravity. While there is some personal incredulity that’s unwarranted  — like why flightless animals can at times rain from the sky — some things stubbornly resist our current framework of science. This has caused us to revise our framework when needed, but why can’t there be a case that’s so obstinate that it would resist scientific explanation altogether?

If atheists want to say that that can never possibly happen, that would be an extreme example of begging the question.

This is why many skeptical New Testament scholars (like Gerd Lüdemann and Michael Goulder, for instance) opt to naturalistically explain the specific evidence we have for the resurrection.

In fact, many of Rationality Rules’ fellow skeptical YouTube colleagues would seem to rather put forward arguments against the existence of the historical Jesus altogether. They clearly understand the theistic implications of the resurrection!

The argument from miracles: Not Debunked

Jesus’ resurrection was either natural or supernatural. Based on what we scientifically know today, natural causes isn’t a live option.Therefore, given that Jesus claimed to be divine and those who saw him after his resurrection claimed God raised him, the supernatural explanation is the most plausible one. This is especially true when we consider how poorly naturalistic explanations fare in comparison.

This isn’t an argument from ignorance, it’s just abductive logic — inference to the best explanation. We use this type of reasoning all the time, especially in science, history and in cases of law.

So unless we beg the question against the existence of God, we can’t just rule out miracles from the get-go. Now, Rationality Rules could try and debunk the evidence for the resurrection, but if he does that, he repudiates his second argument against miracles.

But Rationality Rules has two more objections to the argument from miracles. In my next post, we’ll look at them and see if those arguments stick better than his first couple. So far, he’s not off to a promising start.

 

Erik Manning is a former atheist turned Christian after an experience with the Holy Spirit. He’s a freelance baseball writer and digital marketing specialist who is passionate about the intersection of evangelism and apologetics.

/by
Do I Have to Be Absolutely Certain Before I Can Say Christianity Is True

Do I Have to Be Absolutely Certain Before I Can Say Christianity Is True?

By Robby Hall

Recently here in my state, a man was acquitted of manslaughter in the death of his girlfriend.  In response to the loss, the District Attorney who prosecuted the case stated:

“…Of course, we’re gutted, However, what people will not understand is this: The number one reason we lost is the burden of proof in a circumstantial case is not just beyond a reasonable doubt but it’s far higher.”

Is this true?  Do I need to be absolutely certain before I can say this man is guilty or innocent?  What about the case for Christianity?  Do I need to be certain of every detail before I can accept the evidence as pointing to it being true?

The truth is, you don’t.  In fact, most of the time, we know things are true or false without having all of our questions answered.  But this brings up a question:  How does one weigh evidence?

According to J. Warner Wallace, semi-retired Cold Case Detective and Christian author and speaker, understanding evidence first begins with understanding the difference between direct and indirect evidence[1]

Direct evidence is eyewitness testimony.  A person witnesses a robbery and testifies in court.  That is a direct evidence case.  Indirect evidence is everything else.  Indirect evidence is also known as circumstantial evidence.  Even DNA and fingerprint evidence is not direct.  It’s only a fact.  In a circumstantial case, you draw inferences from the facts [evidence] you are presented.  People can draw different inferences from the same facts.  A lot of this can be based on your personal bent.  So what you must do is set aside your presuppositions and determine to follow the evidence wherever it leads – even if it’s to a place you do not like.

Circumstantial evidence can make the strongest case for Christianity by building a cumulative case.  A cumulative case can be compared to a puzzle.  Once the pieces begin to be put together, they start to form a picture.  At some point, if there are enough pieces, you can see what the picture is even if you don’t have all of the pieces.

Rational Inference is a basic law of logic and all of the facts are not required to make such an inference.  There is a huge, circumstantial, cumulative case for Christianity.  And when you weigh all of the evidence together, you begin to see the picture of Christ form.  There will still be unanswered questions.  I have them and you will too.  But we don’t make decisions based on being absolutely certain.

Back to the criminal case.  I was not there to see the evidence; I’ll leave it up to the jury.  But if the DA thinks that a circumstantial case requires a higher burden of proof, he may have sunk his own case or had a bad one.

If you think you can’t be a Christian because you cannot answer every question, apply that same burden of proof to everything else you think is true and see if those things hold up under the same scrutiny.  You may find your case for those things wanting.

Note ​

[1] http://coldcasechristianity.com/2018/why-its-important-for-christians-to-understand-the-difference-between-possible-and-reasonable-doubt-video/coldcasechristianity.com/2018/why-its-important-for-christians-to-understand-the-difference-between-possible-and-reasonable-doubt-video/

 

Robby Hall is in the Secure Access industry for Information Technology. He has been married for 3 years and has just welcomed his first child, Bridget. He is graduate of the Cross Examined Instructor’s Academy and leads apologetics small groups at his local church.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2tyl71K

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]

/by