Luke Nix Archives - CrossExamined

Tag Archive for: Luke Nix

Unconditional Love or Unconditional Affirmation?

Human origin is a fascinating area of research today. With all the different models for the origins of humanity being proposed, I see an increase in the discussions, both scientific and theological. For everyone reading this post, this area of research should be of utmost interest for you as well. Two critical ideas about humanity are at stake depending on which model (or family of models) is true: intrinsic and equal human dignity and value, and the sinfulness of humanity.

The age-old debate about God’s existence has great implications on this area of the debate about human origins. The Judeo-Christian claim that all humans are created in God’s Image and that humans possess a sin nature that will cause them to tend toward the immoral. These paradoxical doctrines together explain both the greatness and wretchedness of humanity that we see every day, throughout history, and expect in the future.

The Image of God

If we are created in the image of God that means that all humans possess intrinsic and equal human dignity and value (Genesis 1:26-28).[i] If this is false, then humans are not valuable in virtue of their being human but in virtue of a myriad of other characteristics and statistics that change in fashion with the culture. One moment a human can be valuable and the next moment they are not. If humans do not have value at any point, that gives justification for their expendability (murder) at the hands of those who have power over them at that point. If humans are not created in the image of God, then there is nothing wrong with humans abusing their power against other humans. Any model of human origins that does not allow for the Image of God in humans places the very lives of every human at risk.

Human Sinfulness

Genesis also records that Adam and Eve sinned against God and with that action brought the sin nature into all future humans (Genesis 3). Humans are not born good or even neutral. This means that the abuse of power described above is not just possible but inevitable. Any model of human origins that does not allow for the Fall or for the transfer of the sin nature (whether through the biological, spiritual, or some combination) denies this element of human psychology, sociology, and history (Genesis 5:1-3; 9:6; James 3:9).

Denying Both?

Any model that does not allow for one or the other already makes human lives less worthy of protection because either it is not worth protecting or there is nothing to necessarily protect against. But if a model denies both, then that is a recipe for disaster. This means that the debate about human origins is not just a scientific question but also a philosophical one, even for the atheist or naturalist. An interesting analysis of the implications of these two characteristics is provided in Os Guinness’ book The Magna Carta of Humanity which I highly recommend, particularly for those involved in human origins discussions and debates. It provides a renewed urgency for the importance of the debate about human origins.

Should Theology Judge Science?

I often hear the claim that many Christians allow their theology to determine their interpretation (and maybe even rejection) of the scientific data. The implication is that we should not allow any knowledge discipline (or at least, theology) other than science in developing our model or that we should at least give precedence to science.

It is important to recognize at this point the distinction between “science” and the “data of nature.” The discovered data is the raw information that must be accommodated in any model, whereas “science” is the interpretation of that data. That interpretation is fallible, but not necessarily false. There are many sources of truth about human nature, including philosophical, historical, and theological sources; and that information should be recognized and accommodated in any model of human origins if it’s to accurately reflect the natural history of human origins. That’s our best shot at identifying what really happened. Just as the data of nature can judge our interpretation of the data of history and Scripture, the data of history and of Scripture can judge our interpretation of the data of nature in virtue of their being true.

[Editor’s note: While many say science is the only way we can know anything about anything, they are endorsing scientism – which is not itself science, but philosophy. So, it’s self-defeating.] Therefore, we cannot responsibly allow scientism to prevent our discovery of the correct model of human origins. To do so, would be misinformed if not dangerous.

Conclusion

With the work in the field of human origins being done at numerous Christian organizations, the number of possible models and level of detail may seem confusing to many yet exciting to others. But they are important for all of us. I encourage these organizations to continue (or begin) working together to gather all the data that each emphasize in their respective models and adjust those models to reflect the data from others. We need to be careful and respectful of any accusations of heresy, ensuring that our accusations are demonstrably reflective of the model not the Christian, and that we address such accusations with or adjust our models based on the biblical data and logic. It is important that even though we may disagree on details that we present a united front that is based on the data and sound reasoning from that data, not only for the future of humanity, but as a demonstration of the unity and love that Christ prayed for and told us that unbelievers will see. We need to not only demonstrate the truth of these important Christian doctrines (ones that are often under attack and used as excuses to reject Christ) but we need to emphasize our love, respect, cooperation, and dedication to truth that unbelievers often overlook.

References:

[i] Editor’s note: There are at least four main theories in church history regarding the nature of the “imago dei” (Image of God). Some, follow the Socinian tradition, teaching that the Image of God refers to mankind’s dominion and authority over the rest of Creation. Others, including Thomas Aquinas, say it refers to human intellect in the sense of rationality, self-reflection, and reasoning abilities all of which set humanity apart from the rest of the animal world. Others follow Karl Barth’s theory that the imago dei refers to human relationships, where Adam and Eve, can have fellowship, friendship, marriage, family, and therein fulfull their cultural mandate to “be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth” (Gen. 1:26-28). Still others affirm the reformation view, represented by John Calvin, which treats any combination of God’s shareable attributes – authority, relationship, intellect, etc. – as the “image of God” in man. See, John Ferrer, “Chapter 3: Creation and the Image of God,” in Body Ethic [Dissertation] (Fort Worth, TX: Southwestern Theological Seminary, 2013), 91-110.

While Nix doesn’t go into all this detail in his blog post here, these four theories illustrate different ways Nix’s assertion could hold true. He says, “all humans possess intrinsic and equal human dignity and value” – whether in their nature as relational beings, as rational creatures, as representative authorities, or all of the above. Our equal dignity can trace back to our inherent nature – an unchanging and grounded fact about all human beings, since every human being is in God’s image (Gen 1:26-28; 5:1-3; 9:6; James 3:9).

In the Image of God: The Battle for Human Identity

2. Does God Exist?, Philosophy of Science, Theology and Christian Apologetics

Introduction

Human origins is a fascinating area of research today. With all the different models for the origins of humanity being proposed, I see an increase in the discussions, both scientific and theological. For everyone reading this post, this area of research should be of utmost interest for you as well. Two critical ideas about humanity are at stake depending on which model (or family of models) is true: intrinsic and equal human dignity and value, and the sinfulness of humanity.

The Image of God

If we are created in the image of God that means that all humans possess intrinsic and equal human dignity and value. If this is false, then humans are not valuable in virtue of their being human but in virtue of a myriad of other characteristics and stati that change in fashionability with the culture. One moment a human can be valuable and the next moment they are not. If humans do not have value at any point, that gives justification for their expendability (murder) at the hands of those who have power over them at that point. If humans are not created in the image of God, then there is nothing wrong with humans abusing their power against other humans. Any model of human origins that does not allow for the Image of God in humans places the very lives of every human at risk.

Human Sinfulness

Genesis also records that Adam and Eve sinned against God and with that action brought the sin nature into all future humans. Humans are not born good or even neutral. This means that the abuse of power described above is not just possible but inevitable. Any model of human origins that does not allow for the Fall or for the transfer of the sin nature (whether through the biological, spiritual, or some combination) denies this element of human psychology, sociology, and history.

Denying Both?

Any model that does not allow for one or the other already makes human lives less worthy of protection because either it is not worth protecting or there is nothing to necessarily protect against. But if a model denies both, then that is a recipe for disaster. This means that the debate about human origins is not just a scientific question but also a philosophical one, even for the atheist or naturalist. An interesting analysis of the implications of these two characteristics is provided in Os Guinness’ book “The Magna Carta of Humanity” which I highly recommend, particularly for those involved in human origins discussions and debates. It provides a renewed urgency for the importance of the debate about human origins.

Should Theology Judge Science?

It is important to recognize at this point the distinction between “science” and “data of nature.” The data that is discovered is the raw information that must be accommodated in any model, whereas “science” is the interpretation (which is fallible, but not necessarily false) of that data. Because multiple sources of truth (philosophical and historical as described above, and not just the natural data) exist about humans, the data of each must be recognized and accommodated in any model of human origins that claims to accurately reflect the natural history of human origins (what really happened). Just as the data of nature can judge our interpretation of the data of history and Scripture, the data of history and the data of Scripture can judge our interpretation of the data of nature in virtue of their being true.

We cannot allow an epistemic (knowledge) posture of strong or even weak scientism to prevent our discovery of the correct model of human origins. To do so, would be dangerous.

Conclusion

With the work in the field of human origins being done at numerous Christian organizations, the number of possible models and level of detail may seem confusing to many yet exciting to others. But they are important for all of us. I encourage these organizations to continue (or begin) working together to gather all the data that each emphasize in their respective models and adjust those models to reflect the data provided by others. We need to be careful and respectful of any accusations of heresy- ensure that our accusations are demonstrably reflective of the model not the Christian, and that we address such accusations with or adjust our models based on the biblical data and logic. It is important that even though we may disagree on details that we present a united front that is based on the data and sound reasoning from that data, not only for the future of humanity, but as a demonstration of the unity and love that Christ prayed for and told us that unbelievers will see. We need to not only demonstrate the truth of these important Christian doctrines (ones that are often under attack and used as excuses to reject Christ) but we need to emphasize our love, respect, cooperation, and dedication to truth that unbelievers often overlook.

Book Review: The Magna Carta Of Humanity

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Luke Nix

The Magna Carta of Humanity: Sinai’s Revolutionary Faith and The Future of Freedom

In today’s world it is difficult to be online, at parties, with family, at work, or even just in public without hearing about the current cultural and political climate in the United States. Even if the Christian case-maker tries to avoid politics, they still confront culture and will be challenged with the hypocrisies of the Church and those who claimed to be members of the Church who just happened to also have founded The United States of America. And it is rare that challenges stop there.

People are passionate about one political view (or party) or another. Extremes on the different sides constantly accuse opposing sides of trying to destroy democracy, the Constitution, and even freedom itself. The rhetoric and apparent goals of different politicians can get our heads spinning out of control as we try to make sense of what is going on, how it affects us (and our future), what we can do about it to bring some measure of sanity in the conversations we inevitably get sucked into, and how we can respond logically with both gentleness and respect when the challenges come.

That is where I have found great value in Os Guinness’ “The Magna Carta of Humanity” (Hard copy, audiobook, Kindle). Guinness digs into the foundations, principles, and histories of the cultural and political divide in America. He compares and contrasts them in such a way that brings crystal clarity to the current situation. He points out that before we can even talk about “make America great again” (MAGA), we must truly understand what made America great in the first place. And before anyone wishes to reject the ideals that founded America, they must first truly understand those ideals and truly understand the implications of the ideals they are trading them for.

In my effort to help you determine if this is a book that is worth your time (and I believe it is), I will include a few of the skeletal points of the book, several of my favorite quotes (mainly from the Introduction- I don’t want to spoil too much), and my more specific recommendations.

My Awareness

I have to start with the podcast that drew my attention to this excellent book. Alisa Childers interviewed Dr. Os Guinness on her podcast (a great podcast that I highly recommend on its own, by the way) about whether or not Christians should be involved in politics. He not only answered in the affirmative but answered why that is the case and how America (and the world) has reached the point that such action is necessary. Here is the video:

Upon completing the podcast, I immediately purchased the audiobook and listened to it twice then picked up the hard copy to do a more analytical reading. This helped me to better grasp, understand, and appreciate the case presented by Guinness. It was definitely worth the additional time and effort spent.

Key Points:

The division in the USA today is due to two mutually exclusive views of freedom.
The first originates from the Exodus and was the foundation of the American Revolution of 1776. This view understands freedom as the individuals possessing the power to do what they ought to do. (“Sinai”)
The second view of freedom originates with ancient atheists and was the foundation of the French Revolution in 1789. This view understands freedom as individuals possessing complete autonomy. (“Paris”)
Paris, along with its many offshoots, have all proved disastrous for human life and liberty. Whereas Sinai (even when applied inconsistently) has been the only one that has resulted in true liberty.
Paris fails (and will continue to fail) because it has a false understanding of both the dignity and fallenness of humanity. On the contrary, Sinai recognizes these realities at its core.
The freedom of Sinai, though, is not self-sustaining. It requires individual self-awareness and focused and intentional dedication of each succeeding generation if it is to be maintained for future generations.
America must recognize the sins of its past and move forward. The way forward proposed by Paris (and the progressive left) is that of hate and revenge. While the way forward proposed by Sinai and Jesus (and even Martin Luther King Jr.) is that of love and forgiveness.
Because freedom is incompatible with hate and revenge, the way of Paris necessarily offers no hope of true freedom now or in the future. It pays lip service to the term while insisting on a contradictory concept.
America is currently in the process of switching from the ideals of 1776 to the ideals of 1789, and it, along with its citizens, will suffer the same fate as all the other nations that have tried its numerous versions (including Russia, China, and North Korea).
There is still time for America to stop the current trajectory and reclaim the love and forgiveness that is required of true freedom and reject the hate and revenge that has done nothing but prove disastrous.

Favorite Quotes:

“The great American republic is as deeply divided today as at any moment since just before the Civil War. Yet this time no Abraham Lincoln has stepped forward to address the evils, appeal to the Declaration of Independence, defend the better angel of the American character, demonstrate the magnificence of ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people’ in our time, and call for a ‘new birth of freedom.'”

“America appears to be abandoning the ideals of the American Revolution or ideas that are disastrous not only to America but to freedom and to the future of humanity.”

“The American crisis is a crisis of freedom and must be understood as such…The present crisis stems from the fact that over the last fifty years, major spheres of American society have shifted their loyalties and now support ideas that are closer to the French Revolution and its heirs rather than the American Revolution.”

“Such current movements as postmodernism, political correctness, tribal and identity politics, the sexual revolution, critical theory (or grievance studies), and socialism all come down from 1789 and have nothing to do with the ideas of 1776…They are the *dramatis personae* without which the drama of America’s current crisis cannot be understood or resolved.”

“The United States is suffering from profound philosophical cynicism, moral corruption, and serious social collapse…And too many Americans, especially those who are younger, have already been bewitched by the ideas coming from the other revolution, 1789, and not 1776…they now appear hell-bent on rejecting ideas from their past, which they have not tried to understand, even as they embrace ideas from the other revolution, which they have not examined as closely as they need to. Many in America see only their ancestors’ errors and at once think that makes them wiser and better than their ancestors. Yet they do not try to understand what their ancestors thought and why, let alone ask where the alternative ideas will lead them.”

“The Russian and Chinese revolutions represented the first successful establishment of secularist regimes in history; the Russian doing so in Europe and the Chinese in Asia. Along with Hitler’s Germany, the Russian and Chinese revolutions were also the first regimes to produce genuine totalitarianism. With the horrendous quartet of their total ideology, total mobilization, and total surveillance, and total repression, these totalitarian regimes became the epitome of oppressive evil and the complete denial of liberty.”

“Far from ushering in the final form of freedom and representing a second coming of Epicurus, [the French, Russian, and Chinese Revolutions]’ claims to be the true and reliable source of human freedom have been left in tatters by the history of their repressive secularist regimes in the twentieth century and the slaughter of millions of their own citizens.”

“Is it still possible in the advanced modern world to build societies with both freedom and order at the same time? To build and sustain communities and nations that demonstrate the highest values of human dignity, freedom, justice, equality, compassion, peace, and stability?”

“Historically, it was the Exodus Revolution and not the French Revolution, that lay behind the genius of America’s ordered freedom or covenantal and constitutional freedom. A rediscovery of the foundational principles of the Exodus Revolution is therefore the once and future secret of true revolutionary faith and a sure path to freedom, justice, equality, and peace.”

“The…American Revolution [is] decisively different from the French Revolution, and the future of freedom depends on appreciating the differences and choosing between them.”

“America cannot endure permanently half 1776 and half 1789. The compromises, contradictions, hypocricies, inequities, and evils have built up unaddressed. The grapes of wrath have ripened again, and the choice before America is plain. Either America goes forward best by going back first, or America is about to reap a future in which the worst will once again be the corruption of the best.“

“Will the coming generation return to faith in God and to humility or continue to trust in the all-sufficiency of reason, punditry, and technocracy and the transformative power of politics?”

“The future for freedom and humanity is in the balance, as Sinai spells freedom for the future whereas Paris has so far spelled out freedom betrayed and the coming of a long night of expanding statism, surveillance, and repression.”

“This is not a plea for some special protection or exemption for faith. It is time and past time to set out the debate in its fullest terms and to recognize that the sequel to this generation’s choices will be consequential and historic.”

Recommendations:

While I believe that every reader, who takes the time to read the book seriously, would have much to gain from it, I do believe this book is of special interest for several groups:

Anyone who is involved in political discussions online or in person. Having a firm grasp on the sources of disagreement will guide us in how to address those disagreements. Recognizing areas of agreement will build a bridge that those we disagree with can cross to accepting the truth that we wish to communicate. Having those of these in our minds will help keep us calm, respectful, loving, and confident in discussion and will keep the discussion focused and productive.
Any scientist. When untrained and unlearned politicians sense a threat to their power, they will censor scientific research and the scientists (even if the research doesn’t legitimately provide a threat). Scientists will not be permitted to do research freely nor will they even be able to pretend to (much less, actually) follow the evidence where it leads. This is the way of Paris and 1789. All these naturalists and New Atheists who think that “science” is the end-all/be-all: they are about to reap a world that will destroy everything they have worked for, everything they are working towards, and everything they cherish. Not because they conceded to belief in God and man’s sinfulness, but because they explicitly rejected God and his moral authority over all individuals including those in government who have power over them. Let’s also not forget that this is not limited to politicians; it extends to corporations and those in power there as well. This similarly applies to any educator, researcher, and creative.
Anyone who supports the views of postmodernism, Critical Theory, tribal politics, identity politics, Marxism, socialism, and/or communism. Dr. Guinness shows how hate and revenge are at the core of these ideas and that history demonstrates that each of these ends in disaster for the individual who holds to them and nations that rule by them, no matter how they are applied; and any “new” ideas of how to apply them are doomed to fail as well.
Private and Home Educators. It is important that American and World history be taught with an eye to its application to the children we are teaching. We teach history not merely for trivial information, but so that our children will not make the same mistakes of the past. Freedom is not self-sufficient. It must be taught and applied to the world around our children so they can see the importance of this part of their education and what will happen is they too become “bewitched” by the glitter of Paris. Also, if there ever was a time to teach students the evidence for Christianity, it is today (see Christian apologists and theologians below).
Christian apologists and theologians. Os Guinness’ discussions and case depend highly upon the truth of several ideas that Christian apologists commonly (and maybe not so commonly) defend, thus he gives renewed urgency in showing these to be true to the world. They include: Obviously, God’s existence, but also man being created in the Image of God, human fallenness, trust (biblical faith and not blind faith), objective morality, human dignity, human equality, libertarian free will (properly understood, of course), the historicity of the exodus, truth, knowledge, and numerous more that I’m sure you will see as you come across topics you frequently address. Also, the utopian promises of Paris cannot ever be fulfilled by anyone or any government because they are false and do not reflect reality. It is important to show others that these are false so that they do not continue to trust the claims of Paris and its off-shoots and reap its consequences. Ultimately, this book can serve as a highlight several strong, basic human desires- freedom and justice that cannot ever be fully and perpetually fulfilled in this life because of sin; it is only through the atonement of Jesus Christ and the truth of his resurrection that there is ultimate hope for love and forgiveness now perpetually the future when He returns.
Pastors and Church Leaders. In today’s culture that is accepting a “progressive” and false gospel that is often grounded in postmodernism and is focused on social justice and politics, it is important to see the differences between those ideas that are sneaking into the Church, how they differ from Scripture and the world we live in, and the disastrous results if your congregation accepts them. You do not have to have a bent towards the political in your church, just a passion for truth and defending it (see Christian apologists and theologians, above)

4 Ways Atheism Undermines the Scientific Enterprise

Philosophy of Science, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Introduction

Have you ever wondered if atheism is compatible with science? Not many have. In today’s culture it is commonly assumed that they are best of buddies. Many people even believe that science has done away with God and provides powerful evidence for the truth of atheism. A couple years ago I posted an article that describes six ways that atheism defeats science as a knowledge discipline, thus anyone who accepts that science can give us knowledge about reality must reject atheism as true. Today I want to discuss the more practical side of science and provide four more ways that science and atheism are incompatible.

Before I start though, I want to make a couple things clear: First, I am referring to atheism as a claim about reality not merely a belief: the affirmative claim “God does not exist in reality.” Second, since I am not merely talking about a belief but a reality (one’s beliefs can be false), I affirm that one can certainly believe that God does not exist in reality and still be quite successful as a scientist and do great work. My claim here is very narrow, and it involves the dually claimed realities that God does not exist and that science is not as chaotic as it is about to be described.

Fatalistic Events

If atheism is true, then no agency exists. This means that our bodies are merely “moist robots” that act and react to stimuli with no free will, choice or intention behind any of the actions and reactions. The implication of that is that no scientist intentionally performs “good” science or “bad” science or really has a choice to perform science at all.

There are no deserved accolades due for “good” science because what was done was merely a determined sequence of actions based upon environmental factors that the scientist had no choice in performing. There also are no reprimands due for “bad” science because what was done was merely a determined sequence of actions based upon environmental factors that the scientist also had no choice in performing.

If atheism is true, fatalism is true, and there is no intentionality. People have no free will, no choice, and are fated to do what they do, and they merely watch everything happening to them and nothing happening by them. “Science” is just a series of events that happen without a choice by anyone behind the events. Logically on the atheistic, fatalistic view of reality scientists deserve no credit or responsibility for anything that they have “accomplished” or “perpetrated”. The blind, unintentional forces of “fate” determined or forced them to do everything. In such a world no one has the ability to do otherwise, thus the idea that they deserve credit or reprimand because they made the “right” choice has no ground in an atheistic world.

Subjective Morality

Speaking of “accomplished” and “perpetrated,” when a society discards any anchor for morality (a society based on atheism), they surrender all justification for calling anything evil or wrong. Scientists may “choose” to report their findings incorrectly due to need to survive in the scientific community or to make the data appear to support a preconceived conclusion. On the atheistic view, there is not anything morally wrong with misrepresenting data because there is no objective “right” or “wrong.”

Likewise, if a scientist “discovers” something completely new that helps people in the course of the research or down the road, their work cannot be seen as morally “good” because “good” does not even exist. The same goes for the scientist who “discovers” (or the engineer who “invents”) something completely new that harms people in the course of the research or down the road. Their work cannot be considered “evil” or “wrong” since neither exist.

Whether scientists incorrectly or correctly report data or their work leads to benefit or harm, they should neither be punished nor rewarded or even condemned or commended for their respective actions because without “good” or “evil”, “right” or “wrong” having a moral value, their work and actions cannot have any moral value either.

If someone decides to punish or reward or not to punish or reward (respectively or irrespectively), they have not acted rightly or wrongly either, since “right” and “wrong” do not exist. Punishing “good” science is just as “right” as rewarding “evil” science, and rewarding “good” science is just as “wrong” as punishing “evil” science.

Interestingly enough because morality does not exist on atheism, justice, which is a concept necessarily dependent upon the existence of morality, cannot be promoted and will never be realized in the sciences (or in any other area of life, but that is another blog post for another time).

If there is no morality, then it is up to the individuals to “choose” (see the section above for the reason for the use of the quotes) what is “right” or “wrong”. One person may “choose” to punish “good” science while another “chooses” to reward it; neither is truly “right” or “wrong”; and neither are themselves worthy of reward or punishment for their recognition and related actions.

No Design, No Engineering

As mentioned above, if atheism is true, then intentionality does not exist. One of the implications of such a view is that the very concept of “design” also does not exist. “Design” requires intentionality. This means that no scientific study is designed, no scientific experiment is designed, no sequence or series of anything in science is designed. If intentionality does not exist, then nothing is designed. But that is not where it ends. If intentionality does not exist, the very concept of design is impossible.

If the very concept of design is impossible, then we have an implication that reaches beyond the discipline of science into the discipline of engineering. The study of nature often results in the reverse-engineering of its features, which then leads to new innovations. But what of such a concept if what is being “studied” is not really designed? We cannot really claim to be “reverse-engineering” anything since “engineering” implies design necessarily, which does not exist. Nothing is being “reversed.” And since intentionality does not exist, it has the same implications for the discipline of engineering, so “engineering” is not actually taking place either.

If we insist that some DNA or other biological features are truly undesigned “junk” then why study it (science), much less, try to imitate it (engineering)? Notice that I asked “why” not “how.” If atheism is true, the answer to “how” is “because scientists and engineers are fated to.” That answer explains “how” (given fatalism) the actions and reactions that we are fated to call “science” and “engineering” take place if atheism is true. But it does not explain “why” scientists and engineers “should” study and invent or even “how” study and invention are intentionally conducted given the lack of intentionality in a fatalistic reality.

No Progress

Finally, if atheism is true, there is no objective goal or final purpose. Without an objective goal, the direction of science is not objectively established. The necessary implication of this is that multiple, divergent or even contradictory goals can be pursued (fatalistically, of course). Without an objective goal, there is no ultimate purpose in science and no way to accurately judge progress. In order to even claim that science as a knowledge discipline is making progress, we must have some objective goal by which to judge whether scientific discovery is moving towards the goal (progressing) or moving away from the goal (regressing).

Sure, a person can put forth a goal that they like (again, fatalistically), but so can multiple persons. Two persons can put forth two goals that are polar opposite of each other, but there is no concept to distinguish between which one is “progressive” or “regressive”, “good” or “evil.” Let’s also not forget that this is not limited to only one pair of polar opposite goals; numerous polar opposite pairs of goals can be in play simultaneously.

Further complicating the issue is that each goal may have multiple pathways to its accomplishment that are at odds with other pathways. There are no objective ends and there are no objective means. Alignment in purpose and in policy is impossible even in theory because there is no objective purposer if atheism is true.

This results in the necessity of “might makes right” in the sciences. If someone wants their purpose to be pursued, they must exercise their influence and power over those who either disagree or have purposes that redirect resources away from their purpose. Such an exercise is conducted fatalistically (as seen above), and objectively morality does not exist (as seen above). So it follows logically that judgment of such an exercise by a person, no matter how evil or good we are fated to feel that it is, cannot be judged nor resisted on any moral grounds. All reactions are fated, neither right nor wrong, neither good nor evil, neither progressive nor regressive…just things that happen to us, with no more significance than the event of a dust particle just now landing on my keyboard.

Conclusion

If atheism is true, the scientific enterprise is nothing more than a baseless, fatalistic, nihilistic chaos. But no one knows this because they are presupposing (in contradiction to atheism) EVERY thing that a grounded, intentional, and meaningful system requires.

The atheist scientist is borrowing from the theistic worldview at every level in order for their “chosen” profession to have any meaning whatsoever. Atheists often resist this idea and insist that they can intentionally do good, purposeful science without God. Sure, this can be done without believing in God, but it is because God exists that anyone can do so. If it were true that God does not exist, then it necessarily follows that science is chaotic, but the fact that science is not as chaotic as described above provides multiple lines of evidence that atheism is necessarily false (that, necessarily, God exists).

The very chosen profession of the atheistic scientist provides numerous foundational reasons for them to abandon their atheism. Ironically for the atheistic scientist, if the scientific enterprise is as reliable as they insist, then no results from it can be used against the knowledge of God. If God does not exist, then it necessarily follows that the scientific enterprise is an unreliable source of truth. The study of nature (science) at every level, from its foundations to its operations to its results, provides numerous evidences for the existence of God and the truth of Christianity.

6 maneras en que el ateísmo es un obstáculo para la ciencia

Español

By Luke Nix

Introduction: Science vs. Christianity?

It is often claimed that Christianity is a hindrance to science. To justify this claim it is often said that many Christians just look at nature and satisfy their curiosity by saying “God made it,” without looking any further to discover how God made whatever it is that he made that is there. For many Christians, questions about the origin and how the natural world works end with that answer. However, for many others, while they acknowledge that God did make something, they diligently seek to discover how he did it. Christianity does not stop science, a lack of curiosity or interest (not necessarily a bad thing if the person does not have that passion or pursue that goal) is what could stop science if there is not a Christian who possesses that curiosity. Each Christian can stop scientific discovery for themselves, but as scientific discovery continues to be developed by other Christians, scientific discovery will continue.

On the other hand, it is a fact that atheism stops science. Not because the atheist satisfies his curiosity by saying “evolution did it” and stops all exploratory research, but because it hinders science for a couple of reasons that the atheist cannot escape if his worldview is true. If atheism is true, scientific discovery does not cease only for the atheist whose curiosity and curiosity are satisfied by the answer “evolution did it,” but it ceases for everyone .

If you are a friend of science and an atheist, I implore you to take your reasoning to the next level: think about how the discovery of the world around you would be understood. In today’s blog, I will present six different ways in which atheism and science are mutually exclusive and how atheism stops all scientific discovery in its tracks.

Science vs Atheism

The laws of mathematics vs atheism

Much of the scientific research done today relies solely on mathematics in its most advanced forms. It is used to describe chemical reactions, model the formation history of the universe, and even predict the spread of viruses. The reason mathematics can be used in this way is because the universe is built on/governed by mathematics. This fact makes the universe describable, discoverable, and predictable (to a certain extent). If the universe produced mathematics, then there would be no reason for the universe to be bound by mathematics, and it would not be possible to describe, discover, or predict it.

This poses a serious problem for the atheist. Indeed, according to the atheist view, mathematics is a product of a particularity of the universe (the human brain, to be exact), and the universe is not bound to be governed by anything it has produced. According to the atheist view, mathematics is not objective, so it is irrational to expect that the world around us is consistent with or explainable by what mathematics depicts. The present cannot be described, the past cannot be discovered, and future events cannot be predicted.

From the atheistic point of view, without a supernatural cause (excluding this universe) that causes mathematics to limit the universe to its laws, this universe is meaningless, and all scientific endeavor is ultimately doomed to be nothing more than a guessing game and incapable of bringing knowledge about any point in time or space.

The principle of uniformity vs atheism

As in mathematics, the uniformity principle is key to conducting scientific research. This principle states that the past behaved much like the present, and that the future will develop much like the present. This principle limits the universe to a continuous connection through time that scientists can use to describe, discover, and predict. Based on this principle, scientists understand that it is reasonable to extrapolate current observations to the past and the future. Thanks to this continuous connection, scientists can discover what happened in the past (historical science) with methodical certainty and make predictions about future events in the natural world (this is how different models of natural phenomena are tested: predictions of future discoveries are made based on different interpretations of currently observable data).

But, just as with mathematics, this principle cannot simply emerge with the appearance of the human brain on the cosmic scene. If this principle is a product of a peculiarity of the universe, then the universe cannot be governed by such a principle. Because of this absolute lack of government, there is also no reason to think that the universe can be explained using the principle of uniformity.

Therefore, if we want to continue scientific discovery using this principle, and if we want to believe that anything discovered using it is true or makes sense, then it must have a foundation prior to this universe. This means that the uniformity principle, like mathematics, has a transcendent (supernatural) foundation. Without such a foundation, scientific knowledge of the past and prediction of future events are impossible. In this second respect, atheism renders scientific discoveries useless before they are published.

The laws of logic vs atheism

Mathematics and the principle of uniformity are joined by the laws of logic. It is through the laws of logic that we can connect the present with the past and discover the history of our planet, the solar system, the galaxy, the universe, and even the initial events of creation itself. But this level of scientific discovery is only possible if the universe is governed by the transcendental laws of logic. Deductive reasoning and methodical certainty (mentioned above) necessarily depend on the laws of logic. If the universe is not governed by laws that transcend its own existence, then there is no reason to investigate and connect events as if it were governed by such laws. These laws must have a foundation that exists outside the natural universe; this means that they must exist supernaturally.

But according to atheism, nothing exists supernaturally, and the laws of logic are no exception. Therefore, according to atheism, the universe is not required to follow any of these laws nor can it be expected to do so. If we cannot rely on the universe to invariably follow such laws, then we cannot use such laws to make plausible theses about the universe with any level of certainty, including its history or its future. Without laws of logic existing outside the universe, any scientific endeavor that attempts to extend our knowledge of the natural world beyond the present moment that we witness in our small space of action is futile. Without a reason to believe that this universe is subject to the laws of logic, scientific discovery is impossible. Since there is no room in atheism for the laws of logic to govern this universe, then it cannot claim that justified and reasonable scientific discovery lies within its worldview either.

The laws of physics vs atheism

Atheism, without the laws of mathematics and the laws of logic, can no longer state or explain the laws of physics. That is just one of the many implications of a worldview devoid of a reality beyond this universe. But the problem for atheism regarding the laws of physics is deeper than just discovery and exposition. For lack of discovery and/or exposition does not necessarily imply nonexistence. The lack of the laws of physics in the atheistic worldview is established independently of, but similar to, the absence of the laws of mathematics and the laws of logic.

If there really are no laws of physics governing this universe, which if there were would mean that they are logically prior to or have a foundation outside of this universe, then there is no reason to use such laws of physics in any reasoning (because that would be using non-existent laws of logic) from current observations of this universe to the past history (because that would be using a non-existent principle of uniformity) of the same universe. Again, without a foundation outside of this universe that makes the laws of physics govern the universe, this universe is not constrained to follow any specific trajectory (laws of physics). If atheism is true, this is another reason why science is useless before it makes itself known.

Our sensory organs and the brain vs atheism

Of course, the utility of the features of reality described above does not manifest itself in scientific discoveries until observations are made. While those features of reality are observer-independent, this latter property is observer-dependent. Not only does atheism lack the foundation for the observer-independent (and much needed for scientific work) features of reality described above, but the guidelines/criteria for observer-dependent scientific endeavor undermine the reliability of its own work.

Atheistic worldviews have only one possible explanation for the emergence of sensations in human organs and brains: they are changes that occur over time and are directed by the (non-existent) laws of physics that govern natural selection. This is also known as “unguided evolution” or simply “evolution” in many atheist circles. We must clearly differentiate between agent-guided and environmentally guided evolution. The “unguided” qualifier here refers to agent-guided evolution. Evolutionists firmly believe that evolution was guided, but that guidance was directed by the environment and by the (non-existent) laws of physics that governed the creation and behavior of the environment.

Given this, the process guided solely by non-existent physical laws results in the survival of the species, so traits that are useful for the survival of populations are passed on from generation to generation and will continually be present. From this point of view, one trait has an advantage over another because of the external factors that allow its propagation, regardless of how useful that ability is. How useful that ability is is a purely accidental trait, and there is no way to independently test the usefulness of such traits for their continued existence, especially since all the features of reality mentioned above, which could be used to independently test them, lack a solid foundation if atheism is true. This means that the sensations of our organs and our brain have survived, not because of how useful their abilities were, but because they helped our ancestors survive in their environment. The atheist cannot come along and say that we can scientifically and independently prove the sensations of our organs through logic, mathematics, the uniformity principle, or the laws of physics because none of these have any solid foundation if atheism is true. If atheism is true, then all of those “laws” are the product of our evolved brains, which, again, is the product of a process governed by non-existent laws of mathematics, logic, and physics.

Conclusion

If something doesn’t exist or isn’t true, it’s not a valid starting point for creating processes that gain knowledge. If the foundations are compromised, so are the results. If atheism is true…

…science cannot be based on the laws of mathematics.

…science cannot be based on the principle of uniformity.

…science cannot be based on the laws of logic.

…science cannot be based on the laws of physics.

…science cannot be based on our own observations.

…science cannot be based on our own reasoning.

Science necessarily depends on the certainty and truth of these features of reality. If atheism is true, there is no basis for any of these features of reality. If atheism is true, these are not features of reality, which means that they are not true and do not exist. They cannot therefore be starting points for any discipline of knowledge, including science. If atheism is true, then science (among other disciplines of knowledge) cannot legitimately claim to provide us with truths about our world. If atheism is true (in any of its forms), it is impossible to connect our subjective beliefs with objective reality.

Since atheism and science are mutually exclusive, atheism is no friend of science; and science is no friend of atheism. If you are a friend of science, you know that these six concepts are characteristics of reality and are true. I invite you to abandon the naive scientific and philosophical worldview of atheism; embrace the reality of the Christian God, the One who provides a firm foundation for each of these six realities that you already know exist and upon which you already depend for your scientific discoveries.

Recommended resources in Spanish:

Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek

Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Luke Nix holds a degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metals exchange in Oklahoma.

Original source of the blog: https://bit.ly/38XdTMC

Translated by Yatniel Vega Garcia

Edited by Gustavo Camarillo

May 13, 2022/by Guest

Contradicciones en la vida de un cristiano

Español

By Luke Nix

Introduction

The Christian Church is no stranger to hypocrisy. The Church is made up of sinners who do not always practice what they preach, and sometimes that practice is in stark contradiction to what we preach. Some of the most heinous acts have been committed by Christians while speaking the truth. It seems that sexual misconduct within the Church is always in the spotlight. For as long as I can remember, I have been aware of numerous sexual scandals within the Church. Like anyone, some have hit close to home and others from afar. The ones that hit close to home tend to be particularly devastating, both physically and emotionally, as well as spiritually and intellectually.

It is important for those affected to hold on to a worldview that can objectively condemn such actions and provide healing for the victims. In these emotionally difficult situations, it is easy to doubt the truth of Christianity. Today, I want to take a few moments to show how such hypocrisy actually reveals the truth of the Christian worldview and how the Christian worldview in turn offers the only possible answer to hypocrisy.

The objectivity of evil

First, the actions of a sexual predator must be qualified as objectively evil, not simply something that a group of people dislike or prefer. The claim that what they did was evil is not just an opinion that can be dismissed by those who see nothing wrong with the actions. That such actions are objectively evil is a feature of reality that must be confronted, explained, and responded to by any worldview.

No worldview can escape this obligation. No worldview that lacks an anchor for objective morality can provide a meaningful judgment about “evil”; those who hold these worldviews can only issue opinions, which are no more valid or true than the person who may also hold the same worldview and say the actions were “good.” Any worldview that lacks such an anchor is defeated by the actions of any sexual predator (whether church members or not).

The scars of sin and the cost of agnosticism and moral relativism

Every victim of sexual misconduct, sexual abuse, rape, etc., is created in the image of God, and is therefore intrinsically valuable. Their rape is objectively wrong, and justice must be served. The devastation of these types of rapes takes years and even decades to heal, if at all. These men, women, boys, and girls will carry the scars for the rest of their lives. These scars will stand as a testament to the truth that objective evil exists.

Any worldview that remains agnostic or ambivalent about the moral status of these actions turns victims into victims again and again. Worldviews without an anchor for objective morality devalue violations and elevate them to moral equivalence with love, honesty, and integrity. Worldviews that cannot call evil “evil” in any meaningful sense of the word (or for that matter, cannot call good “good” either) foster the creation of more victims and compound the suffering of those already victimized.

Such sins in the life of a Christian demonstrate conclusively that no morally relativistic or agnostic worldview deserves a place in a culture, a government, or even at the table of intellectual inquiry, because it perpetually violates reality by violating its victims over and over again.

What if God doesn’t exist?

Sexual sin is detestable, contemptible, and heinous, and we all know this intuitively. The person who commits evil is ultimately eternally damnable because he has violated the intrinsic worth of a human being created in the image of God, and in doing so, he has violated the eternally and morally perfect God. God is the only source of morality that is independent of each and every human being. He alone is the anchor that allows anyone to objectively identify such actions as morally “evil.”

Simply put, if God does not exist, then nothing these Christians did is wrong. Nothing they do is worthy of condemnation or even discussion, as they are simply dancing around with their DNA – the victims will still be victims because they are not really “victims” of anything good or bad. This is not to say that someone has to believe that God exists in order to condemn a Christian’s sexual violations; rather it is to say that just because God exists, even an atheist can accurately condemn such actions as objectively wrong. If God does not exist, then not even the theist can condemn sexual abuse as objectively wrong.

The cognitive and emotional dissonance of evil

When stories of a perpetrator’s heinous acts are told, the moral law that is written in all of our hearts will surface emotionally and powerfully. The emotions we feel are not there simply because we feel these actions are wrong, but because they are objectively wrong, and our outrage is a very appropriate reaction to such violations. Head and heart, logic and emotion, converge in perfect harmony to reveal the truth of reality and the truth of God’s existence. Unless God exists, a person’s “evil” acts bring nothing but cognitive and emotional dissonance.

Actions speak louder than words

If the grotesque moral failings of gospel ministers are to serve any purpose, it is to try to shake our culture out of its moral and intellectual stupor and remind us of the contradiction of every Christian life. But, in stark contrast to every Christian, there is no contradiction in God —not in his actions, not in his words. We all long for someone to be totally consistent in what he says and what he does. But this simply won’t happen when we look at man, even Christian leaders. We should not be surprised when gospel ministers fail morally. We should be surprised that, despite the evidence all around us of humanity’s fallenness, we still try to look at humanity for perfect consistency.

Instead, we must look to the morally perfect Creator, against whom all humans have sinned. This God loves us and desires an infinite, personal relationship with us—so much so that He became one of us to take upon Himself our sins and the wrath we deserve because of them. Justice was served for every sin we could ever commit when Jesus Christ died on the cross. And in His bodily resurrection from the dead, we have forgiveness (1 Cor 15). Jesus’ resurrection provides us with proof of the truth of His claim to be the Creator God of the universe, the Way, the Truth, and the Life, without whom no one can come to the Father (John 14:6).

Conclusion – My two sentences

Sin, hypocrisy, and betrayal in the life of any Christian minister does not prove, or even indicate, that Christianity is false. Quite the opposite: it provides stark evidence of a worldview versus reality that only Christianity surpasses. Christianity never claims that Christians are perfect; in fact, it makes the opposite claim: that Christians can and do do egregiously evil things. This is the reality in which we live, of which we are a part, and which Christianity, uniquely among all worldviews in history, accurately describes. Only through Christ is the sinner healed, the victim healed, and both reconciled to God.

It is my prayer that all victims will find sympathetic ears in today’s culture, people who will recognize, validate and anchor the objectivity of the evil and suffering they endure, people who will recognize that full healing can only be found at the Cross.

I also pray that as more revelations of moral failings within the Church occur, this will cause unbelievers to consider the grounds for their moral outrage, investigate the evidence, and realize that they too are in need of Christ’s atonement, forgiveness, and resurrection.

Finally, remember that it is not Christ who has failed us; it is the members of His Church who have failed us. It is time for us to stop placing our trust in people and start placing it properly where the evidence tells us it should have been in the first place: in Christ. I implore you to follow the moral, philosophical, historical, and scientific evidence where it leads you: to give your life fully and completely to Christ to find both healing and forgiveness.

Recommended resources in Spanish:

Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek

Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Luke Nix holds a degree in Computer Science and works as an IT Help Desk and Technical Support Manager at a local precious metals exchange in Oklahoma.

Original Source of the Blog: https://bit.ly/35Zh3OS

Translated by Yatniel Vega Garcia

Edited by Monica Pirateque

April 15, 2022/by Guest

The Big Bang and Friends of the World

2. Does God Exist?, Philosophy of Science, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Introduction

“Don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.”- James 4:4 NIV

James 4:4 warns Christians to not become a “friend of the world” because the world is God’s enemy. What does that mean, though? The other day someone told me that I was in violation of that verse because I believed the “atheistic theory” of the big bang and used it as evidence that God exists. Did James mean to communicate that Christians cannot recognize when an unbeliever or group of unbelievers have a correct view of some aspect of reality? Or did he intend to communicate something else? Before I get to the specific accusation, let’s examine what actually concerns James in his letter.

Being The World’s Friends and Enemies of God

When we read all of James’ letter, we see the answer. Consider James 1:14-15:

“…each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.”- (NIV)

James is talking about having the same evil desires as the world- not necessarily believing the same way about some feature of reality. James is emphasizing that we must be committed to truth not feelings or desires. If an unbeliever believes something that is true about reality that we also believe is true about reality, James does not condemn our agreement. In fact, agreement about reality may be used as a springboard for evangelism (1 Peter 3:15) and bringing the unbeliever to Christ. Enemies of God do not intentionally point others to Christ. Enemies of God do not condemn evil desires. Condemning evil desires and pointing others to Christ are necessary steps in presenting the Gospel. Enemies of God have no such interest.

It is not that having agreement with unbelievers regarding true beliefs about reality that makes us “friends of the world” in the sense that James is speaking. It is having agreement with them regarding sinful desires that makes us “friends of the world” and thus enemies of God. We certainly could allow our sinful desires to manipulate the truth into justifying sin (which will always be logically fallacious, by the way), but is that what has happened with Christians who have accepted big bang cosmology?

The Big Bang Is Hardly An Atheistic Theory

Contrary to popular Christian thinking, the big bang theory is about the furthest from a naturalistic theory as they come. It has so many strong theistic implications that naturalists have tried for over a century to undermine it and have only in recent decades finally come to accept it as a community. But that acceptance is reluctant and is often accompanied by failed attempts to weasel out of the absolute beginning and exquisite fine-tuning implied by this rapid expansion event. The big bang necessarily requires a cause that is outside of space and time, is mind-blowingly intelligent and powerful, and caused the creation of this universe out of literally no thing (creatio ex nihilo) for His purposes. The big bang creation event simultaneously provides powerful evidence for Christian theism and against naturalism.

It is not the science of big bang cosmology that made big bang cosmology so reprehensible to naturalists; it was the theistic and thus moral implications. The world does hate all Christians, whether those Christians believe that the big bang was the creation event described in Genesis 1:1 or if they do not. The world hates us not because we followed the evidence where it leads, but the world hates us because of where (or more accurately, to Whom) the evidence leads. There is no way that big bang cosmology allows someone to justify their evil desires; in fact, it does the exact opposite, and that is why it was so vehemently opposed by atheists for so long.

The fact that the naturalistic enemies of big bang cosmology have been compelled by the continually increasing evidence for the big bang to accept that it describes how our universe came into existence provides powerful evidence of its truth. It does so just as Jesus’ empty tomb is strongly evidenced by the fact that Jesus’ enemies (the scribes and Pharisees) were compelled by the evidence to accept that His tomb was empty. If “enemy attestation” provides powerful evidence that Jesus’ tomb was empty, then it also provides powerful evidence that the big bang occurred (see Evidence for the Empty Tomb of Jesus and Big Bang Cosmology).

In Romans 1, the Apostle Paul affirms that unbelievers have access to the same data of nature as Christians do. As a result, unbelievers and Christians will believe some of the same things about the creation. Paul is adamant that nature is so clear in its revelation that unbelievers are, in fact, without excuse in their denial of God. When unbelievers discover and features of creation, no doubt those features will point to their Creator. This is exactly what is going on when believers and unbelievers examine the evidence for the big bang. The world hates Christians because we do not share and we even condemn their evil desires and actions. And the world hates big bang cosmology because they know that they stand condemned, without excuse, by the images they witness through the lenses of their telescopes.

The Foundation for Morality

But despite that strong testimony of creation to God as the Creator, many Christians still insist that big bang cosmology is a naturalistic theory. The concern is that it does away with God as an objective, moral foundation for society, and, from their view, the moral degradation that we see in culture (see my previous articles “Compromising the Kingdom” and “Unrecognized Agreement and Unity“) is a result of a culture that has accepted big bang cosmology and used it as an excuse to do away with God. But because big bang cosmology is no friend of naturalism, it should not be rejected on the false grounds that it is such a friend to the naturalist and a morally debauched society.

As mentioned above, it is true that many naturalists, skeptics, and unbelievers hold to big bang cosmology, but it is the non-theistic philosophies that have opened our culture to the moral decay that we see. God is the foundation for objective morality. God is the source of the Image of God found in all humans. And the Image of God is the foundation of humans’ intrinsic value, free agency, and moral culpability (see my posts “Why Is The Image of God So Important?” and “Do Humans Have Intrinsic Value?“). Not only have Christians who affirm big bang cosmology held tightly to the very Foundation (God) of objective morality and the Image of God, they have hard, scientific evidence of the existence of that Foundation via big bang cosmology (again, Romans 1, in action).

Conclusion

The idea that Christians, who accept the evidence God has provided for how and when He created the world, have somehow become or want to become friends with the world is misguided. Anyone who makes this accusation against a fellow Christian simply does not understand the theistic implications of big bang theory nor do they recognize that atheists saw those implications and resisted because of those implications, yet they were eventually compelled by the evidence that God has provided to us by His fully reliable actions (creation) to accept it. Even if one does not agree that the creation testifies to the big bang creation event, they cannot honestly continue to claim that the big bang is a naturalistic, anti-God theory.

Before You Hit Send by Emerson Eggerichs- Audio Book Highlight

Culture CrossExamined, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Introduction

If you consume a large portion of your material through audio, it is hard to get past a good deal on an excellent audio book. Twice every year ChristianAudio.com runs a sale on most of their collection, and you can usually pick up these great audio resources for $7.49. The time has come for the first sale of 2021 (and beyond), so I will be highlighting some of my favorite audio books. I’ll include a few of my favorite quotes from the books, my recommendation from my chapter-by-chapter reviews, links to posts that were inspired by the books, and, of course, I will include links to the audio book deal throughout the article. Today, I am highlighting Before You Hit Send: Preventing Headache and Heartache by Dr. Emerson Eggerichs.

Before You Hit Send– My Recommendation

I was first introduced to Dr. Emerson Eggerichs’ work about a decade ago when my wife and I were at the local Christian bookstore, and one of his books about communication in marriage was on sale. I picked it up and found that it was on target with what Scripture taught about male and female communication and what my wife and I had experienced in our own marriage. After reading his flagship book “Love and Respect: The Love She Desires Most; The Respect He Desperately Needs” and listening to the podcast he produced for a couple years, I (along with many others) realized that the communication principles he drew from Scripture rang true in all relationships, not just marriage.

When I found out that he wrote a book on general communication in all relationships and focused on communication in the age of social media, I was ecstatic! As a defender of the Christian worldview, I am constantly engaging skeptics and presenting the evidence for the truth of what I believe. The common passage of scripture that is quoted to support this aspect of evangelism is 1 Peter 3:15: “Always be ready to give a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you, and do so with gentleness and respect.” This passage emphasizes not merely the content of our defense but also the delivery of the content: “with gentleness and respect.” Learning to be wise communicators is necessary for anyone who wishes to obey Peter’s command in full.

“Before You Hit Send” is an incredible listen. Because of the fact that I have dedicated my life to defending the truth of the Christian worldview, which has eternal consequences for my audience, along with being in constant prayer, I am always looking for ways to ensure that I am communicating my case as persuasively as possible. As we defend the truth of Christianity, we may be removing intellectual stumbling blocks, but we may be introducing emotional ones. Kind, necessary, and clear communication are equally as necessary as true communication. In so thoroughly covering the possible pitfalls in all four aspects of our communication, Dr. Eggerichs has provided an indispensable resource.

The principles discussed, of course, apply to all of our communicative relationships on all topics, whether at home, at work, at church, at the coffee shop, or on social media. We must remember that every time that we communicate with another person, as Christians, we are giving them an impression of Christ, so we must guard that impression to ensure that we accurately reflect Him. Whether we are actively looking for the opportunity to evangelize and defend or not, at some point, we will be called upon to give a reason for the hope that we have to those we have communicated with, and we do not want our past failures to taint the answer that we provide. I highly recommend “Before You Hit Send.” Every Christian needs to listen to this book thoughtfully and prayerfully.

You can read the complete chapter-by-chapter summary review by clicking or tapping here.

Before You Hit Send by Emerson Eggerichs- Favorite Quotes

“When people cannot win on the merits of their performance, products, or positions, they are tempted to cross a line and speak horribly of the opponent, perhaps even lying.”

“Some people enter politics because they derive personal fulfillment from the ‘gotcha’ approach to issues. It isn’t about what is true but about the political chess game. The key is to put a better spin on a matter than the other candidate and to put the opposition in checkmate.”

“It makes no difference if our spin is compelled by our compassion or career advancement or the suppression of opposite positions; little good comes to us when we refuse to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”

“Being a person who communicates what is true frequently demands tact, and at times it can feel like side-stepping land mines. It takes work to be both truthful and tactful.”

“When you are truthful all day long while being unkind, hateful, and contemptuous, you are making more enemies than friends…Our hostility and disdain close off the spirits of others to the very truth we wish them to hear.”

“Truth carries its own weight, and we should feel confident about this. When we yield to ‘might makes right,’ there is something inherently wrong in what we believe, and we know it.”

“Perhaps in many cases we didn’t know it was untrue. No harm, no foul. Even so, an honest error in judgment does not make it okay, especially when we repeatedly make such mistakes. The real point here is to the lazy and neglectful individuals who keep making mistakes and claim they did not know the truth. They may be innocent, but one becomes guilty of carelessness and inattentiveness. We must aggressively get our facts straight to avoid a routine of ‘honest’ mistakes.”

“The more important the communication the less I can afford making glaring mistakes.”

“Our communication is very important to God. As odd as this sounds, God is reading our mail, and when we are not truthful, we are not truthful with Him. It isn’t that we cannot lie, but we ask, Why would I when I love God and He loves me, and my communication is really a reflection of my communion with Him? This is our deepest mind-set before hitting send. We have an audience of One.”

“Truth without love is comparable to heart surgery without anesthesia.”

“The Golden Rule says, ‘Treat others the same way you want them to treat you.’ (Luke 6:31).. What I find fascinating is that some people—some very smart people—compromise at this juncture. They want to be treated with the Golden Rule of true communication but do not want to be bound by it.”

“Oftentimes, other’ perceptions behind our communications are just as important as our intentions behind what we were sharing. Though we may have spoken truthfully with kindness and respect, and at the necessary time, if the communication is not perceived in the way we intended, then we must ask ourselves if we were as clear as we could have been.”

“When we conclude the other person needs the light of the truth, and we can speak it lovingly, respectfully, and coherently, then we ought to communicate it. We must speak up for the sake of the truth and for the sake of the other person.”

Does Jesus Devastate An Old Earth?

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Introduction

Science and faith issues are no doubt a hot topic of discussion when it comes to defending the truth of Christianity. Many Christians hold many different views about the timing and mechanism of God’s creative acts. Some views hold numerous details in common while others may hold only many details in common. It is the few differences here and there that cause much heat in this internal debate and cause unbelievers (and some Christians) to question the truth of the historic Christian faith as a whole. Today, I want to look at one of the more common distinctives between Christians who believe that the universe is young (6,000-10,000 years old) and those Christians who believe that the universe is ancient (~13.7 billion years old).

But before I get to the specific challenge, I need to set a foundation. First, I am an old earth creationist (OEC), so I will defend the latter of the two views above; however, I will not appeal to God’s actions (creation) today; rather I will limit my appeals to Scripture alone. Second, there are numerous areas of agreement among young and old earth creationists just within the doctrine of creation (not to mention the rest of the Christian worldview), and I feel that the differences, because of their ability to undermine the truth of the Christian worldview, tend to get more of the focus than the common ground. I have a list of more than forty areas of agreement in my article “What Do Young Earth and Old Earth Christians Agree Upon Regarding Origins?” to help Christians remember these area of unity and be more gracious in our discussions with each other. The primary two areas of agreement that are important for today’s topic are that both young- and old- earth creationists affirm biblical inerrancy and that Adam and Eve were historically the first humans. With those in place, here we go!

The Claim: Jesus Was A Young Earth Creationist

In Mark 10:6 Jesus teaches, “But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female.” Many young earth creationists (YEC) use this passage as a proof text that demonstrates that their interpretation of Genesis 1 is the interpretation that Jesus held (see this article from the YEC organization Answers In Genesis: Jesus Devastates An Old Earth). Young earth creationists believe that God created Adam and Eve between 144 hours and 168 hours after He created the universe. Old earth creationists believe that God created Adam and Eve between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago. So, the YEC argument goes like this:

Jesus taught that Adam and Eve were created at the beginning of creation of the universe.
The YEC creation of Adam and Eve is closer to its date of creation of the universe than is the OEC creation of Adam and Eve to its date of creation of the universe.
Therefore, Jesus was teaching the YEC interpretation of Genesis 1.

The Fatal Flaw

On the surface, the argument does seem legitimate and is certainly persuasive. I’m sure many have seen and some have used this argument, sometimes with a slightly different second premise, but the first premise and the conclusion are always the same. However, there is one fatal flaw to all these versions. “144 hours later” is not the same as “the beginning of creation of the universe,” and, to be fair, neither is 100,000 to 200,000 years later either. The first premise (the one premise that appears in all the versions of this argument) is simply false. The falsehood of the first premise is what logically undermines the conclusion. But is the defeat of the first premise really that cut-and-dried? Perhaps not. The doctrine of biblical inerrancy may have an allowance that permits the first premise to be true.

Finding The Proper Interpretation

A statement can be true but not complete in its precision, just like 3.14 or 3.14159 both accurately represent pi even though they have different levels of precision. A lack of precision does not necessarily undermine the truth of a claim, nor does a lack of precision necessarily undermine the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. In the case of Mark 10:6, it is true; however, it is not explicitly precise. “The beginning of creation…’of what'” is where the debate on interpreting Mark 10:6 hinges. There are two ways to address this. First, let’s examine an argument for what the object of creation is, and second, let’s examine an argument for what the object of creation is not.

What Is Jesus Talking About?

When we read the passage, it is obvious that Jesus is describing the features of humans: “God created them male and female.” So, the specific portion of God’s creation that is in view is that of humans. Notice that there is the pronoun “them” in the passage as well. A pronoun must have an explicit or implicit antecedent. If we are to interpret Jesus’ words to mean “From the beginning of creation of humans God made them male and female,” we see that the antecedent (implied by Jesus’ words but explicit in the interpretation of Jesus’ words) matches that of the object of creation that Jesus is obviously referring to in the passage.

What Is Jesus NOT Talking About?

But is there a way that the universe could be the object of creation yet Jesus be making a point about the creation of humans? The doctrine of biblical inerrancy certainly allows for truth without precision, so could the YEC simply say that Jesus was truthfully but imprecisely equating the time of the creation of man with the time of creation of the universe, making the object of the creation the universe? The answer is “no,” and here is why. It is generally recognized that there is a difference between “lack of precision” and “false.” This distinction is not always easy to identify, but in many cases, rules or methods can be used to identify the line. Back to my example of pi, the rules of rounding provides the boundary that logically judges that 3.15 is not a lack of precision but is a falsehood. In the case Mark 10:6, we can use the perspicuity of Scripture (allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture) to identify where the line of distinction precisely lies and can judge for us whether the proposed interpretation is a lack of precision or is a falsehood.

Genesis 1 clearly defines the location of the line of distinction for judgment. Genesis 1 places a hard line between “lack of precision” and “false” for any timing claim regarding the universe’s creation event at the beginning of the next “yom” (“day”). A lack of precision of another passage of scripture is permitted by Genesis 1 as long as the lack of precision is still within the boundary of the “yom” (“day”) of the creation of the universe. So, on the YEC view, “lack of precision” is biblically and doctrinally permitted if and only if the imprecise claim of Mark 10:6 falls within that first 24 hours. However, the claim is false if the lack of precision of timing is outside of the 24 hour window following the creation of the universe.

Genesis 1 states that Adam and Eve were created on Day 6. Since Day 6 falls outside that 24 hour window, claiming that the creation of Adam and Eve and the creation of the universe are imprecisely at the same time is outside the allowable limits of a lack of precision, thus it is outside the boundaries of an interpretation that is guided by biblical inerrancy and the perspicuity of Scripture. So, Genesis 1 judges that Mark 10:6 cannot be interpreted to mean “the beginning of creation of the universe” even with the doctrine of biblical inerrancy allowing for a lack of precision.

So, the interpretation of Mark 10:6 which includes the universe as the object of creation is false- not permitted as judged by the doctrine of biblical inerrancy via the perspicuity of Scripture. If anyone was to insist that the universe is the object of creation in Jesus’ statement, this would place them (YEC or OEC) in the position of denying not only the truth of biblical inerrancy but the use of biblical inerrancy in interpretation.

The Proper Interpretation Within the Bounds of Biblical Inerrancy and Genesis 1

We see that the object of creation cannot be the universe but rather is humans. When we understand “humans” as the antecedent of “them” and that it is the specific creation of which Jesus is describing both the beginning and features, the passage remains true, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy has properly guided to our interpretation of Mark 10:6, and Genesis 1 has rightfully judged our interpretation of the passage.

A Vital Decision

However, with this proper interpretation, the YEC loses claim to this passage as a proof-text of their view and as a defeater of other views. They also lose it as a supporting premise of their argument(s), and they lose the claim that Jesus was a YEC. The young-earth creationist has a choice: they can either give up the idea that Jesus held and taught their view, or they can surrender biblical inerrancy.

It is important to understand the ramifications of each of these options. If a YEC were to surrender Jesus as an infallible authority who holds their particular doctrinal interpretation, that is not a big deal. Why? Because Jesus did not speak to every doctrinal issue while on earth, and just because He did not speak to it while on earth does not mean that it is not true (its truth may be able to be established another way- including with the rest of Scripture, which Jesus, being God, did inspire). However, if the YEC surrenders the inerrancy of Scripture, then they lose the reliability of the accounts of Jesus teaching anything while on earth or inspiring human authors to teach while He was not on earth…so none of Scripture can be used to argue for the truth of any doctrine. With the first option, what is lost has the possibility of being regained, but with the second option everything is lost and nothing is regained.

It Gets Progressively Worse – Threats to the Church

Insisting upon the YEC interpretation of Mark 10:6, undermines biblical inerrancy (without even appealing to raw scientific data recorded from God’s creation). Such a position is essentially the same as the position of Progressive Christianity. Insisting upon an interpretation of any passage of the Bible that logically implies the denial of biblical inerrancy opens the door wide to this heretical movement within the Church. If a Christian recognizes the problem described in this post with the YEC interpretation and use of Mark 10:6, this could play a vital role in their “deconstruction” (see the book “Another Gospel: A Lifelong Christian Seeks Truth In Response to Progressive Christianity” by Alisa Childers about Progressive Christianity) should they not also be presented the viable alternative described above. And their rejection of the Bible as a whole as being “God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16) and their rejection of the historic Christian worldview will not be far behind.

Now, does this mean that Genesis is not history? No. Does it mean that the early chapters of Genesis are not to be interpreted literally? Not at all. Does this mean that we are taking man’s word over God’s word? Not a chance. These and several other common concerns are addressed in these posts:

Conclusion – The Implications for Evangelism

We’ve seen in this article that it is simply false that Jesus devastates the old-earth interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis. Jesus did affirm the historicity of a literal Adam and Eve in Mark 10:6, but He did not say or imply anything about the time of their creation. The proper interpretation of Mark 10:6 has great apologetic significance. For when the correct interpretation of Mark 10:6 is recognized (Jesus did not teach that the universe is young, here), when unbelievers and Christians in the process of deconstruction test Jesus’ claims about creation against the revelations of creation, they cannot use Mark 10:6 as an excuse to say that Jesus’ claims about reality (including His claim to be God and the only way to the Father [John 14:6]) are false. Romans 1 remains true in its claim that the unbeliever is without excuse, even (or especially) when they look at the creation. Ultimately, if this passage is brought up as a defeater for Christianity, then we can simply demonstrate the misinterpretation, then get back to the evidence that answers the one question that the truth of the historic Christian worldview depends upon: Did The Historical Jesus Rise From The Dead?

Contradictions In The Life of a Christian

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Introduction

The Christian Church is no stranger to hypocrisy. The Church is comprised of sinners who do not always practice what they preach, and sometimes such practice is in stark contradiction to what we preach. Some of the most heinous acts have been committed by Christians while they speak truth. It seems that sexual misconduct within the Church is always on the radar. Ever since I can remember being able to comprehend it, I have been made aware of numerous sexual scandals within the Church. Like just about any person, some have hit close to home and others further away. The ones that are closer to home tend to be particularly devastating- not just physically and emotionally, but spiritually and intellectually.

It is important for those who are affected to hold to a worldview that can objectively condemn such actions and provide healing for the victims. In these emotionally trying situations it is easy to entertain doubts of the truth of Christianity. Today, I want to take a few moments to show how such hypocrisy actually reveals the truth of the Christian worldview and how the Christian worldview offers the only possible answer to hypocrisy.

The Objectivity of Evil

First, a sexual predator’s actions must be called out as objectively evil, not merely something that a group of people do not like or prefer. The claim that what they did was evil is not just an opinion that can be dismissed by those who do not see anything wrong with the actions. That such actions are objectively evil is a feature of reality that must be faced, explained, and answered by every worldview.

No worldview can escape this obligation. No worldview that is missing an anchor for objective morality can provide any meaningful judgment of “evil”- those who hold to these worldviews can only render opinions, which is no more valid or true than the person, who may also hold to the same worldview, who says the actions were “good.” Any worldview that is missing such an anchor is demonstrably defeated by any sexual predator’s actions (whether they are members of a church or not).

The Scars Sin Leaves and The Cost of Moral Agnosticism and Relativism

Every single victim of sexual misconduct, molestation, rape, etc. is created in the Image of God, thus they are intrinsically valuable. Their violation is objectively evil, and justice must be served. The devastation of violations like these take years and even decades for healing to take place, if it even does. These men, women, boys, and girls will bear the scars for the rest of their lives. These scars will stand as a testimony to the truth that objective evil exists.

Any worldview that remains agnostic or ambivalent about the moral status of these actions makes the victims victims over and over again. Worldviews without an anchor for objective morality objectively devalues the violations and raises them to moral equivalency with love, honesty, and integrity. Worldviews that cannot call evil “evil” in any meaningful sense of the word (or for that matter, cannot call good “good” either) encourages the creation of more victims and compounds the suffering of those who are already victims.

Such sins in the life of a Christian demonstrates conclusively that no morally relativistic or agnostic worldview deserves to have a place in a culture, government, or even at the table of intellectual inquiry because it perpetually violates reality by violating the victims time and time again.

What If God Does Not Exist?

Sexual sin is detestable, despicable, and heinous, and we all know that intuitively. The person who commits evil is ultimately, eternally damnable because they have violated the intrinsic worth of a human being created in God’s Image, and by doing so, they have violated the eternal, morally perfect God. God is the only source for morality that is independent of any and all human beings. He alone is the anchor that allows anyone to objectively identify such actions as morally “evil.”

Simply put, if God does not exist, then nothing that these Christians did is evil. Nothing that they do is worth condemnation or even discussion since they are merely dancing to their DNA- the victims will continue to be victims because they are not really “victims” of anything good or evil. This is not to say that someone has to believe that God exists to condemn a Christian’s sexual violations; rather this is to say that it is only because God does exist that even an atheist can accurately condemn such actions as objectively evil. If God does not exist, not even the theist can condemn sexual abuse as objectively evil.

The Cognitive and Emotional Dissonance of Evil

When the stories of a perpetrator’s heinous acts are recounted, the moral law that is written on all our hearts will emotionally and powerfully rise to the surface. The emotions we feel are not there merely because we feel that these actions are evil, but because they objectively are evil, and our outrage is a most appropriate reaction to such violations. The head and the heart, logic and emotion, converge in perfect harmony to reveal the truth of reality and the truth of God’s existence. Unless God exists, a person’s “evil” deeds bring nothing but cognitive and emotional dissonance.

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

If the grotesque moral failings of ministers of the Gospel are to serve any purpose, it is to attempt to shock our culture back from its moral and intellectual stupor and remind us of the contradiction in every Christian life. But in stark contrast to every Christian, in God there is no contradiction: not in His actions and not in His words. We all long for someone to be fully consistent with what they say and what they do. But this simply will not happen when we look to man, even Christian leaders. We should not be surprised when ministers of the Gospel morally fail. We should be surprised that despite the evidence all around us of humanity’s fallenness that we still try to look to humanity for perfect consistency.

Rather, we must look to the morally perfect Creator, against whom every human has sinned. This God loves us and desires an infinite, personal relationship with us so much that he became one of us to take upon Himself our sins and the wrath that we deserve because of our sin. Justice was served for every sin we could ever commit when Jesus Christ died on the cross. And in His bodily resurrection from the dead, we have forgiveness (1 Cor 15). The resurrection of Jesus provides us proof of the truth of His claim to be the Creator God of the universe- the Way, the Truth, the Life, without whom no one can come to the Father (John 14:6).

Conclusion- My Two Prayers

Sin, hypocrisy and betrayal in the life of any Christian minister does not demonstrate or even indicate that Christianity is false. Rather the opposite is the case: they provide severe tests of a worldview against reality, which Christianity alone passes. Christianity never makes the claim that Christians will be perfect; in fact, it makes the contradictory claim: that Christians can and still do heinously evil things. This is the reality that we live in, that we are a part of, and that Christianity uniquely, among all the worldviews of history, accurately describes. It is only through Christ that the sinner is healed, that the victim is healed, and that both can be reconciled to God.

It is my prayer that all victims will find understanding ears in today’s culture- people who recognize, validate and anchor the objectivity of the evil and suffering they endure, people who recognize that full healing can only be found at the Cross.

It is also my prayer that as more revelations of moral failings within the Church come, that it will cause unbelievers to consider the foundations of their moral outrage, investigate the evidence, and realize that they too are in need of Christ’s atonement, forgiveness and Resurrection.

Finally, remember that it is not Christ who has failed us; it is members of His Church who have failed us. It is time that we stop misplacing our trust in people and start properly placing our trust where the evidence tells us it should have been in the first place: in Christ. I implore you to follow the moral, philosophical, historical, and scientific evidence where it leads: surrender your life fully and completely to Christ to find both healing and forgiveness.

Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/Pm5hRad

July 26, 2021/by Guest

Tag Archive for: Luke Nix

The Image of God

Human Sinfulness

Denying Both?

Should Theology Judge Science?

Conclusion

References:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Introduction

The Image of God

Human Sinfulness

Denying Both?

Should Theology Judge Science?

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Magna Carta of Humanity: Sinai’s Revolutionary Faith and The Future of Freedom

My Awareness

Key Points:

Favorite Quotes:

Recommendations:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Introduction

Fatalistic Events

Subjective Morality

No Design, No Engineering

No Progress

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Introduction: Science vs. Christianity?

Science vs Atheism

The principle of uniformity vs atheism

The laws of logic vs atheism

The laws of physics vs atheism

Our sensory organs and the brain vs atheism

Conclusion

Recommended resources in Spanish:

Introduction

The objectivity of evil

The scars of sin and the cost of agnosticism and moral relativism

What if God doesn’t exist?

The cognitive and emotional dissonance of evil

Actions speak louder than words

Conclusion – My two sentences

Recommended resources in Spanish:

Introduction

Being The World’s Friends and Enemies of God

The Big Bang Is Hardly An Atheistic Theory

The Foundation for Morality

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Introduction

Before You Hit Send– My Recommendation

Before You Hit Send by Emerson Eggerichs- Favorite Quotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Introduction

The Claim: Jesus Was A Young Earth Creationist

The Fatal Flaw

Finding The Proper Interpretation

What Is Jesus Talking About?

What Is Jesus NOT Talking About?

The Proper Interpretation Within the Bounds of Biblical Inerrancy and Genesis 1

A Vital Decision

It Gets Progressively Worse – Threats to the Church

Conclusion – The Implications for Evangelism

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Introduction

The Objectivity of Evil

The Scars Sin Leaves and The Cost of Moral Agnosticism and Relativism

What If God Does Not Exist?

The Cognitive and Emotional Dissonance of Evil

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

Conclusion- My Two Prayers

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/Pm5hRad