Luke Nix Archives - Page 2 of 6

Tag Archive for: Luke Nix

Improbable Planet by Hugh Ross ― Audio Book Highlight

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

Introduction

If you consume a large portion of your material through audio, it is hard to get past a good deal on an excellent audiobook. 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 audiobooks. 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 audiobook deal throughout the article. Today, I am highlighting Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity’s Home by Dr. Hugh Ross.

Improbable Planet by Hugh Ross– My Recommendation

Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity’s Home is the highly anticipated “sequel” to Dr. Hugh Ross’ book Why The Universe Is The Way It Is. In the first work, Dr. Ross examined several biblical purposes God has for this creation and how these purposes are evidenced in the history of the universe. In this new book, Dr. Ross zooms in from the perspective of the entire universe and multiple purposes to the earth and God’s purpose of redemption. Dr. Ross’ goal in this volume is to demonstrate how the history of our planet is not merely some naturalistic “just-so story” but rather a complex, multi-stage project with an explicit purpose as its end-goal. He intends to marshal the latest scientific discoveries from numerous scientific disciplines to make his case for the design of our planet.

It is an amazing listen. I work with several project managers at my job, and they have shown me representations of the schedules of their various projects. These include the necessary order of numerous steps, deadlines for the steps, the goals of each step, and the final purpose. Many of the steps must be done together and within certain time periods; otherwise, the project will fail. If you have ever mapped out a project or have seen one mapped out, you may be familiar with Gantt charts and how complex they can be. As I was only a couple chapters into this book, I could not help but imagine the incredible complexity behind the project that God planned and executed perfectly to accomplish His purposes. The projects that I have seen at work do not compare to the project that was our planet. If it is reasonable to think that the smaller and less complex projects at work were the product of designers, then it is even more reasonable to understand the project that was our planet is the product of a Designer.

Dr. Ross skillfully brings numerous discoveries of numerous disciplines of science together to give the big picture of the project of our planet. He then shows from the Bible what the end purpose was, and how it all comes together into a cohesive worldview that ends with Christian evangelism. He shows how God did not merely start the process at the big bang and wait for natural processes to eventually and accidentally complete each step. Rather God initiated each step at the earliest moment possible after the previous step was completed, and while certain steps were being completed, God was working on other necessary steps. Dr. Ross shows how it was necessary that each step be completed within precise boundaries and deadlines that, if crossed or missed, we would not exist.

Dr. Ross masterfully demonstrates God’s patient yet highly active execution of His cosmic project. The argument from design in this book is awe-inspiring scientifically and theologically. The way the argument is presented makes it nearly impossible to be intellectually dismissed, especially by those even remotely involved in engineering or project management. I highly recommend that all Christians pick up a copy of this book. It will give you a new appreciation for the creation and the power, care, patience, and love of our Creator and Savior. It will also give you a tremendous tool to discuss and defend the truth of the Christian worldview from the latest discoveries in the hard sciences.

I especially recommend this audiobook to Christian apologists interested in arguments from design. This book takes the teleological argument to the next level. It goes beyond just identifying the finely-tuned constants of the universe to show how, even within a finely-tuned universe, in order for the arrival of advanced life such as humans, the processes that formed the final site of advanced life had to be meticulously planned and actively guided. The argument in the book appeals directly to what is known about the necessity of a designer behind projects, and implied throughout the book is the exponentially decreasing probabilistic resources available to the naturalist to explain our existence. Scientists, every day, are discovering new features of the history of our planet that cry out for a purposeful explanation. Improbable Planet needs to be in your personal library and part of your collection of tools to defend the truth that God created this universe and us for a purpose: to redeem us through the death and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.

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

Improbable Planet by Hugh Ross ― Favorite Quotes

“Only in a spiral galaxy is a long history of life possible. A spiral galaxy of the just-right size and the just-right structure can yield adequate heavy elements for life as well as a possible location where a planetary system can reside for billions of years without being exposed to deadly radiation and without gravitational disruptions from adjacent stars and molecular clouds.”

“The Local Group represents a rarity. As far as astronomers are able to see, the Local Group is the only grouping of galaxies wherein a host galaxy can sustain a planet on which a long history of diverse, complex, and abundant life is possible.”

“The list of rarities, all of which serve the eventual needs of long-enduring life, up to and including advanced civilization, starts with the [solar] system’s origin cluster and goes on to include its ejection from that cluster, the Grand Tack sequence, the Moon-forming event, the late veneer, the late heavy bombardment, the fifth planet’s timing, and jumping Jupiter. The existence and locations of our planetary system’s five asteroid and comet belts simply add to the already long list of features that must be in place before life can originate on Earth and possess any possibility of survival for a few billion years. The ‘coincidences’ compound with each new discovery.”

“Destructive mean motion resonances are nearly ubiquitous. As it is, Uranus is close to a 7:1 resonance with Jupiter, a 2:1 resonance with Neptune, and a 3:1 resonance with Saturn. Meanwhile, Jupiter and Saturn are very close to a 5:2 resonance. If any of these gas giant planets’ orbital positions were to shift even slightly, that shift would generate instabilities in the orbit of one or more of the solar system’s eight planets. Such instabilities would shatter the possibility of a long history of life on Earth, a history leading to human life and civilization.”

“The conditions under which the Moon formed seem so unlikely, from a naturalistic worldview, as to defy credibility.”

“The ideal place for any kind of life as we know it turns out to be the solar system like ours, within a galaxy like the Milky Way, within a supercluster system like ours, within a galaxy like the Milky Way, within a supercluster of galaxies like the Virgo supercluster, within a super-supercluster like the Laniakea super-supercluster. In other words, we happen to live in the best, perhaps the one and only, neighborhood that allows not only for physical life’s existence but also for its enduring survival.”

“Ongoing research tells us that Earth has been shaped not only by an intricately orchestrated interplay of physical forces and conditions but also by its vast abundance and diversity of life-forms. By means that no depth and breadth of scientific research can explain, life arose early in Earth’s history under anything but the benign conditions it would seem to require and somehow persisted through multiple mass extinction events, always appearing or reappearing at just-right times and in just-right forms to meet the needs and demands of the revised environment.”

“Both plate tectonics and life must remain at certain levels at different times throughout the past 3.8 billion years so that the history of life and of plate tectonics will produce all the resources for humanity’s eventual existence and launch of global, technologically advanced civilization.”

“The great diversity and abundance established early in life’s history drove the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and sulfur cycles to levels eventually sufficient for the entry of advanced life. The sulfate-reducing bacteria played an especially critical role. Their metabolic reactions transformed much of the soluble metal resources in the oceans and crust into insoluble concentrated metal ore deposits. Thus, a potentially poisonous environment for advanced life became an optimal resource repository, one that would later allow humanity to quickly transition from Stone Age machinery and tools to metallurgy-based technologies.”

“Without abundant photosynthetic life, plate tectonic activity on Earth would have shut down relatively quickly, making the crust a stationary lid over anything and everything beneath it. Without plate tectonics, the removal of greenhouse gases from Earth’s atmosphere would have shut down. Without removal of greenhouse gases, the Sun’s increasing luminosity would have raised Earth’s surface temperature beyond what life can tolerate. Earth would have become permanently sterile.”

“Unless plate tectonics had become established as a sustained, aggressive, globally manifested phenomenon as early as 3.0 billion years ago, Earth’s surface might never have attained the necessary conditions for advanced life in the time window between the Late Heavy Bombardment and the Sun’s brightening to catastrophic levels.”

“Thanks to the long history of progressively more advanced life-forms, the mineral inventory in Earth’s crust grew from 250 minerals up to its present stock of 4,300 distinct minerals. Many of these minerals have made possible the technology and standard of living humanity enjoy today. Billions of years of life appearing in progressively more advanced forms also provided humanity with an enormous treasure chest of biodeposits. This treasure includes several feet of rich topsoil and humus (amorphous organic matter) on sedimentary plains all over Earth’s landmasses–essential for extensive, intensive cultivation. Earth’s long history of life and tectonic activity also laid down vast stores of fossil fuels and building materials. That history speaks of a rich endowment that built up over billions of years of speciation events, deaths, and extinctions, new speciation events, more deaths and extinctions, and more life.”

“When research runs head-on into nature’s limits only scientism, not science, would rule out consideration of any cause other than nature. At such places, to invoke the possibility of a power and intelligence beyond nature may be the most rational response.”

Finding Common Ground In A Time of Stark Division

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

“While We All Want to Believe That We Are Committed to Truth Rather Than A Narrative, Our Actions In Conversation—How We Mistreat Evidence, Mischaracterize Opposing Views And Arguments, And Attack The Challenger Rather Than The Challenge—Often Tell A Different Story.” Luke Nix

The Importance of Recognizing Common Ground

In these times of stark division, it is important that we not allow our disagreements to ultimately result in the destruction of our unity as a society, culture, and Church. There is nothing wrong with a society having a diversity of ideas, as long as those ideas are discussed and debated respectfully. When the wrong ideas are identified, such a respectful dialog can result in the dismissal of false ideas and the acceptance of true ideas. This is progress. Progress towards the objective goal of a society that has and lives according to the view of reality as it actually is and not some delusion.

However, many times discussion is stifled because we do not recognize common ground with those in which we disagree. When we possess and recognize common ground, we have a connection to maintain a healthy relationship when we have stark disagreements and rigorously debate which view (if either) accurately reflect reality. Today I want to point out six different things that we all hold in common that, if recognized by even one side, can help keep relationships healthy despite disagreements.

The Image of God

We are all created in the Image of God, thus we are all intrinsically, equally valuable. No matter how strongly we disagree with the other person, they ultimately have just as much value as we do and are worthy of our love and respect. No matter how disrespectful or unloving they are in their discussion or behavior towards us or others, this value remains in tact and stands as a reminder to us that a disrespectful or unloving posture towards them is never justified. We must remember that behind every challenge is a challenger. The challenge must be dealt with logically and evidentially, but the challenger must be addressed lovingly and respectfully.

Our Sinfulness

We are all sinners that have fallen short of God’s objective, moral standard, thus there will be evil committed by people against people. While we are all created in God’s Image and possess intrinsic and equal value, this does not mean that any of us is perfect. People will offend us. We will offend others. People will deeply hurt us, and we will deeply hurt others. People will sin against us, and, yes, we will sin against others. It is important to recognize that we will all fail and must treat each other, even those with whom we disagree, with the grace and forgiveness that we would like to be treated when we sin. And if we expect others to humbly accept correction, then we must also humbly accept correction when we make mistakes.

Christ’s Forgiveness

We are all sinful, but we are all loved by our morally perfect Creator. Jesus died and rose from the dead so that all people could receive the forgiveness necessary so that we can spend eternity with our Creator and each other. We are all in this same boat. No person needs Christ’s forgiveness any more or less than another; no person deserves Christ’s forgiveness any more or less than another, but every person must accept Christ’s forgiveness. We are all equally in need of forgiveness, and as long as we are still alive, Christ’s forgiveness is available. Thus we should never condemn another to hell because of their current worldview or moral position. Rather we should prayerfully pursue persuasion with evidence, logic, love, gentleness, and respect.

Our Fear

Our fear of being wrong and how changing a view may impact our other views and relationships. Many times when we are presenting evidence for a conclusion that someone opposes, it is not necessarily the evidence that the other person finds lacking but rather the possible implications of changing their mind. Some undesirable implications are perceived to be logical, and we must show either how the perceived implications do not logically follow (thus are not logically required to be consistent) or are not what they seem. Other undesired implications can be relational, and we must compassionately encourage those who may suffer severed or damaged relationships for accepting what is demonstrated to be true. We must remember our own experiences with these fears and patiently guide others while, of course, keeping the above common ground in mind because they may actually be doing the same for us while we may be the ones with these fears.

Our Questions and Doubts

We do not know everything, nor can we know everything. The same goes for everyone else. We will all have doubts and questions that we think must be answered before we can change our view. But not every little question and challenge can be answered about every view that we discuss. That is okay because not every question or challenge, if not answered the way we want or expect, presents a defeater for the view we’re questioning. Just as we expect others to consider the evidence that we present for our view and honestly consider if their questions or challenges truly undermine our evidence, we must be willing to engage in those considerations of their evidence and our questions as well. If we expect others to consider if they are just offering excuses to avoid changing their mind, we must be willing to demand the same of ourselves.

Our Choice

Finally, we all have the choice to either defend our narrative, or we can defend what is true about this world. We must choose to be committed to what is true, no matter the cost to ourselves; or we must be committed to what we want, no matter the cost to others. No doubt, it is objectively true that a commitment to truth, sacrificing self, is noble; and a commitment to self, sacrificing others, is despicable. Making this choice takes honesty, humility, and self-reflection, and frankly it can be a struggle. While we all want to believe that we are committed to truth rather than a narrative, our actions in conversation—how we mistreat evidence, mischaracterize opposing views and arguments, and attack the challenger rather than the challenge—often tell a different story. It is definitely true that “actions speak louder than words,” and it is time that we recognize that we must not merely apply that to others but to ourselves as well. As we struggle through this decision and recall the struggle, we can be more patient with and offer encouragement to those who are currently in the middle of the struggle.

Remembering that we hold much common ground with those we disagree with, often struggling in the past or in the present, and knowing that we desire gentleness and respect in those struggles, it is a most reasonable and loving expectation that we treat them as we wish for them to treat us. We should never be cold in our conversations; emotional warmth is necessary. Wisely conducting our conversations in the context of our common ground allows us to turn up the heat on the issues without burning the person behind the questions.

From Laws of Physics to Reasonable Faith

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Many may be surprised to find that knowledge is actually the foundation for faith in God.

A Blind Faith And God’s Hiddenness

Two common challenges to the truth of the Christian worldview are the seeming hiddenness of God and the accusation that Christianity requires a blind faith. Many people see the great amount of suffering in the world and in their own lives and wonder where God is and why He doesn’t seem to care to alleviate the suffering. Many skeptics also see Christians making claims about reality that are demonstrably false, and those people conclude that Christians’ faith is a belief despite evidence to the contrary- a blind faith.

The skeptic knows that there must be continuity between the present and the past (and the future) for us to reasonably believe that what happens in the present can be used to infer what has happened in the past (or make predictions about what will happen in the future). Armed with knowledge of the past, there is a solid, logical foundation to conclude something about the future. This also means that without knowledge of the past, there is no solid foundation to trust something with the present or the future.

This is how the skeptic believes they are being logical as they conclude that the Christian God is hidden (if not non-existent) and unfaithful, and how they also conclude that Christians’ faith is blind. Today, I want to take some time to show an understanding of the physical world will demonstrate that the skeptic has made a mistake in their reasoning to both conclusions about God’s supposed hiddenness and the supposed blind faith of Christianity.

Is Faith In God Really Blind?

Let us start with the very book that claims to accurately describe the Christian God: the Bible, and with the actions of this God: creation. If the Bible accurately describes the Christian God, then we have this series of arguments regarding faith in God for present and future experiences:

If the laws of physics are constant, then God’s character is constant (Jeremiah 33:25-26).
The laws of physics are constant.
If God’s character is constant, then His character can be trusted to be the same across all time.
God’s character is constant.
If God’s character has been faithful in the past, then His character will be faithful in the present and the future
God’s character has been faithful in the past.
Therefore, God’s character will be faithful in the present and the future.

This faith is a reasonable faith that is grounded in what we already know and have experienced. For the skeptic who wishes to claim that Christianity is an illogical and unreasonable faith, they must face in inconvenient reality: If they believe that Bible describes the Christian God, then it necessarily follows from Jeremiah 33:25-26 that the Christian God is faithful to His promises, and our trust in Him (faith) for present and future difficulties and sufferings is logically grounded in God’s past faithfulness through difficulties and sufferings. This means that our faith in God is a most logical faith.

What If The Laws of Physics Are Not Constant?

However, the soundness of the argument and our trust in the constancy of God’s character is dependent upon the reality of the constancy of the laws that govern the heavens and the earth (this universe). If these laws are not constant and have changed and if God is just as constant (the first premise in the argument), then God’s character can change. This means that if the laws of physics change, then God’s character changes, which necessarily implies that God’s promises can be rescinded, His faithfulness is laughable, and He is certainly not to be trusted.

If the skeptic were to deny constant laws of physics to avoid the conclusion that the Christian faith is a reasonable and logical faith, then they would suffer the logical consequence of the collapse of the entire scientific enterprise. While some (non-scientific) skeptics may be willing to live with this logical implication, many would be unwilling to do so. But they would be unwilling to do so at the cost of logical consistency. Because consistency is a necessary feature of logic and because reality is consistent, both logic and reality are abandoned with such a philosophical move.

When logic and reality are abandoned, though, all we have is a delusion guided by blind faith. Ironically, it is the skeptic who would refuse to surrender knowledge of the natural world (the goal of the scientific enterprise), in order to avoid the logical conclusion of God’s faithfulness (or even His existence), who is the one committed to a delusion and blind faith. (See the post “6 Ways Atheism Is A Science-Stopper” for more details on this line of reasoning.)

Now, if the Christians were to deny constant laws of physics for whatever reason (see “Is Genesis History” for an example), they then would suffer the logical consequence of the collapse of God’s faithful character. For a Christian who denies the constancy of the laws of physics, yet affirms God’s faithfulness, they, like the skeptic, do so at the cost of logical consistency- an abandonment of reason. Again, when logic and reason are abandoned, all that is left is a blind faith. And in a second move of irony, the skeptic who complains about a Christian’s blind faith does so only while affirming their own blind faith. (See the post “How Naturalism Defeats Science As A Knowledge Discipline“).

Interestingly, when the skeptic looks at the beliefs of Christians who deny the constancy of the laws of physics, they have an excuse for believing that the Christian faith is a blind faith; however, if the skeptic examines nature, they have no such excuse (Romans 1). So, if we bring together the idea that the Bible accurately describes the Christian God and the idea that the laws of physics are constant, then we have the conclusion that trust in the Christian God is necessarily a reasonable faith.

God’s Hiddenness

But how does this address the idea of God’s apparent hiddenness? If God has been faithful in the past, then it necessarily follows that He will be faithful in the future. As we read through the Bible, we see time after time that God has been faithful despite the sufferings. As Christians get older they often look through their lives and see how God has carried them through their sufferings and has remained faithful to them through the process. We have testimonies of God’s past faithfulness despite suffering from people of the ancient past (the Bible), the recent past (writings of past Christians in history), the present (friends, family, and the rest of the current Church), and even in our own personal lives. It is through his knowledge—this strong body of evidence of God’s past faithfulness and the constancy of God’s character evidenced by the scientific study of the natural realm—that we know that God is being faithful now and will be faithful in the future. Even if we cannot “see” how God is working right now, we can be assured that He is at work and our trust in Him is properly and reasonably placed.

Is It Arrogant To Claim That Jesus Is The Only Way?

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

An Arrogant Claim or An Arrogant Christian?

One of the most common concerns about Christianity is its claim of exclusivity. In today’s world, it is considered evil to not be inclusive of everyone and everything. To show such intolerance is the epitome of arrogance. Many people use the presence of such intolerance and arrogance as a defeater for Christianity, meaning that they reject its truth claims because along with those truth claims comes the claim to be the exclusive way to God. There are a few things to consider when examining this challenge, though.

Arrogance is a characteristic of a person not a claim.

The first thing to consider is that the character of a presenter has no bearings on the truth of the claim he or she is making. The claim is either true or false, and that must be judged based upon how that claim matches up against the evidence provided by reality. A person can be arrogant, but their claim cannot. We must be able to separate a person’s claim from their character and test each accordingly. A person’s claims need to be tested against reality, and a person’s character needs to be tested against an objective standard of morality (impossible, if God does not exist, by the way).

A person can make false claims and be arrogant. They can make false claims and be humble. They can make true claims and be humble, and they can even make true claims and be arrogant. A person’s character can, indeed, be a powerful distraction, but we want to reject the false claims regardless of the person’s character, and we want to accept the true claims regardless of their character. So we must focus on testing the claim. We should allow our minds to accept what is true because it accurately reflects reality, and we should allow our minds to reject what is false because it does not accurately reflect reality.

Arrogance is mistakenly confused with falsehood.

The second thing to consider is that this challenge tends to come from an assumption that is not often at the forefront: that multiple ways to God do, in fact, exist. If multiple ways to God exist, then to claim that the other ways do not get to God would not necessarily be arrogant (see above), but they would definitely be false. In the context of multiple ways to God, then it could be accurately said that the Christian is making a false claim.

But, Christianity does not grant that multiple ways to God exist. And if Christianity accurately reflects reality, then multiple ways to God do not exist. Since it can be evidentially demonstrated that Christianity accurately reflects reality, then by necessary implication, reality does not permit multiple ways to God. This is not an arrogant claim; it is simply a true claim. A true claim that is true for everybody even if nobody believes it, regardless of the character of those who claim it.

Arrogant Christians exist and humble Christians exist. Some Christians can and do present the exclusivity of our worldview in an arrogant way, but if their character is too much of an emotional distraction, look for a Christian who will present the evidence humbly. Do not let a Christian’s obnoxious attitude deter your search for truth.

The distraction of an arrogant Christian could be a cover for our own arrogance.

The third thing to consider is that perhaps it is not the arrogance of the Christian or the alleged arrogance of the Christian worldview that is the distraction from investigating the claims of Christianity. Perhaps it is the arrogance of the person raising the challenge that is preventing them from being committed to truth. If we are arrogant in our rejection of God’s one option, then we will gladly use a Christian’s arrogant presentation of that one option as an excuse to reject that one option. Our rejection of the Christian’s claim based on their arrogance serves to distract ourselves and others from our own arrogance. However, if we are humble and committed to discovering the truth no matter the cost, then even a Christian’s arrogance will not prevent us from investigating their claims despite their character flaw.

God is neither intolerant nor arrogant for providing a way to Him.

A fourth thing to consider is that there is a problem with humans in general that undergirds this challenge: no matter how many options we have, we always want more. If God had given us ten ways to Him, we’d want eleven; if He’d given us one million ways, we’d demand one million and one. This is evident by the continuous invention of new religions throughout history. New religions wouldn’t be concocted if the available options were satisfactory to us. So, I am inclined to think that no matter what option was provided to a person who makes this complaint, it would never satisfy them. At that point they may then complain that God has made Himself impossible to reach, when the truth is that they have made God impossible to reach by not being satisfied with the options provided.

Conclusion

When a person raises this challenge, they need to consider the real possibility that they are not concerned with restoring a relationship with their Creator for eternity, but that they are concerned with their own desires for the few decades of this life only, many of which are likely contradictory to God’s moral nature. If a person is most concerned with restoring their relationship with God for eternity, they will gladly do so on God’s terms even if those terms do not align with their own short-sighted desires. It is only necessary that God provides one option for those who truly seek Him because that one option will be sufficient and embraced no matter the cost to a few short decades in this imperfect world. If God did not provide any way to Him, that would be intolerant and arrogant.

However, He has provided one way to Him: Jesus Christ. The facts that one way is available and that we can choose to accept it or reject it means that God has given us two options. It is time for us to deny ourselves (including any possible arrogance that we have), take up our cross and follow Christ- we must surrender our desires to the commitment to truth.

We are blessed that a way of restoration to God has been provided, even if there is only one way, there is still a way. This way is available to all who wish to be humble and not arrogant (the very claim they are complaining about) and accept their brokenness and the way that was provided by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

If you are willing to judge the claims of Christianity by how its claims are supported by the evidence that is provided by our world, I encourage you to start with this post: Did The Historical Jesus Rise From The Dead? Be sure to check the links below to several scholars who have researched the evidence.

Defending Truth or Relieving Suffering: Which Should Be A Christian’s Focus?

Apologetics for Parents, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Why should Christians spend so much time and energy debating true theology when people are dying every day?

The Current Suffering In America

In the last year America has experienced a crazy amount of unrest and carnage (or at least that is what is put in front of our eyes every single day). And the opportunities for Christians to minister to those who are suffering due to the evil continue grow by the day. While these existential issues are piling up and many Christians are on the front lines of tending to physical, psychological, emotional, and spiritual wounds, many other Christians continue to have, what seem to be, abstract and less important discussions and arguments over theology. A friend of mine expressed his concern on social media when we were discussing a particular theological issue (but his concern can be aimed at any of the numerous theological debates). He states:

“I’m confused, why is it so important to show that your understanding of how old the Earth is, is the correct one? When people are destroying businesses while the police are told it’s okay because we need to let them vent, I’m thinking there are more important things Christians could be doing right now, than trying to prove to each other that their version of how and when God created our world, is the correct one. But I could be wrong…For the record, I do think it’s important to understand scriptures correctly, but some things like how and when God did certain things, are not as important to be understood correctly. In fact, I can imagine God being displeased with people on both sides of the age issue, because they lose sight of what the entire Bible is really all about. That doesn’t mean God didn’t stick some cool science answers in there, but OECists are correct when they object to how many YECists make it so important and I believe I’m correct when I complain about OECists seemingly making it so important too.”

He is not the only one who I have heard express similar concerns.

Many Christians believe that the reason that we see so much evil in America today is because, as a culture, we have forgotten God. As a culture, we have intentionally removed Him from our education and legal systems, and as a result we have removed any objective standard by which to judge what is morally good and logically valid. This has led to several generations of Americans who are never taught of objective morality or even proper logical reasoning. As a result they feel free to do whatever they want, to whom ever they want, to get whatever they want. There is no consideration for what actions and what goals are objectively, morally good and objectively, logically justified. Our culture has devolved into a struggle for and demonstration of physical, legal, and rhetorical power over those who have different understandings of reality than our own. And as long as Americans feels that they are justified in continuing to reject God, there is no hope in sight for this sad state of affairs to ever change.

Testing Christianity

Many unbelievers (and some Christians) see the first chapters of Genesis as a litmus test for the truth of the rest of the Bible, including its claims of objective morality, man’s objective sinfulness, and the claims of the New Testament regarding Jesus Christ’s life, death, resurrection and their power to transform man and reconcile him to the morally perfect God. Whether this test is reasonable or not, it is still one that has been applied in the past and, due to improper interpretation of these first chapters, has seemingly justified America’s rejection of God as the Creator. Augustine of Hippo described this very thing happening in his time:

“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”- Augustine, “The literal meaning of Genesis”, Book 1, 19.39 (circa AD 415)

Reinterpreting God’s Word

While it is definitely important for Christians to address the issues of the day in practical ways, it is just as, if not more, important to address the foundations that had led to the development of the issues that need to be addressed in practical ways. When a non-believer states that Genesis is in error regarding its claim about the world in which we live and thus justifies their rejection of the rest of Scripture and its claims, it is imperative that a Christian demonstrate how either the interpretation of Scripture or the interpretation of nature is in error. As Christians, we understand that God’s actions (creation) will never contradict His Word (the Bible), yet we understand that our interpretation of either or both could contradict either or both. It is important that the Christian recognize that when their interpretation of one is incorrect and adjust that interpretation. In adjusting our interpretation, we are not adjusting God’s Word or God’s actions; we are only adjusting our understanding of them to reflect what the Author intended (truth). A reinterpretation of the Bible is not necessarily a bad or wrong thing. If our original interpretation is false and if that falsehood can be demonstrated as so by testing that interpretation against God’s actions, then it is bad and wrong for us not to reinterpret. (See the post “Deconstructionism, The Constitution, and Biblical Interpretation” for more on this.)

Rejecting God In America

When an unbeliever raises a legitimate challenge to a particular interpretation of the Bible, it needs to be considered that it is, at least possible, that that interpretation of the Bible is incorrect, lest that challenge logically be more than just a challenge to the interpretation but a challenge to the truth and authority of God’s Word, itself. If that challenge is logically a challenge to God’s Word and not just a challenge to an interpretation of God’s Word, then there is logical justification for rejecting the claims of objective morality, man’s objective sinfulness, and the claims of the New Testament regarding Jesus Christ’s life, death, resurrection and their power to transform man and reconcile him to the morally perfect God.

Such rejection necessarily leads to the struggles for and demonstrations of physical, legal, and rhetorical power over those who have different understandings of reality than our own. And the sufferings and evils that we see today, no matter how much we address them in the here and now, will continue and our efforts will necessarily fail. Such doom is to be expected in such a world where God does not exist to give man intrinsic value, anchor objective morality (including justice), or ground logic.

Defending The Foundations

When Christians defend a particular interpretation of Genesis (or any other book in the Bible, for that matter), we are addressing the issues of our day. We are ultimately saying, “Your rejection of Scripture is based upon a misunderstanding of Scripture, and that misunderstanding is what has failed the test of reality, not the actual Scripture. The truth and authority of God’s Word still stands strong because the proper understanding of Scripture has been tested, and it has been shown to be true.” We have not lost sight of what the Bible is really about; we are showing that what the Bible is really about is reality and that it accurately describes reality. What the Bible is really about is the very reason that we “destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor 10:5a).

We Are One Body

As Christians, we have to be extremely careful not to denigrate the work of other Christians. Whether those other Christians are gifted to address the needs and sufferings of those in the present or are gifted to address the foundations that lead to the sufferings and the value of addressing those needs, they are all important. While it is biblical for all Christians to be concerned with both foundations and current suffering, God has gifted each person differently, and one of those may be more prominent in the life of a particular Christian. I believe that this is why the Apostle Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians, cautioned Christians against individualistic thinking and acting within the Church:

“But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, ‘I don’t need you!'” 1 Cor 12:18-21

If our actions and behaviors have no foundation in reality, then they are ultimately meaningless and purposeless. But if our foundations don’t lead to action then our thinking is in vain. Christians are stronger and more effective in our world when we work together as one body. The meaning and purpose of the work to alleviate suffering stand on the foundations defended by our brothers and sisters who study and discuss the correct meaning of God’s Word (theology) and defend the correct meaning against supposed falsification.

Our world and its problems are complicated. We have lived in the past; we live in the present, and we will live into the future. All of reality —the “has been,” the “here and now,” and the “not yet”— must be addressed from numerous directions and perspectives. In creating us in His Image, God gave all humans of all eras intrinsic value and ultimate purpose, and His work on the Cross demonstrates His love and desire for us to be reconciled to Him so that we can spend eternity with Him, and the Resurrection demonstrates the truth of this fantastic claim. The evil and suffering that are tended to may very well be an avenue by which God brings more to the knowledge of Him and the saving acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice and forgiveness.

The existence of the foundations give our relieving suffering meaning; and our relieving of suffering gives the discovery of those foundations purpose. Both have meaning and purpose in the present and into the future.

Conclusion

Paul explained that the truth of the Christian worldview (and thus our reason for the existential work we do) rises or falls on the Resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15). So, while the evidence for the Resurrection should be the proper test that unbelievers apply to Christianity (then from there test the rest of Scripture’s claims), they have many interests and concerns that may not be the historicity of the Resurrection at that time. By the logical connectors of God’s authorship of the whole of Scripture and His inability to lie, if one passage not about the Resurrection (but about something else) is false, so could be the claim about the Resurrection. And if other claims in the Bible are the source of stumbling blocks between them and their Savior, we would be negligent in our evangelical duty to not address them and “provide a reason for the hope that we have” (1 Peter 3:15).

Despite the evidential and philosophical detour, because Christianity accurately describes the whole of reality and because reality is logically consistent, it doesn’t matter which feature of reality someone is willing to grant, we can always get them logically back to the Resurrection. When we debate theology, we are debating the proper interpretation of the passages of Scripture that do concern the unbeliever so that they can test the actual claim of Scripture (not a strawman), can see that Scripture passes the test of reality, and they can get to the truth of the Resurrection, the Image of God, and the foundation for the work of relieving suffering in this world.

Does The Big Bang Require An Absolute Beginning To The Universe?

2. Does God Exist?

By Luke Nix

Has Dr. Sean Carroll escaped the theistic implications of the Big Bang?

Does The Universe Have A Cause?

One of the most popular arguments for God’s existence is the argument from the beginning of the universe. It goes like this:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe has a beginning

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

That conclusion serves as a springboard to identify that the cause of the universe must be timeless, spaceless, and possess immense causal power. When combined with other scientific observations of the universe, it is implied that this cause additionally is both intelligent and personal. The argument from the beginning of the universe provides powerful evidence that God is the Cause of the universe.

Because this argument’s reasoning is valid and its conclusion strongly implies theism, atheists commonly attack the argument by denying one of its premises: namely, the second one, that the universe had a beginning. Dr. Sean Carroll is one such atheist. He attempts to escape the theistic implications of the beginning of the universe without denying the (appearance of a) beginning of the universe. A friend presented to me this slideshow from Dr. Carroll not too long ago:

What We (Don’t) Know About The Beginning Of The Universe

What We Don’t Know

In this presentation, Dr. Carroll points to the reality that scientists can peer all the way back into the history of the universe except for the precious few moments after the cosmic creation event that we call the “big bang.” He appeals to this unknown epoch of time to claim that it is illegitimate to ask if the universe had a beginning. But rather he says that the question should be “is it plausible that the laws of physics allow for a universe with a beginning?” His answer is “yes, the laws of physics do allow for a universe with a beginning.” This means that Dr. Carroll is positing that the laws of physics exist outside and independent of this universe, exist eternally, and permit the appearance of a universe that has a beginning (our universe).

Already, Dr. Carroll has claimed that the super-natural exists- the necessary and inescapable implication of the argument from the beginning of the universe. His view is that there is something that exists eternally beyond this universe, so while he may be an atheist, he is still a super-naturalist. This is important to keep in mind through the rest of this discussion.

Because super-natural laws of physics could exist eternally, they permit an eternally existent reality (one with no beginning and no need for a Cause). So, Dr. Carroll posits that the only question we have is, “what is the nature of that eternal reality that allows for a beginning of the universe we live in?” He presents several different models and offers that one of these or a yet-to-be-theorized model could also be on the table.

If Dr. Carroll is sound in his reasoning, the major implication here is that the universe’s creation at the big bang does not necessarily posit a Creator of physical reality. And on first glance, it appears that Dr. Carroll has been successful in his attempted undermining of the argument from the beginning of the universe for God’s existence. For those who are not familiar with the argument from the beginning, please take a few minutes to watch this video from Reasonable Faith:

No Time, But Time

With all due respect to Dr. Carroll as a theoretical quantum physicist, he is not a philosopher and makes three elementary mistakes in his argument. Each mistake individually undermines his conclusion.

First, his logic allows him to argue from the plausibility of an eternal physical reality permitted by super-natural laws of physics to the plausibility of an eternal physical reality. Here is his argument formalized:

1. The reality that exists can be fully described by super-natural laws of physics (sans time).
2. The super-natural laws of physics (sans time) allow for an eternal reality.
3. Therefore, the reality that exists allows for an eternal reality.
The parenthetical phrase is quite important to this argument because Dr. Carroll must grant that time, as we experience it, began to exist with the big bang. However, he cautions the viewer in Slide 8, that “there was an initial moment — a time before which there was no time” (emphasis added). By that he is saying that there is a super-natural time or another dimension of time. The time that we experience exists within this other time, and the time that we experience had a beginning within this other time.

It is this super-natural time that serves as the defeater for both premises of his argument (because both premises rely on it). Considering the fact that his laws of physics exist outside of this universe, they are bound by this super-natural time. An eternal reality requires a series of an infinite number of past moments. The discovery that our universe has a beginning places a hard stop on the number of past moments, so our universe is demonstrably not eternal and has a definite beginning. Dr. Carroll, though, attempts to escape a beginning to all physical reality by positing this super-natural time.

It is this super-natural time that he is claiming to be eternal- with an infinite number of past moments already traversed and an infinite number of future moments yet to be traversed. But he has a problem. An actual infinity is asymptotic, meaning that infinity is a theoretical boundary that is approached but never reached. This is a feature of mathematics that must also exist outside our universe to constrain the laws of physics which Dr. Carroll already assumed exist outside our universe. If the moments in this super-natural time can be counted using numbers, mathematics necessarily constrains this super-natural time, as well. If Dr. Carroll’s super-natural time is past-eternal, then an infinite number of moments have happened. But because it is a necessary feature of mathematics that an actual infinite number is impossible to reach, it is also impossible that an infinite number of moments have happened. Thus it is impossible that supernatural reality is infinite into the past no matter what kind of time is posited. Without the greater reality existing into the infinite past, it is not eternally existent, thus it also had a beginning.

Dr. Carroll knows that time, as we experience it in this universe, comes to an absolute beginning; however, he does not seem to recognize that the laws of physics are not the only thing that cause the present time to come to an absolute beginning- mathematics does as well. The laws of physics, that govern the expansion of our universe, just dictate where along the time-line that absolute beginning is located for our universe (approximately 13.7 billion years ago). All he has done by positing a super-natural time is to move the problem back one step. The super-natural time, though not limited by the laws of physics that govern our universe (or the super-natural yet physical reality of Dr. Carroll), is constrained by mathematics, which necessarily forces that super-natural time to an absolute beginning.

Dr. Carroll’s first philosophical mistake is that he has undermined both of his own premises as he is making his argument for his conclusion. He has attempted to escape a necessary implication of time by positing another type of time, but even that type of time is stuck with the necessary implication he is trying to avoid. Without the truth of his two premises, his conclusion does not follow. Not only that, the conclusion that he is trying to undermine (that physical reality had a beginning) is only delayed by one step, but it still is necessarily true.

Cherry-Picking

Dr. Carroll posits that while we may not know what kind of universe we live in, it is some kind of eternal universe where time (in one sense or another) exists in the infinite past. Dr. Carroll presents the naturalist with many options to choose from or they are permitted to suspend their choice for a better model: cyclic universes, hibernating universes, reproducing universes, and time-symmetric multiverses.

All of these cosmologies have one feature in common that, if impossible, makes them all impossible (regardless of which one you wish to choose). This feature is the past series of infinite moments that was demonstrated as impossible above. Even if the naturalist were to suspend their commitment to a particular model, they have not suspended their commitment to a past series of an infinite number of moments. Thus, they are still committing themselves to an impossibility.

Now, Dr. Carroll uses the unknown of the initial moments of the universe to argue that it is possible at this universe is part of a larger, eternal reality. But this is not a matter of epistemology (what we have not yet discovered, in this case) but a matter of ontology (what is impossible). What is impossible (ontology) cannot be discovered (epistemology). Epistemology is necessarily confined by ontology. What is possible to be known is necessarily limited by what is impossible to exist. Dr. Carroll has taken only a portion of the full evidential base of reality to make his case and has ignored (or is ignorant of the implications of) the larger evidential base. (The larger evidential base that I am referring to is that of the constraints on reality by mathematics explained above).

His second error is that he has cherry-picked the evidence of the flexibility of laws of physics in support of his view and ignored the evidence of constraints of mathematics that would defeat his view.

God of the Gaps?

According to Dr. Carroll, the options to explain our universe’s beginning are endless, so why must we feel committed to choosing God? This would be a classic example of god-of-the-gaps reasoning. An <option>-of-the-gaps reasoning is an improper application of the process of elimination. The process of elimination is an evidential knock-out exercise. You start with many options on the table of possibility and remove them based upon their impossibility of explaining the evidence available. If you are to conclude that one option is correct without having logically removed the other options, then you have committed an <option>-of-the-gaps fallacy. However, if you have knocked-out the other options based upon the evidence, then the conclusion that the remaining one is possible (or even true) is logical, and no fallacy has been committed. All sorts of diagnosticians use this reasoning method in their work to identify causes of problems and resolve them: computer technicians, auto mechanics, medical doctors, etc.

Dr. Carroll presents several eternal cosmologies (super-natural but physical realities) as being on the table, which they are, until we evaluate them evidentially based upon the nature of mathematics. Once mathematics is brought to bear upon the options on the table, all eternal cosmologies are logically (thus legitimately) knocked out and removed from the table of options. Thus, only cosmologies with a beginning still exist on the table of possibility.

Dr. Carroll has not evidentially eliminated cosmologies with a beginning from the table, and he has concluded that an eternal cosmology is correct. An “eternal universe-of-the-gaps” fallacy has been offered by Dr. Carroll as an alternative to the sound argument from the universe’s beginning for God’s existence. Yet the theist has evidentially and logically removed eternal cosmologies from the table of options, thus they are not committing a “beginning/god-of-the-gaps fallacy” when they conclude that all physical reality had an ultimate beginning.

Contrary to Dr. Carroll’s claims, his critics have not committed an <option>-of-the-gaps fallacy by not removing other options from the table legitimately; it is Dr. Carroll who has not evidentially or logically removed an ultimate beginning to reality from the table, thus he is the party that is guilty of his own accusation- the commission of an <option>-of-the-gaps fallacy- His third mistake.

“Proof of the beginning of time probably ranks as the most theologically significant theorem. This great significance arises from the theorem establishing that the universe must be caused by some Entity capable of creating the universe entirely independent of space and time. Such an entity matches the attributes of the God of the Bible…”- Hugh Ross

A Way of Escape: Denying Logic

A way to avoid these necessary implications, though, is to deny that logic (thus denying mathematics as well) and these philosophical categories exist either prior to the big bang or without the universe is to ultimately destroy any foundation by which to ground or govern ANY quantum (physical) and/or metaphysical (non-physical, including natural or super-natural) causal activity prior to the big bang and/or outside this universe. This move would rule out ALL causes, which would mean that Dr. Carroll must offer a model for the cause of the big bang and/or origin of the singularity with the non-existence of logic, mathematics and causes.

And let’s make this just a bit more difficult for Dr. Carroll: in order for logic and mathematics to exist, they must have a foundation outside of even his super-natural reality for his super-natural reality to be governed by them. God is the only source of such a foundation, so even if Dr. Carroll was correct that a supernatural reality does exist, God is still necessary and cannot be logically escaped. For more on this, please check out my posts “6 Ways Atheism Is A Science Stopper” and “The Multiverse Instead of God?: Four Philosophical Problems.”

Conclusion

So, Dr. Carroll is correct that we do not know those early moments of the universe. But that does not give us a reason to think that God is not necessary. What we know from other knowledge disciplines simply defeats Dr. Carroll’s attempts to escape the God of the Bible. Because of what we know from the other knowledge disciplines, his appeals to unknown features of reality simply do not help his conclusion. The fact that he has to ignore these other knowledge disciplines (which ironically ground his own discipline) in order to make his case is telling. Dr. Hugh Ross put it quite nicely in his book “The Creator and the Cosmos: How The Latest Scientific Discoveries Reveal God“:

8 Tips to Discuss Politics, Race, Religion and Other Controversial Topics

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Luke Nix

Who has not been exposed to or may be even involved in discussions of controversial topics these days?

It seems that talk of politics, race, religion, and a whole host of other controversial topics are swirling around us everywhere we go. Some topics we can ignore and avoid, and others we get sucked into. Some discussions we get reluctantly and others we get into too eagerly. There are numerous pitfalls to having these discussions that we all want to avoid, so today, I want to offer eight tips for discussing controversial topics that will hopefully help your discussions be more productive and respectful. Being that the USA is in an election year (2020), politics seems to be on everyone’s mind, so let’s start with this quote from a book that I reviewed a few years ago entitled “Before You Hit SEND: Avoiding Headache and Heartache” by Emerson Eggerichs to set the stage:

“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…In political circles the rule of thumb is never admit a mistake or that you don’t know something. Thus, keep talking in an interview to sound like an expert, all the while aware that you don’t know. Feeling on the hot seat, and determined never to be wrong, but fully cognizant that the information is insufficient or incorrect, keep moving your lips, weaving and ducking as best as your polemical skills permit.”

If this sounds all too familiar to you and you’re tired of it, keep on reading!

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #1: You Could Be Wrong

It is important to recognize that we could be wrong about what we believe about reality. Interestingly enough, a challenge could actually be a blessing in disguise. It could be an opportunity for us to let go of false beliefs and acquire true ones. Of course, challenges do not always result in a changed belief; they can also result in a more nuanced and more strongly defended belief. But regardless of the ultimate result of a challenge, when we see it as an opportunity, we give the other person a respect that is often missing from discussions today.

When we demonstrate that we can have a rational discussion where arguments are presented and granted when they are sound, we demonstrate that we are committed to truth. We demonstrate that we understand that we are not perfect and do not necessarily have everything figured out. We also demonstrate that we are willing to hear others out, understand the reasons that they hold the other view and carefully consider those reasons. Greg Koukl summarizes this quite well in his book “Tactics: A Game Plan For Discussing Your Christian Convictions“:

“A commitment to truth — as opposed to a commitment to an organization — means an openness to refining one’s own views. It means increasing the accuracy of one’s understanding and being open to correction in thinking. A challenger might turn out to be a blessing in disguise, an ally instead of an enemy. An evangelist who is convinced of her view, then, should be willing to engage the best arguments against it.”

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #2: Find Common Ground

This is so important. Regardless of who you are discussing a controversial subject with, you can find some sort of common ground with them. The very fact that we are all created in the Image of God provides a strong set of commonalities that we can begin with. If we hold to the same worldview, in general (this discussion just being one of working out the details), then it is important to recognize that up front. Even if you remain in disagreement at the end of the conversation and agree to pick up the conversation again later, it is important to affirm where agreement exists. Again, Greg Koukl offers wisdom here from “Tactics“:

“As a general rule, go out of your way to establish common ground. Whenever possible, affirm points of agreement. Take the most charitable read on the other person’s motives, not the most cynical. Treat them the way you would like others to treat you if you were the one in the hot seat.”

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #3: Assume Good Will

Speaking of charitable motives, always assume this. No one likes to have their character attacked, particularly when they know that they are not deserving of such an attack. Even if we do not attack one’s character verbally in our discussion, we may still be doing so in our minds as the conversation progresses (or regresses). It is important that we focus on the person’s claims and arguments for the claims rather than their motives because their motives logically have no bearing on the truth of their claims.

Further, when we assume good will, we are more willing to understand where someone is coming from. When we understand where they are coming from, it gives us an opportunity to address a deeper concern that they have with our opposing view- we can offer them a logically, rationally, and evidentially supported alternative that takes into account their deeper commitment. When we understand that the other person ultimately has good intentions, it allows us to show kindness while we speak and defend truth. In his book “Before You Hit SEND: Preventing Headache and Heartache,” Emerson Eggerichs lists out the important reasons why kindness in controversial topic discussions is vital:

“Kindness eases others, which enables them to hear the substance of our concern. Kindness demonstrates and builds trust. Kindness affects the emotions, which is key when seeking to inform or persuade. Kindness maintains a relationship, and relationship determines response. My communication kindly demonstrates who God is.”

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #4: Listen To Understand

Listening is vital to the discussion. If we are truly there to defend a position and, hopefully, convince the other person that our view more closely matches reality than the one they presently believe, we have to be able to properly understand their current view. It does us no good to argue against a view that the person does not hold. If we have soundly defeated a view and offered ours as an alternative, but the view that we have defeated is not what the other person holds, we have not given them a reason to abandon their view in favor of ours. We’ve given them reasons to not accept that other view, yes, but we have not given the reason to change from the view that they currently hold. Listening takes patience. We cannot always be eager to sneak in a rhetorical jab or present the next logical “gotcha!” We need to focus on what the other person is saying in order to understand to ensure that what we are about to present actually addresses and applies to their claims.

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #5: Ask Honest Questions

One of the great ways to listen is not just being quiet and focusing but asking clarifying questions. Questions like “what do you mean by that,” or “how do you get from X to Y in your logical thinking” helps us to learn about other views and the reasons why people hold those views. Asking honest questions in order to learn demonstrates that we are willing to consider and engage other views (Tip #1) as they actually are rather caricatures of those views.
Some people may have even considered the views that they espouse more deeply. Foundations and implications may not have crossed their minds. This is also where asking honest questions can be helpful. Jonathan Morrow speaks to the wisdom of asking questions:

“People may not ask…questions of their own beliefs or think carefully about the way they view the world, but they still have a worldview. And it affects every area of their lives. Every person–knowingly or not– filters the information that enters their minds through their worldview. They then make sense of that information based on their worldview. This process is automatic and the filtered information shapes their beliefs and influences how they function in society, including the smallest decisions they make.”

Asking honest questions demonstrates to the other person respect and demonstrates a spirit of humility a heart of a student. Listen, understand, and appropriately critique in a loving and kind manner. I will refer you to both of the books already mentioned above for more on this tip.

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #6: Get Your Facts Right

This cannot be emphasized enough. It is important that our claims match reality, meaning that we need to get our facts right. This affects the persuasiveness of our presentation in multiple ways. First, if we do not have our facts right, then any conclusions that we draw from those incorrect claims will be questionable. We simply cannot use false claims about reality to come to true conclusions about reality. It is not logical, and no one would be reasonable to accept a conclusion that is dependent upon something false for its truth.

Second, when we do not have our facts right, it appears that we do not value truth enough to verify claims. This could be because we are gullible, lazy, or simply just want to believe that our conclusion is true, so we’re looking for any confirmation of it. When we do not check the claims we make for truth before we use them to persuade someone to our view, it demonstrates that we are more committed to a view than to what is true.

Third, if we value a particular view over what is true, why should anyone trust us about anything else that we claim? Getting our facts right is not just an issue of making a sound argument, but an issue of personal character and trust. If we do not take the time to investigate our claims before using them, we should not be trusted. I’ll quote Eggerichs again, here:

“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.”

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #7: Avoid or Qualify Speculation

Part of getting our facts straight is to communicate the difference between what we understand to be facts and what we are speculating about what those facts mean for the future. Speculation can get quite emotional because it tends towards two extremes: either a “best-case scenario” or a “worst-case scenario.” The first gives people a utopianistic feeling and expectation. The second gives people a fearful feeling and expectation. Both of those are strong drivers of strong action and rhetoric, but they are only founded in speculation. We do not want to give someone a false impression and cause them to react according to that falsehood.

Speculations about all sorts of things take place in conversations, but it seems that speculations about future events and individuals’ motives tend to be the most damaging. Obviously, no one can see the future. We can certainly look to history and notice a pattern of certain conditions preceding or coinciding with certain events, but because we are not omniscient and may be overlooking an key condition that may change the whole outcome, speculating about the future needs to be done carefully and with qualification. Some people may choose to just avoid it altogether.

Obviously, too, no one can see the heart of another individual. When we speculate about the “pure evil” or “purely altruistic” motives someone may have for defending a particular political policy or view of the world, we tread on dangerous territory here, as well. We do not want to be guilty of encouraging character assassinations or character glorifications. The character of a person has no logical bearing on the truth of their claims, so we need to focus not on their character but on the claims being made to argue for or against their truth. It is wise to simply avoid speculating about motivations for holding a particular view.

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #8: Learn to Use Reason Well

Communicating truth to those we wish to persuade is only part of the discussion. The other important part is using truths together to come to reasonable and true conclusions and to avoid using truths together to come to unreasonable and false conclusions. We may present a series of true statements, but if we present them together in such a way that they do not connect logically, then we run the risk of believing and promoting unreasonable or false conclusions. We also run the risk of being unable to identify where another’s reasoning has gone wrong even though we know that their conclusion is incorrect.

Norman Geisler describes logic like this:

“Logic is a way to think so that we can come to correct conclusions by understanding implications and the mistakes people often make in thinking.”

Going back to speculation for a moment: Speculation often results from the mistakes using of true claims to support implications that do not follow. The reciprocal error is made, as well: an implication (conclusion) that either necessarily follows from the true propositions and the valid reasoning or true propositions when taken together yield a high probability of or are all best explained by an implication are accused of being speculation. This error often results from the misunderstanding of logic and mistakes in thinking. But when true claims are used correctly, logic is understood correctly and we adjust our thinking to match both, both errors regarding the acceptance of speculations and rejection of implications can be avoided.

There are numerous fallacious ways to reason using true claims that will lead us and others to false conclusions. We need to learn not only how to use logic (connect true claims together) correctly, but we also need to learn how to avoid fallacies in our attempts to connect one true claim to another true claim. When we learn these, we not only can guard our communication, guide our discussion, and clearly present our case, but we can also analyze others’ claims and be able to respectfully and lovingly ask questions that will guide the other person to see the error that they are making.

As a bonus, learning to reason well gives the first tip I offered in this post (recognize that you could be wrong) a solid and reasonable foundation. The first tip is not a call to be malleable in your thinking simply because we don’t want to offend or we all want to get along; it is a call to recognize that we all hold wrong beliefs about this world and that those wrong beliefs can be positively identified, removed from our worldview, and replaced with true beliefs about the world. Learning to reason well gives us the tools to adjust our beliefs to match reality and to communicate that knowledge to others. Finally, if you want to learn how to reason well, I highly recommend the book “Come, Let Us Reason” by Norman Geisler for its introductory view of logic that is easy to follow for anyone who desires to learn.

Whose Morality Should We Legislate? 44 Quotes from Frank Turek and Norman Geisler

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Luke Nix

“We’re living in a society in which people feel no obligation to control their own actions. Instead, we rationalize and justify every aberrant behavior under the umbrella of freedom granted by the First Amendment, never admitting that freedom without reasonable and responsible limits destroys individual lives and ultimately destroys the fabric of a civilized society.”

“It is critical to recognize that the founders [of America] were pledging their lives to restore not someone’s revealed religion, but everyone’s self-evident morality.”

“It is important to note that even though the Founders believed the Rights of the people came from God, they did not insist that every citizen believe in God; they simply saw no way to justify those natural moral Rights unless there was a God.”

“The Moral Law actually is clear to everyone. It is evident by a person’s reactions rather than by his or her actions.“

“The Moral Law is not always the standard by which we treat others, but it is nearly always the standard by which we expect others to treat us.”

“The moral rightness or wrongness of a law is not determined by whether its enforcement is successful or unsuccessful…We’ve always found it difficult to enforce a number of our laws, including laws against murder, spouse and child abuse, rape, and theft, yet no sane person would ever suggest that these laws should be repealed because they’re difficult to enforce.”

“[Rights] should not be based on what people do, but on what is right as defined by the Moral Law. In other words, by definition, laws are prescriptive—they prescribe what ought to be done, while behaviors are descriptive—they describe what is being done. If everyone were to commit murder that wouldn’t make murder right. And it certainly wouldn’t be wise to discard all laws against murder because enforcement is difficult.”

“Most people are law-abiding citizens who don’t require someone constantly looking over their shoulder to keep them in line. In other words, the law, aside from law enforcement, has a certain restraining effect in itself. So when immoral behavior is legalized (the restraining effect of the law is removed), that behavior eventually loses its stigma of immorality. This is because many believe that whatever is legal is moral. That’s why legalization only result in more immoral behavior.”

“The history of abortion, like that of slavery and Prohibition, shows that laws can change hearts and attitudes when given enough time.”

“Even though many laws are difficult to enforce, most people obey them without the continuous presence of law enforcement. But since many believe that whatever is legal is moral, legalization of immorality will only result in more immoral behavior.”

“When libertarians or liberals seek to give people more freedom (i.e., by passing a law that legalizes a formerly illegal activity), they do exactly what they condemn conservatives for doing. They impose their morals (and thereby the associated effects) on people who do not agree with those morals.”

“A common mistake of relativists is to confuse behavior and value, what is and what ought to be. What people do is subject to change, but what they ought to do is not. This is the difference between sociology and morality. The former is descriptive, the latter is prescriptive.

“The Moral Law tells [atheists] intuitively that genocide is wrong. But they can’t appeal to the Moral Law to justify their belief because acknowledging the Moral Law would logically mean acknowledging the existence of the Moral Law-giver.”

“If man is the ultimate authority, then human beings are perfectly justified in defining morals and ethics that fit their own desires, even if those ethics are the ones espoused by Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and the Chinese government–murder, torture, and abuse.”

“Large-scale evolution is not only a theory that affects how one looks at things in the biology lab; it has a dramatic impact on government, philosophy, law, and ethics, as well.”

“The [First] Amendment prohibits Congress from establishing a national religion or denomination, but…it logically cannot prohibit Congress from establishing a national morality.”

“Allowing the [Supreme] Court to read their own meaning into the Constitution defeats the whole purpose of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

“If an unelected tribunal of judges can pour any interpretation they desire into a law, then the intentions of the people expressed in that law can be frustrated and usurped. The law ultimately means nothing if its original intent is not honored. Stop signs are useless if drivers are free to interpret them as ‘Go!'”

“While the Bible does not call for its political imposition on civil governments, it does call for those who believe in the Bible to be politically active.”

“The Bible does not command Christians to set up a Christian America; it simply commands them to help create a moral America.”

“What the Left really means when it asserts relativism is that all traditional absolutes are relative—their new absolutes are the only true absolutes. Reasonable people know better.”

“If we continue to let the Supreme Court and the Left suppress the Moral Law morality from our public life, our country is not likely to survive the evil that will continue to grow within it.”

“Like the physical universe, the moral universe is governed by unforgiving laws that we do not have the power to alter.”

“The truth of the objective Moral Law is most clearly seen by analyzing the tangled rhetoric of those who ignore it.”

“A Moral Law government avoids the intolerance of a purely religious government and the moral relativism of a purely secular government.”

“As history has proven, again and again, human beings have an unfailing propensity to suppress the Moral Law when that law gets in the way of their desire for pleasure, power, or property.”

“Today, our moral positions are more often fueled by feelings and emotions than by careful thought.”

“As a society, we rightfully discriminate against all kinds of harmful behaviors (e.g., drunk driving, theft, rape, etc.) regardless of the fact that some people may have been ‘born’ with a propensity to commit those crimes.”

“Even if we are ‘born’ heterosexual or homosexual, we are not required to engage in any particular form of sexual conduct. While we may have strong desires, our conduct is not mandatory. A choice must still be made.

“The fundamental problem in our world is that people willingly choose to do things that deep down they know they shouldn’t do. The fact that we’re all flawed to some extent—is precisely the reason we need a system of laws in our society.”

“We are not saying that all women who have abortions are murderers but victims themselves, deceived by the euphemisms of the abortion propaganda machine.”

“If the ‘pro-choicers’ were truly ‘pro-choice’, they would invite pro-life advocates to their meetings and into their clinics. After all, life is the only other choice a woman can make. Instead, pro-abortion advocates greet pro-lifers with court orders to keep as far away as possible. The pro-abortionists have only one choice in mind. The other choice isn’t good for business.”

“No one has the moral right to choose anything that directly ends the life of another innocent human being. The right to life is the right to all other rights. Without life, we’d all have no rights whatsoever.”

“Because of the legality of abortion, family and friends often feel free to pressure women into killing their babies when they wouldn’t otherwise do so.”

“When the [Supreme] Court ignores the intent of a particular law, it is ignoring the will of the people. Instead of the people governing themselves, they are governed by the imposed will of unelected judges. That’s not representative democracy, that’s closer to tyranny.”

“[Some men with whom women are sexually active] favor abortion because it frees them of what would normally be a long-range responsibility. In effect, abortion makes women more susceptible to predatory males who want to use women for sex but aren’t really interested in making long-term commitments to them.”

“All moral positions impose values. Even the moral position that you should not impose values on others does just that: it imposes values on others. For if we are not to restrain people legally from doing wrong, then we impose on others the effects of the wrongdoing.”

“It is precisely because humans are not animals that we do not kill them in difficult situations. That is, since we believe human life has a higher value than that of animals, we do not treat humans like laboratory rats. Moreover, human beings don’t lose their value when they lose their health. People are valuable because of their humanity, not because they lack an infirmity.”

“Laws favoring abortion impose values on the life of the unborn; pro-life laws impose values on the liberty of the mother. In other words, the pro-life side wants to impose continued pregnancy on the mother, while the pro-abortion side wants to impose death on the baby.”

“If money made people happy, the United States would be the happiest place on earth. Instead, we lead the world in indicators of unhappiness such as suicide, drug use, and divorce.”

“Money without morality leads to the kind of materialistic madness we’ve been experiencing. We have everything to live with and nothing to live by.”

“How can those responsible for legislating morality do so when they have trouble discerning right from wrong? Are such people really qualified to make decisions of the highest moral consequences?”

“Why won’t those who use immoral means to get what they want in their private lives use immoral means to get what they want in their public lives? Those who refuse to restrain their appetites in private are unlikely to resist the enormous temptation to abuse their political power to get what they want (and to use that power to cover up their ‘private’ indiscretions).”

“When the ideal is not realizable, then we should legislate the optimum achievable within the existing conditions. That is when the maximum is not possible, we should not settle for the minimum but should legislate the optimum.”

All these quotes came from Drs. Frank Turek’s and Norman Geisler’s book Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible. Check out the full chapter-by-chapter review of the book and other featured posts:

6 Ways Atheism Is A Science-Stopper

Atheism, Philosophy of Science, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Introduction: Science vs. Christianity?

It is commonly claimed that Christianity is a science-stopper. What is usually put forth to justify this claim is that many Christians are content to look at nature and say, “God did it,” without looking further to discover how God did whatever “it” happens to be. For many Christians, questions about the origin and function of the natural world end with that answer. However, for many others, while they recognize that God did indeed do something, they seek diligently to discover how God did it. Christianity does not stop science, a lack of curiosity or concern (not necessarily a bad thing if those are not a person’s passion or pursuit) is what could stop science if no Christian exists who possesses that curiosity. Individual Christians can choose to stop scientific discovery for themselves, but because scientific discovery will continue for other individual Christians, scientific discovery will continue.

On the other hand, atheism actually does stop science. Not because an atheist is content to say “evolution did it” and cease exploratory research, but it is stopped rather for a few other reasons that the atheist cannot escape if their worldview is true. If atheism is true, scientific discovery does not cease just for the atheist whose curiosity and concern 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 thinking to the next level: think about how you can think about the discovery of the world around you. In today’s blog post, I will present six different ways that atheism mutually excludes science and stops all scientific discovery in its tracks.

Science vs. Atheism

The Laws of Mathematics vs. Atheism

A great deal of scientific research done today necessarily depends upon 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 that mathematics can be used in this way is because the universe is beholden to mathematics. This fact makes the universe describable, discoverable, and predictable (to some extent). If the universe produced mathematics, then there is no reason for the universe to adhere to mathematics, and its describability, discoverability, and predictability would not be possible.

This presents a serious problem for the atheist. For on the atheistic view, mathematics is a product of a feature within the universe (the human brain, to be exact), and the universe is not beholden to something it produced. On the atheistic view, mathematics is not objective, so there is no reason that we should expect the world around us to adhere to or be explainable by using mathematics. The present cannot be described; the past cannot be discovered, and future events cannot be predicted.

On the atheistic view, without a super-natural (outside this universe) foundation for mathematics that constrains this universe to its laws, this universe is nonsensical, and the entire scientific enterprise is ultimately doomed to being nothing more than a guessing game and unable to reveal knowledge about any point in time or space.

The Principle of Uniformity vs. Atheism

Similar to mathematics, the principle of uniformity is key to performing scientific research. This principle states that the past acted very much like the present, and the future will act very much like the present. This principle constrains the universe to a continuous connection across time that scientists can use to describe, discover, and predict. Based upon this principle, scientists understand that it is reasonable to extrapolate observations today into both the past and the future. Through this continuous connection, scientists can discover what happened in the past (historical science) with deductive 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 upon different understandings of the presently-observable data).

But also similar to mathematics, this principle cannot simply have come about with the appearance of human brains on the cosmic scene. If this principle is the product of a feature within the universe, then it necessarily cannot be governed by such a principle. Due to that necessary lack of governance, there is also no reason to think that the universe can be explained using the principle of uniformity.

Thus, if we are to continue scientific discovery using this principle and believe that anything discovered using it is true or meaningful, then it must have a foundation prior to this universe. This means that the principle of uniformity, like mathematics, has a transcendent (super-natural) foundation. Without such a foundation, scientific knowledge of the past and prediction of future events are impossible. On this second count, atheism renders scientific discovery dead on arrival.

For more on this, I highly recommend the book “Origin Science: A Proposal For The Creation/Evolution Controversy.”

The Laws of Logic vs. Atheism

Adding onto mathematics and the principle of uniformity are the laws of logic. It is through the laws of logic that we can connect the present to the past and discover the history of our planet, the solar system, the galaxy, the universe, and even the moments up to the creation event itself. But this level of scientific discovery is only possible if the universe is governed by transcendent laws of logic. Deductive reasoning and deductive certainty (mentioned above) are necessarily dependent upon the laws of logic. If the universe is not governed by laws that transcend its own existence, then there is no reason to act as if it is governed by such laws. These laws must have a foundation that exists outside of the natural universe; this means that they must exist super-naturally.

But according to atheism, nothing exists super-naturally, and laws of logic are no exception. Thus the universe is not required to and cannot be expected to follow any such laws on atheism. If we cannot expect the universe to necessarily follow such laws, then we cannot use such laws to make truth claims about the universe with any level of certainty, including its history or future. Without the laws of logic existing outside the universe, every scientific endeavor that attempts to expand our knowledge of the natural world beyond the present moment of observation in the immediate spacial vicinity is futile. Without a reason to believe that this universe is subject to the laws of logic, scientific discovery is impossible. Because atheism has no room for laws of logic that govern this universe, it has no room for claiming legitimate scientific discovery is part of its worldview.
For more on this, I highly recommend these two books:

Come, Let Us Reason

The Word of God and the Mind of Man

The Laws of Physics vs. Atheism

Atheism, without laws of mathematics and laws of logic, already cannot formulate or describe laws of physics. That is only one of the numerous implications of a worldview devoid of reality beyond this universe. But the problem for atheism regarding the laws of physics goes deeper than merely discovery and articulation. For lack of discovery and/or articulation do not necessarily imply a lack of existence. The lack of existence of laws of physics on the atheistic worldview is established independently, though similarly, to the lack of existence of laws of mathematics and laws of logic.

If there do not exist laws of physics that this universe is governed by, meaning that they are logically prior to or have a foundation outside of this universe, then there is no reason to use said laws of physics in any reasoning (using non-existent laws of logic) from present observations of this universe to the past history (using the non-existent principle of uniformity) of this universe. Again, without foundation outside this universe for laws of physics to govern the universe, this universe is under no constraint to follow any particular description (laws of physics). If atheism is true, science is, for yet another reason, dead on arrival.

Our Sense Organs And The Brain vs. Atheism

Of course, the applicability of the above features of reality does not come into play in scientific discovery until observations are made. While the above features of reality are observer-independent, this last feature is observer-dependent. Not only does atheism have no foundation for the observer-independent features of reality (and necessary features of the scientific enterprise) described above, but its explanation for one observer-dependent necessity of the scientific enterprise undercuts its own reliability.

Atheistic worldviews have only one possible explanation for the appearance of sense organs and the human brain: changes over time that are governed by (non-existent) laws of physics that govern natural selection. This is also known as “unguided evolution” or merely “evolution” in many circles. We must be careful to distinguish here between agent-guided and environment-guided. The “unguided” descriptor here refers to agent-guided. Evolutionists very much believe that evolution was guided, but that guidance was done by the environment and the (non-existent) laws of physics that governed the creation of and behavior of the environment.

With that in mind, this process that is ultimately guided by non-existent laws of physics results in the survival of populations, so features that serve for the survival of populations are what are passed down from generation to generation and remain in existence. In this view, a pragmatic advantage is the determining factor of a feature’s propagation, not truth-discovering abilities. The truth-discovering ability of a feature is purely accidental, and there is no way to independently test the truth-discovering abilities of such features that survived (especially since all the above features of reality, that may be used to independently test, have no foundation in reality if atheism is true). This means that our sense organs and brain have survived, not because of their truth-discovering abilities, but because they helped populations prior survive in their environment. The atheist cannot come around and say that we can independently test our sense organs scientifically via logic, mathematics, the principle of uniformity, or laws of physics because none of those have foundations in reality if atheism is true. If atheism is true, then even 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.

For more on this, I recommend the book “Where The Conflict Really Lies.”

Conclusion

If something does not exist or is not true, it is not a valid launching point for any process of gaining knowledge. If the foundations are compromised, so are the results. If atheism is true…

…science cannot begin with laws of mathematics.

…science cannot begin with the principle of uniformity.

…science cannot begin with laws of logic.

…science cannot begin with laws of physics.

…science cannot begin with our own observations.

…science cannot begin with our own reasoning.

Science necessarily depends upon the reality and truth of these features of reality. If atheism is true, there is no foundation for any of these features of reality. If atheism is true, these are not features of reality, which means that they are neither true nor do they exist. Thus they cannot be launching points of any knowledge discipline, including science. If atheism is true, the scientific enterprise (among other knowledge disciplines) cannot legitimately claim to provide us with the truth about our world. If atheism is true (in whatever form), it is impossible to connect our subjective beliefs to objective reality.

Because atheism mutually excludes science, 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 features of reality and are true. I invite you to abandon the scientifically and philosophically naive worldview of atheism; embrace the reality of the Christian God, the One who provides a firm foundation for every one of these six realities that you already know exist and already depend upon for your scientific discoveries.

Richard Dawkins’ Warnings Of A Godless Society

Atheism, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Introduction

It was brought to my attention a few weeks ago that the notorious atheist Richard Dawkins may be changing his tune regarding the necessity of belief in God in human society (click or tap text to see the article). I do recall hearing winds of this change a couple of years ago when he seemed to make a distinction between the religions of Islam (threatening) and Christianity (benign). It seems that Dawkins recognizes that without the belief that people will be held responsible to a higher power, those people who are in power (the State) will push society further and further into harmful and devastating behaviors, but he recognizes the dangers of certain theistic religions. Dawkins seems concerned that without the (false on his view) belief that the Christian God exists, then society will crumble, yet with the (also false on his view) belief that the Islamic god exists, then society will be destroyed. Dawkins seems to be now telling people to not be concerned with what is true, but be concerned with what is pragmatic. Unfortunately, this is nothing new and seems to have been the strategy of many States for quite some time. Allow me to explain.

Theism vs. The State

If God is the source of all moral duties and obligations, then the State can not be. Thus if a State wishes to legislate moral obligations (such as that people who offer a service are morally obligated to act against their moral conscience) or freedoms (such as pedophilia), then State must eradicate God from the conscience of those it governs. With God still in the cultural picture, there is an Authority to which the government is subject and is obligated to align laws with. However, if no God exists (or a State’s citizens do not recognize that God exists), then the State has no one and nothing to challenge its authority or the laws it legislates. Without any external source (God) for the citizens to hold the State accountable to, the State’s authority and legal commands will be understood as absolute.

Such a view is encouraged by the State through the promises of the legalization of many people’s sinful desires. Everything from autonomous sexual freedom to drug use is dangled in front of the populace to entice them to rid their worldview of a God that is a “party pooper.” For the State knows that with the eviction of God from the cultural mindset to allow people to explore their wildest and most debauched fantasies also goes the God that would place limitations on the State to control the masses.

No God, No Legitimate Reformations

While many atheists would have no problem with (even a belief in) God having no part in government (“separation of Church and State” and all), there are some serious consequences that some atheists (including Dawkins) have detected and are warning against. For instance, the reformer has nothing to appeal to in order to demand change in the government. Great reformers, such as those who challenged the government’s permitting the owning of slaves, would ironically be standing in the wrong and would have no objective grounding on which to stand against the government. In such a world, the State is a god; no one has any grounds to challenge it; it maintains absolute authority. If there is no external source for morality to hold the government accountable to, then no reformation should ever take place. If such a world truly existed (one without God), then Africans could still be enslaved in America today.

No God, No Legitimate Changes at All

If the State already legislates, executes, and adjudicates according to an individual atheist’s ideas of “right” and “wrong,” then things are okay with that particular atheist. However, if the State does not align with the atheist’s ideas of “right” and “wrong” 100%, it would be wrong (on the view that there is not God- that government is the absolute moral authority) for the atheist to attempt to change the State’s position on anything, for submitting to the absolute authority of the State is legally (not “morally” since morality is not objective on this view) obligatory. If the State is the absolute authority for how its citizens should act, then if the State is Christianized (or becomes a theocracy), then the atheist is legally obligated to act according to the laws and not attempt reform government. Again, to attempt to reform would be a violation of the legal obligation to submit to the absolute moral authority of the State.

Ironically, when a naturalist stands against the State today, they are in violation of this legal obligation. If the State were to criminalize abortion, the atheist would be legally obligated to comply. In a socialist country, the capitalist would be the criminal for standing against socialism, and in a capitalist country, the socialist would be the criminal for standing against capitalism.

Yet Changes and Reformations Abound And More Are Attempted

This type of world is quite scary for both atheist and theist alike. Neither truly believes that the State is the ultimate authority of morality. This is evidenced by both sides’ reservation of the right to attempt to reform the State should a law be legislated that does not align with their idea of right or wrong. Ironically for the atheist (but consistent with the theist), God (as the objective standard of morality) must exist for the reservation of that right to be legitimately justified. I’m not saying that the atheist cannot exercise this right, but they have no foundation for it in their own worldview; they must borrow from the theistic worldview to justify any governmental change or reformation.

Politicians Are Already Steps Ahead of Us

We see almost daily how politicians throughout our government are working diligently to remove God from the culture. When they accomplish this, their citizens will have no choice but to submit and never attempt to change or reform the government.

This is nothing new. Politicians have been working at the grassroots level with our education system for decades. By trying to eradicate God, they not only take away any moral authority over the State, they also eliminate any ability to ground reasoning or to have knowledge. So, even if someone decided to challenge the State, they could never use reasoning or claim to have knowledge that the State’s position was objectively wrong. I go into more details of this in my post, “Is Education Overrated?“

An Even More Dangerous Game

With the destruction of reasoning and knowledge, we will see another devastating and logical implication of eliminating God- the destruction of the academy. Without knowledge even being possible, all knowledge disciplines are ultimately useless. If a would-be reformer were to use the knowledge disciplines to evidentially challenge the State, it would be pointless, for the reformer could not lay claim to having knowledge from any discipline. Further, without a grounding for logic, they could not even reason from the evidence to the guilt of the State and the need for change or reformation.

When I see politicians trying to remove God from America, I see them setting up their dictatorship in my back yard. This should not just concern theists, but it should (and does) concern atheists alike. We have to remember that there is no single “atheistic” ethic or belief, so the chances that the views of the one who is in charge aligning with that of any other atheist in this country are slim. Most atheists will desire reform, but they not only have a legal obligation not to challenge the State, they would not have any moral, evidential or logical grounds on which to do so.

Conclusion

With atheists such as Richard Dawkins now telling us that while theism is false, we cannot remove it from society, there is a great deal of irony and even absurdity. They recognize that atheism is not a livable worldview for society, and they recognize that in order to survive, we must believe something that is false (theism, on their view). If, in order to survive, we must believe what is false about the world we live in, then how can they claim that what they have come to believe, in order to survive, is true? If atheism is true, then knowledge is an absurd concept, and no one can claim to know anything true about our world, and worse off, we have reason to doubt everything that someone else tells us is true!
Ironically, Richard Dawkins, by his own recognition that God is not just a “useful fiction” but a “necessary fiction” for the very survival of society, has given us every reason to toss his entire life’s work (everything from his scientific research to his philosophy of atheism) into the garbage can! At this point, if Richard Dawkins wants to salvage any portion of his life’s work, he needs to recognize the existence of God (and not just any god but the Christian God) and do what he can to reconcile God’s existence with his work in biology and biochemistry (maybe recognize that nature appears and measures to be designed because it is designed); but his atheism is a failed hypothesis no matter which way he goes. Interestingly enough, Richard Dawkins is making the case against his own atheism using the immorality of modern culture. To understand this argument better, check out this video from Reasonable Faith and the links to books below:

Tag Archive for: Luke Nix

Introduction

Improbable Planet by Hugh Ross– My Recommendation

Improbable Planet by Hugh Ross ― Favorite Quotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Importance of Recognizing Common Ground

The Image of God

Our Sinfulness

Christ’s Forgiveness

Our Fear

Our Questions and Doubts

Our Choice

Recommended resources related to the topic:

A Blind Faith And God’s Hiddenness

Is Faith In God Really Blind?

What If The Laws of Physics Are Not Constant?

God’s Hiddenness

Recommended resources related to the topic:

An Arrogant Claim or An Arrogant Christian?

Arrogance is mistakenly confused with falsehood.

The distraction of an arrogant Christian could be a cover for our own arrogance.

God is neither intolerant nor arrogant for providing a way to Him.

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Current Suffering In America

Testing Christianity

Reinterpreting God’s Word

Rejecting God In America

Defending The Foundations

We Are One Body

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Has Dr. Sean Carroll escaped the theistic implications of the Big Bang?

Does The Universe Have A Cause?

What We Don’t Know

Cherry-Picking

God of the Gaps?

A Way of Escape: Denying Logic

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #1: You Could Be Wrong

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #2: Find Common Ground

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #3: Assume Good Will

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #4: Listen To Understand

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #5: Ask Honest Questions

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #6: Get Your Facts Right

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #7: Avoid or Qualify Speculation

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #8: Learn to Use Reason Well

Recommended resources related to the topic:

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 Sense Organs And The Brain vs. Atheism

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Introduction

Theism vs. The State

No God, No Legitimate Reformations

No God, No Legitimate Changes at All

Yet Changes and Reformations Abound And More Are Attempted

Politicians Are Already Steps Ahead of Us

An Even More Dangerous Game

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic: