Tag Archive for: Luke Nix

Tornado, Simulation, Tyson and God

Tornado Simulations, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and God’s Existence

, ,

By Luke Nix

Introduction

For nearly all my life, I’ve had a fascination with the physical sciences. Meteorology and astronomy were two of them that always caught and kept my attention as a kid. In my teens was when I started to focus more on information technology, and in my twenties, I was drawn to defending the truth of the Christian worldview through science, philosophy, and other knowledge disciplines. Living in Oklahoma, the weather is always in the news, and being that I frequent philosophical and scientific sites, popular astronomer Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson comes across my screen once in a while as well. In the last year, a few different articles have shown up from the meteorological, astronomical, and philosophical worlds, which the combination is what caught my attention. Today, I want to take some time to show how technology, being used to simulate natural phenomena, can be used to show that God exists, and I will address a popular naturalistic alternative explanation that was proposed by Tyson (and others). Let’s start with the weather and super-computers.

Tornadoes And Technology

One of my earliest memories was that of a weather event in Lubbock, TX in the mid-to-late 80s. I was about five years old, and my brother was only two. We were with our parents at the local mall on a spring afternoon. This was pretty typical and nothing exciting, but what happened that afternoon seared this memory into my brain for life. As we were wrapping up our trip and on our way out, nearly everyone in the mall started running frantically, screaming and crying. My parents grabbed my brother and me, and we ran outside to see what was going on. All I remember once we were outside was seeing traffic stopped on an overpass not far from the parking lot and an odd funnel-shaped cloud connecting the sky to the ground. As a five-year-old, I had no idea what was going on, but I knew that that funnel was the cause, and it terrified me. Later, it was explained to me that what I saw was a tornado. Since then, I have had a great fascination with tornadoes, and living in Oklahoma has definitely provided a great opportunity to feed that fascination. Over the years, like most mid-westerners, I have had a few close calls with tornadoes, including one that inspired a blog post a few years ago about God’s potential purposes for allowing natural evil.

While I never went to school for meteorology, I did get to take one meteorology course at the local college one spring semester. That same semester I had the opportunity to watch a supercell develop overhead. While that also is nothing odd for a mid-westerner, this was the first time that I purposely went outside to watch it and was actually paying close attention. Seeing the rapid circulation of the dark clouds around me and the scuds develop and get sucked into the circulation was astonishing. Luckily, no tornado developed, but we did get some nice-sized hail. This particular experience in my mid-20s was one of my turning points for realizing the incredible beauty and power of one of nature’s most destructive forces (at least for my area). If you’ve never experienced a storm this way, take a look at this time-lapse video of a supercell and imagine yourself watching it develop from directly below it:


Nebraska Supercells – 4k StormLapse from Chad Cowan on Vimeo.

Historically, weather has been quite challenging to predict despite the continued increase in power of today’s super-computers and the amount of data that they process in the latest models. In early 2017 atmospheric scientist Dr. Leigh Orf at the University of Madison released a video produced by the most extensive and precise simulation of a real supercell that became tornadic. The EF-5 tornado struck Oklahoma in 2011, and Dr. Orf’s team reproduced the entire supercell for the life of the tornado. Here is the simulation video he released:

The enormity and beauty of the storm astound me which creates a sense of wonder and worship of the Creator (not the creator of the simulation, but the Creator of nature which produced the storm). But something else does as well. The amount of time required, on our fastest computers to simulate the visuals of such a small portion of our universe for such a short period of time with precision orders of magnitude less than what this universe exhibits, created that same sense of wonder and worship in me. Some naturalists have posited that perhaps this universe is a simulation, much like what was explored in the movie trilogy, “The Matrix.”

What If We Live In A Simulation?

Popular astronomer Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson moderated a scientific debate a couple years ago where he suggested that science lends credit to the idea that we live in a simulation. Being that he is an agnostic (if not an atheist) he proposes this idea as a possible naturalistic explanation for the evidence coming from the sciences. The idea that this universe may be a simulation presses the bounds of the word “ludicrous” for a naturalist to make for three reasons.

First, the fact that a naturalist would even suggest such a thing is a philosophical concession to intelligent design on two levels. We know that simulations can only be the product of intelligent designers: the designers of the hardware and the designers of the software. To suggest this universe is a simulation is to suggest the universe was intelligently designed. Let us also not forget what a simulation is: an imprecise representation of something else. So, not only has the naturalist conceded intelligent design but they have merely pushed back the explanation, for they must then assume a universe of greater complexity and precision is what is being imprecisely simulated in the designed hardware by designed software. If this universe is, indeed, a simulation then it has a Designer.

Second, just as the 2011 Oklahoma City tornado was more complex than Dr. Leigh Orf’s simulation, the universe that this universe is imprecisely simulating would be more complex as well, so the naturalist has inadvertently increased the difficulty level of the problem of design because they now need to explain the complexity and design in the universe that our universe is simulating.

Third, all simulations (once the hardware is designed, programmed, and put together, and the software is designed and loaded) must begin. Someone must be there to start the simulation. If the universe is a simulation, all simulations begin, and anything that begins has a cause outside itself, then the simulation (universe) has a beginning outside itself. The universe, if a simulation, indeed must have a Beginner.

If the naturalist wishes to posit that our universe is a simulation, then they have conceded that our universe is designed (thus has a designer), that there exists another universe of greater complexity and design, and that the universe has a beginning (thus a beginner). If a naturalist proposes the option of a simulation, these three issues can be used to show how they have actually granted God’s existence.

Do We Live In A Simulation?

The but the question remains: “Do we live in a computer simulation?” The latest research published in the journal Scientific Advances addresses this possibility. According to one summary of this paper,

“The researchers calculated that just storing information about a couple of hundred electrons would require a computer memory that would physically require more atoms than exist in the universe.”

In other words, not a chance! Lucky for the naturalist the problem is not actually more difficult due to our universe being some big simulation. But they are still stuck with the universe’s beginning and the universe’s design and fine-tuning. The naturalist simply cannot escape these two realities. The possibility of the universe being a simulation appeared to explain these realities (the agent could have been an alien race in the multiverse, or intelligent machines like in “The Matrix,” after all), but when working out the logical implications, it did not, and recent research shows that the whole discussion is moot anyway. So, the naturalist, even if they were right, is still stuck. Evidence for design in the universe is so strong that the naturalist cannot reasonably appeal to an “appearance of design;” they know that they must come up with a way to affirm that the design is real, and they almost (not really) had a way to affirm actual design via the simulation hypothesis, but now they must deny it yet again.

Conclusion

If we conclude from the design in the universe that it is a simulation (based on what we know about the origins of computer simulations), but we discover that the universe is real (not a simulation), shall we then deny the design of the universe again just to avoid the notion of a cosmic Designer and Creator? Shall we further deny the design of the computer simulation by the scientists and say that the simulation was nothing special and just a “chance” occurrence? I do not believe that Dr. Orf would appreciate such a conclusion. Let’s now apply this to the universe.

Rather than denying the evidence, there is an option that has been established, not only through the process of elimination (a negative argument) but also through argument by analogy (positive argument): God. Just as we know that purposeful designs created by human designers exhibit lesser levels of complexity and specificity that we see in the universe and we know that those levels are the product of designers, so too we can know that the greater levels of complexity and specificity that we see in the universe are the products of a Designer. We can either follow the scientific evidence where it leads, or we can continue to deny it, even though we know deep down that to do so is a denial of all that is rational. Given the numerous other positive arguments for the God of the Bible, when the whole of reality is considered (quoting homicide detective J. Warner Wallace from his book Forensic Faith– “Everything counts as evidence”), only the God of the Bible stands as the logical explanation. We can either follow the evidence and logic and surrender our lives to Jesus Christ, or we can deny reason and the evidence and live our lives in opposition to our Creator and Savior. It is our free choice, and no one is morally responsible for making the wrong decision but us.

For more on God’s existence from the Sciences, I recommend:

Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity’s Home by Dr. Hugh Ross

Where The Conflict Realy Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism by Dr. Alvin Plantinga

Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off by Dr. Fazale Rana and Dr. Hugh Ross

Origin Science: A Proposal for the Creation-Evolution Controversy by Dr. Norman Geisler

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2gNtq3R

/by
Faith Emotional Logical

Is Faith Emotional or Logical?

By Luke Nix

So many people, both religious and non-religious, believe that faith is purely emotional, and in most contexts people imply the word “blind” before “faith”. While few others believe that faith is logical- that it is firmly grounded on something. Lately, I’ve been reading the book “Emotional Intelligence” by psychologist Daniel Goleman and a few thoughts came to mind regarding this seeming dichotomy between faith being based on emotion versus being based on reason. Before I go into that connection or disconnection, though, I want to establish what I mean by “faith”.

Faith in Time

I hear people all the time say that they “have faith”. It seems to inspire them and those around them, but it often leaves me confused. Sure, someone can say that they “have faith”. But when I hear this, I am compelled to ask a few questions:

  • “What do you have faith in?”
  • “What makes you believe that thing is worth placing your faith in it?”
  • “Why do you need to put ‘faith’ in something anyway?”

Without answers to these questions, faith is empty, contentless, blind: merely a verbal platitude but ultimately vacuous. If faith is to be significant it requires content. From what I have seen, it appears that for faith to have content, three essential things must take place at three different points in time: the past, the present, and the future. All three are necessary; if one is missing, then we cannot say that someone has meaningful faith. So, if the “something” is identified at these three levels, this means that faith is not empty or contentless, there is something significant to it.

  • Past– Experiences with something or someone (foundation)
  • Future– The unknown (need)
  • Present– Trust (action)

Based on prior trustworthy experience, we must trust the person or thing in the present because the future is unknown. If we do not have any past trustworthy experience to justify trusting someone or something, yet we still say we have “faith”, then our faith is blind. If there is no future unknown, then trust is not really needed, thus any “faith” we say we have is imaginary. If we don’t actually place our trust in the person or thing with the unknown, yet we say we have “faith”, our words are not backed up by our actions. In all three of those cases, faith does not exist. All three -the past, present, and future- are required for faith to actually exist in a person.

Objects of Faith

Faith is that which is based on the rationality and the reasonableness of that which has already been revealed. What we decide to use as the object of our faith will depend on our experiences or revelations with different possible objects of faith. Some trust science. Some trust government. Some trust reason. Some trust themselves. Some trust God. Every one of these possible objects of trust is tested by the person. The test is as simple as reviewing past experiences with that object in situations when promises were made or understood. This is a very logical way to approach who or what to trust (or not to trust) with the unknown. Thus, we have a very reasonable and logical approach to faith.

Where The Emotion of Faith Meets The Logic of Faith
However, emotion plays a huge role here also. Goleman explains: “When some feature of an event seems similar to an emotionally charged memory from the past, the emotional mind responds by triggering the feelings that went with the remembered event. The emotional mind reacts to the present as though it were the past.” (Goleman, 295)

It is the emotional part of our brain that gives past experiences their thrust. We have a vivid recollection of experiences that impacted us regarding the trustworthiness of someone or something we depended upon. If we believe that something(one) followed through with the given or understood promise, then we associate positive emotions to that experience. But if we believe that something(one) did not make good on given or understood promises, we associate negative emotions to that experience. When faced with a similar future unknown, we will tend to act (place trust) based upon those previous experiences (revelations).

However, we are not stuck with certain emotions to certain objects once they are “written” in our memory. The brain is highly malleable. As we obtain more verifying experiences, the satisfaction with an object of faith grows, and our ability and willingness to trust it with the unknown future is more solidified. On the flip-side, As we obtain more experiences that confirm the untrustworthiness of a possible object of faith, the less we have the ability and willingness to trust it with the unknown future.

This has great implications for the Church in general and apologists specifically:

The Church– We need to be extremely careful in how we approach and treat people (believers or not). Every interaction that we have creates a memory with someone. If that interaction was negative, not only will people question your trustworthiness, but they will also question those you associate with (including your beliefs). We must take responsibility to properly represent Christ to everyone- even those in the Church. Not everyone who claims to be a Christian is one; they may be looking for a reason to reject Christianity, let’s not give them one by treating those we believe to be our brothers and sisters in manners that are not Christ-like.

Apologists– This is a critical point in our defense of Christianity. Many skeptics do not trust God and/or the Church due to painful experiences with Christians (and/or those they believed to be Christians). We have to understand that when we ask them to trust Someone they believe has failed them, to them we are making the most unreasonable request of them. We would be equally put off if they asked us to place our trust in someone who had failed us in the past. Goleman explains again:

“The emotional mind takes its believes to be absolutely true, and so discounts any evidence to the contrary. That is why it is so hard to reason with someone who is emotionally upset: no matter the soundness of your argument from a logical point of view, it carries no weight if it is out of keeping with the emotional conviction of the moment.” (Goleman, 295)

The brain’s malleability is not quick, but it is strong. This is both good and bad. What is good is that someone who is placing trust in something that actually is untrustworthy (though their experiences with it may point to trustworthiness) can still redirect their trust away from that unreliable object and place it in someone that is truly reliable. Also, if someone does not trust a potential object of trust due to perceived untrustworthiness, it can be reversed.When we present negative arguments, we are attempting to show the unreliability of their current object(s) of faith. When we present positive arguments, we are attempting to show the reliability of alternative objects of faith. This is gone into more detail in my post “Positive and Negative Arguments“.

Patience Is A Virtue

When damaged, trust is something that is rebuilt slowly- the emotional associations to a particular type of event must be changed. More damage requires more time and more effort. We must be patient. We can present logical arguments, but only in their due time. That time comes as the emotional connections are being changed and the heart is being transformed through Christ acting in our lives to establish the positive emotional connections. Which prepares the person to accept the logical arguments used to demonstrate the reliability of the Christian God as an object of faith.

When the time comes to give the logical arguments, we can demonstrate the unreliability in their previous object of faith (further challenging and changing the emotional ties): the negative arguments. At the same time, we must offer logical arguments to trust in Christ: the positive arguments.

Timing is Everything

Notice that this is quite dependent upon timing; timing we cannot possibly know because we do not know the state of the person’s heart at any particular time. We can get hints based on behavior and conversations, but those can be purposely misleading or misinterpreted. It is only through prayer and the willingness to let Christ guide our delivery of the Gospel that a person may be added to the Kingdom. As I have said in previous posts, we cannot argue someone into the Kingdom. It requires a change of the heart, that only God has the knowledge and the resources to accomplish. We, as the members of the Body of Christ, should feel humbled and blessed that God has chosen us to be one of his many resources.

Why Is Faith Emotional and Logical?

Faith in anything is not just emotional or logical, it is both. Faith also is not practiced only by a certain type of people, it is practiced by everyone. In the words of Ravi Zacharias: “God has put enough into this world to make faith in Him a most reasonable thing. He has left enough out to make it impossible to live by sheer reason alone.” (17:39) There is a very specific design and purpose in this reality: that we can possess knowledge of reality, but never enough that we become too prideful to stop searching for the Source of everything that we know, to discover that the Source of that knowledge is personal, loves us and is worthy of our worship and trust. God created us to be both logical and emotional. It is only in the discovery and knowledge of who God is, that our insatiable search for knowledge is completed; and our faith in Him, no matter how emotionally difficult and painful it may be, is eternally vindicated and appreciated in the presence of the Source of all knowledge, the Foundation of reason, the Creator of our emotions, and the “Finisher of our faith.”

Another great post is by Carson Weitnauer: Is Faith Opposed to Reason?

Sources

Goleman, Daniel, Emotional Intelligence: 10th Anniversary Edition; Why It Can Matter More Than IQ

Zacharias, Ravi, Scorned For God- Part 1 (Let My People Think Podcast)

 

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

/by
Defining Terms Debate

The Importance of Defining Terms

By Luke Nix

Introduction

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

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

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

Words in Debates

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

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

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

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

The Power of Words

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

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

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

Precision of Communication

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

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

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

More Words

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

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

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

More Clarification Is Sometimes Necessary

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Related Posts:

Is Theism Well-Defined Enough to be Scientifically Testable?

Atheism: A Lack of Belief in God

What Is Faith?

Is Faith Emotional or Logical?

Philosophy of Science, Circumstantial Evidence, and Creation

Deconstructionism, The Constitution, and Biblical Interpretation

The Difference Between What A View Asserts and Implies

 

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

/by
God Patient Creation

God, Patience, and Creation

By Luke Nix

Introduction

One of the challenges skeptics raise against God as the Creator is the idea that He took entirely too long to create: God is inefficient and wasteful with time, if He did, indeed, take 13+ billion years to create the universe. Why did God take so long to create the universe when He could have created it in just a few days or even a couple microseconds? This challenge is necessarily dependent upon the idea that God has absolutely no possible reason for spending 13+ billion years to create. Thus, if it can be shown that God did have a reason for taking the time that He did, then the challenge is defeated. My goal in this post is to not only defeat the challenge, but to show that there is an answer that not just possible but more likely than not within the Christian worldview.

The Patience of God

I posit that the purpose is that God wanted to ensure that people would see that His Word, written thousands of years ago, actually does apply to us on a personal and existential (not just a distant) scale today.

“The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”- 2 Peter 3:9

Patience is a virtue; it is also one of the Fruits of the Spirit (Galations 5:22). God is patient. Just as Proverbs (6:6) encourages us to look at the ant for it teaches us something about hard work, so too Paul encourages us to look at the creation for it teaches us something about the attributes of God (Romans 1:20). Patience is, no doubt, one of the divine attributes that are “clearly seen from what has been made” when we see the time it took for our universe to get from the moment of creation to its present state. When scientists investigate the heavens and the earth they discover their history is one of patience, punctuated by numerous moments of deliberate, delicate, and dynamic activity. Why would God take so long to create? Why not just “poof” everything into existence in the necessary form? To display the extent of one of His divine attributes: patience.

The Human Temptation

Further, this is a guard against human pride, thinking that we are as patient as our Creator. Engineers, artists, project managers, scientists, architects, and many others have projects that span the time of weeks, months, years, and even decades. They can be patient for that amount of time as they see the final product take shape. For those who’s projects take months and years, the temptation to compare their patience of years and decades to God’s patience of merely days (on the view that God created the universe in six 24-hour days) and see their patience as superior is overwhelming. However, God took billions of years of active involvement (not laziness, disinterest, or inefficency) in the creation of our universe and planet. This time span is orders of magnitude greater than what any human or even generations of humans could dedicate to any project. The comparison is simply not possible. The patience of God is beyond what we could even imagine, and He has given us proof of His patience in His acts of creation.

“Crowned With Glory And Honor”

“When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them? You have made them a little lower than the angels and crowned them with glory and honor.”- Psalm 8:3-5

God was patient with the universe He created because its combination of attributes uniquely could accomplish numerous purposes He had for His creation, yet He was aggressive in actively working through the universe’s laws and processes (which He put in place) to see the purposes fulfilled as soon as the universe that He created possibly could. One of those purposes is the redemption of as many of his Image Bearers as would freely choose to recognize their sinfulness and need of Jesus Christ. God patiently spent 13+ billion years preparing a world where we could come freely into a salvific relationship with Him; that is the value He places on us; that is what it means to be “crowned with glory and honor.”

Conclusion

Given the cases from Scripture for the value God places on patience and humanity and for looking to God’s acts (creation) to understand His purposes and attributes and the case from God’s creation for a necessarily time-consuming and precisely detailed series of processes to create our world, not only has the challenge been defeated by mere possibility; it has been shown that the answer is more plausible, evidentially, than not within the Christian worldview. The more I investigate the history of the creation of our world, the more I see the patience, the love, and the wisdom of our Creator and Savior, Jesus Christ. I believe the psalmist expressed this awe and wonder best:

“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge. They have no speech; they use no words; no sound is heard from them. Yet their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.”- Psalm 19:1-4a

For more on this theological and scientific topic, check out these great books:

Improbable Planet: How The Earth Became Humanity’s Home

Why The Universe Is The Way It Is

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

 

/by
Morality Meaning Hope

Does Scripture Ground Morality, Hope, and Meaning?

By Luke Nix  

Introduction

I saw this meme on social media the other day. It states “Scripture abandoned in the culture leads to relative morality, hopelessness, and meaninglessness.” It caught my attention because of how its author attempts to ground morality, hope, and meaning. Even though skeptics of Christianity do not have the correct worldview, they still have the ability to identify contradictions, unsound arguments, and false claims made by adherents of other worldviews (in virtue of their being created in the Image of God). If a defender of the Christian worldview attempts to ground morality, hope, and meaning in an invalid source and defend that incorrect grounding, a knowledgeable skeptic will be able to identify the faulty claim and use that as a reason to remain skeptical of the claims of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, this meme offers the incorrect grounding for morality, hope, and meaning. It is important that we understand how the grounding is incorrect, the implications of its being incorrect, and what the proper grounding is, so that we can be prepared to give a reason for the hope that we have when a skeptic challenges the claims of this meme.

Grounding Morality, Hope, and Meaning in Scripture Morality, hope, and meaning are important components of any religious worldview. They provide a worldview’s adherents an explanation for their existence and a framework by which to fulfill their purpose, according to that worldview. For any worldview adherent, these components come with deep, emotional connections that are difficult to overcome.

Almost every religious worldview has some kind of “holy writings” commonly called “scripture.” Christianity has the Bible; Islam has the Qu’ran, and Hinduism has the Vedas, just to name a few. All these “holy” books speak about morality, meaning, and hope (to some extent). But they all make conflicting claims about each of these, and adherents to each may make the claim that meaning, morality, and hope are all grounded in their “holy” book(s). So, adherents to each of these worldviews logically also make the claim that a culture that abandons their scripture (for another scripture, or nothing at all) is doomed to live with relative morality, hopelessness, and meaninglessness.

The Problems and Implications

For the defender of a worldview, appealing to an abandonment if their scripture is not believed and followed seems logical because they know that others seek these things as they do. But, if all the worldviews are making the same claim (that their scripture grounds morality, hope, and meaning), what is to keep a skeptic from going to one of the other worldviews to find the same type of claims that have content that seems more palatable (such as a different ethic or different way to heaven or nirvana)? What is the reason that a person should believe and follow any one particular scripture?

If the Christian is to claim that morality, hope, and meaning are grounded in the Bible, then our claims are on even ground (ontologically speaking) with all the other worldviews from the perspective of the skeptic. This appeal does provide a reason to not abandon the Bible, but it provides the same to not abandon the Qu’ran, Vedas, etc. From the perspective of the skeptic, since all these “holy” books make claims about morality, hope, and meaning, and none of them are grounding them outside their cultural/relative “holy” books, it appears as though these actually are relative. And, logically, if the appeal is dependent upon a warning to avoid what is real, then that is more reason for the skeptic to run the other direction (and they know it and often do).

Further, all writings must be interpreted by the reader; in order to find the correct interpretation of the writing, the reader must attempt to discover what the original author meant. If morality, hope, and meaning are grounded in the writing, then the grounding is also tied to the interpretation (whether right or wrong). So if we have a Christian who interprets the Bible incorrectly and they ground morality, hope, and meaning in the Bible, then they will naturally confuse their interpretation for providing the grounding for their (likely wrong views of) morality, hope, and meaning. This would make all three not just relative (changeable/different based upon the cultural “holy” book) but subjective (changeable/different based upon the individual who is interpreting that “holy” book). A conflation of the reader’s interpretation with the author’s intent leads to this extra level of potential problems with the meme.

The Proper Grounding and the Proper Role

Let’s look at the claim again. “Scripture abandoned in the culture leads to relative morality, hopelessness, and meaninglessness.” The reason the problems that I just described exist with this claim is because the claim simply is not true. Morality, hope, and meaning do not find their grounding in the Bible (or any other “holy” book, for that matter). That is not the claim of Christianity. The Christian claim is that these find their grounding in God. God is independent of cultures and interpretations, thus there is no way that morality, hope, and meaning are relative or subjective if Christianity is true.

Now, this affects the defense of the Christian worldview from two different directions. First, the defense of objective morality, hope, and meaning grounded in God (the biblical view) can take place by providing the evidence for the existence of the Christian God to relativists. This is presented by taking the claims of the various “holy” books of the world and putting them to the test against reality. Scientific evidences for God’s existence, and for the idenfication of the Creator as the Christian God, by necessary implication are then arguments for objective morality, hope, and meaning.

Second, for an atheist who holds to objective morality, hope, and meaning, they must find the grounding for those in something that is independent of cultures or individuals. The claim that these are grounded in the Bible does not satisfy that ontological requirement; however, the claim that these are grounded in God does. Then the fact that the atheist already recognizes the objective morality, hope, and meaning, by necessary implication becomes a logical reason for them to believe that God exists. And combined with the other arguments for God’s existence and the specific identification of that God as the Christian God, provides a powerful case for the truth of the Christian worldview.

A Necessary Clarification

The implication of my critique is that it is not the abandonment of the Bible that leads to relative morality, hopelessness, or meaninglessness. Rather it is the abandonment of the Christian God that leads to those things. But I must be clear that the abandonment of the Bible will put us at a great disadvantage to discover what is true about objective morality, hope, and meaning. While scientific and philosphical arguments may be presented to demonstrate that God does exist, that would only establish that these three also exist (and may point us in the general direction of the correct content); it would not necessarily say anything about what is right or wrong (morality), why we are here (meaning), or our hope (what is wrong with us and the solution). We do need the Bible to learn the content. But we do not need the Bible to ground the content. This is the difference between the philosphical categories of ontology (what is real) and epistemology (how do we know what is real). Misunderstanding this distinction is likely the reason for the claim of the meme. It is important that we recognize this distinction and not conflate the two categories; otherwise, we run the risk of making the same mistake as the author of the meme.

Conclusion

The claim in the meme that the Bible is the ground for morality, hope, and meaning cannot stand when placed side-by-side against the same claim of competing worldviews. Because of that, it actually works against the very intended purpose of the meme. By recognizing that morality, hope, and meaning are not grounded in the Bible but in the God of the Bible, all the negative implications can be avoided and a reason for the hope that we have can be provided and demonstrated.

To Further Investigate This Grounding, I Recommend:

Can Man Live Without God?– by Ravi Zacharias

Christian Ethics: Options and Issues– by Norman Geisler

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2r5rSpE

 

/by
Worldview Assertions Philosophy

The Difference Between What A View Asserts And Implies

By Luke Nix 

Introduction

In any discussion in which we are defending a particular view, we must present both a positive case and the negative case. The positive case shows the evidence for the view we are defending, while the negative case shows the problems with the alternative being presented. Both are necessary in the overall case. The negative case is necessary because the adherent of the other view needs a logical reason to abandon their view for an alternative. The positive case is necessary because if an adherent is provided a logical reason to abandon their view, the other view being presented may not be the only option. The way that a view is shown to be incorrect is that its claims are put to the test against reality and reason. If the claims are found to not reflect reality or they are not logical, then the view is false. However, the claims of a view can be of (at least) two different types that require a different approach. Today I want to discuss the differences in the assertions and the implications of a view or model. Understanding the differences will help us be more aware of how to properly address them in other views, and the understanding will also assist us in our formation and critique of our own views. This applies to worldviews, scientific models, philosophical theories, and really anything view that makes claims about reality, regardless of which area of reality it is.

Assertions are propositions that a view or model explicitly claims to be true. When we are talking about worldviews, a worldview’s assertions are the collection of propositions that it claims are true about reality. This collection is explicitly stated and defended by the adherents to the particular worldview that makes those claims.

When critiquing a worldview, it is important that we properly understand the assertions of that worldview. If we fail to understand the assertions correctly, then we run the risk of arguing against a misunderstanding of the worldview- a strawman. If we argue against a strawman, then we have not shown the worldview we are attempting to critique as having any issues. Thus our critique has not provided the adherent of that worldview a valid reason to reject it in favor of an alternative. Our critique simply does not apply to the debate at hand, and we sound like some crazy person who has decided to just start telling a story that has no applicability to the discussion at hand. Unless we are willing to take the time to properly understand what a worldview asserts, there is really no point in attempting to argue against it.

Some assertions are essential to the worldview, so if they are shown to be false, the entire worldview falls apart. While other assertions are not so essential to the worldview, and if they are shown to be false, they can either be adjusted or removed altogether. What gets really interesting and often causes great disagreements among adherent to the same worldview is that they do not always agree upon what is essential to the worldview and what is non-essential. For details on this, see my post “Zombies of Christianity.”

Testing the assertions of a worldview or model is a direct way to test for its ability to accurately describe reality (truthfulness). If one of the essential propositions is found to be false, then the whole worldview or model may be rejected and an alternative needs to be found. If an assertion that is non-essential is found to be false, the worldview or model simply needs to be adjusted to accommodate the new data; however, that adjustment must not violate (it must be logically consistent) with the rest of the worldview or model. Sometimes what seems to be a minor adjustment affects the whole worldview or model, but not necessarily to the point of changing the essentials. As long as the essential assertions are not compromised, the main worldview or model remains intact, just with some different details. For those who are committed to a basic worldview (such as mere Christianity), the discovery that they need to adjust the details of their theology, science, or another part of the worldview does not undermine the historic event of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, so there is no need to be afraid or even resistant to change the detailed assertions of our worldview when the evidence demonstrates a non-essential detail to be incorrect.

What Are Implications?

While attacking the assertions of a worldview or model is a more direct challenge, one can use a more indirect method that is just as powerful. Many critiques of worldviews or models come in the form of critiquing, not the assertions of the view but, the implications. Implications are the collection of propositions that the assertions of a view necessarily leads to when the logic is carried to its end (or just a few steps from the assertion). Implications are not explicitly claimed by the worldview or its adherents, and in some cases, certain implications are not even held by the adherents because the adherents have not worked the logic through to discover them.

Necessary implications can be discovered using the assertions of the view and deductive reasoning. Any sound conclusion that results yet is not explicitly claimed, is an implication of the view. Since implications are necessarily dependent upon the assertions, it is, once again, extremely important to ensure that we properly understand the assertions of a worldview before attempting to deduce its implications.

As I mentioned earlier, implications can be used to critique a worldview indirectly but just as conclusively as testing assertions. If a validly concluded implication is false, then that indicates that one of the premises in the deductive argument is false. If that premise is an assertion of a worldview, then that worldview has been demonstrated logically to be false (as it is currently held- both essentials and non-essentials included). If an adherent wishes to maintain that worldview consistently, the false assertion would either need to be adjusted, so as to not lead to the false implication, or it would need to be removed from the worldview altogether. Of course, this flexibility would only apply to assertions that are not essential. If the false premise is an essential assertion, then the worldview has been completely falsified, and even the basic worldview cannot be believed reasonably, only emotionally- against reason, logic, and evidence.

Now, as I mentioned, not all implications are held by adherents to different worldviews or models. So it is extremely important to understand what an adherent believes. They may very well agree that a particular implication is false, but they may insist that they are being consistent. This is usually an opportunity to get them to go into further details of their worldview or model. If they are correct that they are being consistent with rejecting the implication, then it is likely that there is another assertion (or collection of assertions) that place a nuance on the “false” premise that adjusts it to avoid the implication (see my post “Providing Alternative Explanations“). The newly discovered nuances of the view may also make the implication not one that is necessary but one that is optional, which, of course, the adherent would simply avoid. Now, clarification does not always undermine a false implication; the adherent may simply not understand the deductive argument, or they are more committed to the false assertion than they are committed against the implication- they may be actually willing to accept the implication as true, which would demonstrate that they are actually more committed to a view than committed to truth.

Conclusion

The differences in assertions and implications are important to analyzing and addressing both properly. In our own views, the understanding will help us identify where a view can be flexible to follow the evidence where it leads. This allows us to adjust our own views as necessary and allows us to be more reserved and pointed, where applicable, in our claims of showing an opposing view to be inaccurate (which helps keep discussions cordial and respectful). In my discussions with people about different views, I try to identify if what I’m arguing against is an assertion or an implication; simply saying something like “I know you may not hold to this particular claim, but if you allow me to show you how your view logically leads to it by necessity, you may be able to more clearly see why I reject that view and why I think you should also, based upon your rejection of it.” In the effort to be more careful thinkers, recognition of the distinction between assertions and implications will also help in our effort to be more persuasive presenters and defenders.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2r59CLN

——————————

/by
Image God Christianity

Why Is The Image of God So Important?

By Luke Nix

Introduction

Those who follow this blog are aware that I not only defend “mere” Christianity, but I also defend specifics in the Christian worldview. As I have written before, I believe that if a Christian is defending an incorrect detail of their worldview to a skeptic, that skeptic can easily use that incorrect detail as an excuse to reject the entire worldview (even though this is not logically reasonable). Over the last few years of interacting with fellow Christians regarding the details of our worldview, one of the doctrines that are not discussed explicitly very often, but other debates directly affect, is the doctrine of the Image of God. I have noticed that some positions in the other debates imply different views of the Image of God, and these different views of the Image of God can be used to test the positions in the other debates. But before I get into those debates, we need to know why this Judeo-Christian doctrine is so important in the first place.

What Is At Stake?

The Image of God provides the grounding for several essential characteristics of humans that set us apart from the animal kingdom. Without appropriate grounding for these characteristics, a worldview cannot explain these characteristics, thus it is forced to deny that they even exist…with dire consequences, as we shall see. What are these characteristics, though? While the Image of God grounds several characteristics, I want to examine four of them today:

  • Intrinsic Value
  • Free Will
  • Moral Responsibility
  • The Ability to Reason
 Intrinsic Value

It is common today to think that a person’s value is based upon their race, sex, age, religion, intelligence, economic status, physical ability, entertainment ability, or a whole host of other “useful” things to a society. All of these, though, are relative and fleeting. Anytime that one of those are different (between persons or even in the same person at different times in their lives) their value goes up, down, or disappears. Intrinsic value is value that is not based on any of those accidental characteristics. Intrinsic value is value that is objective, found outside the societies, groups, or other individuals who are judging a person’s worth. This is an objective value that people possess simply in virtue of being human.

No human is intrinsically more or less valuable than another. This concept provides the ground for the idea of “equal rights” regardless of sex, race, age, ability, or status. If you are a human, you are intrinsically valuable, period. Since animals do not possess the Image of God, they do not possess such intrinsic value; they are valuable based upon whatever someone else needs them to accomplish. Animal value is relative and subjective, but human value is objective. If someone violates (harms) an intrinsically valuable thing, it is a moral evil. Specifically, an attack on a possessor of the Image of God is a direct attack on God Himself. If humans do not possess the Image of God, no act against us for any reason is evil. In fact, if humans do not possess the Image of God, it is permissible (if not obligatory) that humans be treated no different than any other animal (and vice versa). Just as a house fly may be killed because it is irritating us, so may a human be killed because he or she is irritating us, and if a human’s life is to be protected by the law, then so should the life of every animal be protected by the law also.

Free Will

When I say “free will” I am talking about the ability to choose to do something other than what we actually do, given the same circumstances (called “libertarian” free will). For instance, you have a choice to continue reading this post or not. Sure, some things will influence that choice, but ultimately you are choosing whether to accept those influences and act upon them or not; the circumstances (or your desires) do not determine your choice, though they do influence your choice. What allows us to do this is the fact that we are “agents” or “souls.” These (and we) are beings that exist independent of physical reality, thus we are not 100% governed by its laws (though our bodies are, which many of our decisions require us to take into account). Because an agent is not physical, it must have a non-physical source- the Image of God provides that source for humans. If humans do not possess the Image of God, then we do not possess free will and all our “choices” are determined by something else, not us.

The animals do not possess the Image of God, thus they do not possess free will. They are beholden to their environment for their behavior. Their surroundings are what determine how they act. The fact that humans have free will means that humans are capable of choosing how to act towards one another, nothing or no one else makes the choice for us, we are responsible.

Moral Responsibility

Taking the two previous characteristics provided by the Image of God, we discover that humans have moral responsibility. If humans are not intrinsically valuable, then no act committed against them is evil. If humans do not have the ability to choose to do otherwise, then they cannot be held responsible for such an evil act. Thus both intrinsic value AND free will are necessary for moral responsibility. This makes us moral beings. Something that animals are not. If an animal kills another animal, we do not call it “murder” because “murder” is “killing” plus a moral element. Animals do not possess intrinsic value (so the killing is not a violation of God’s Image) and animals are not morally responsible beings. On the other hand, man is both intrinsically valuable AND a moral being, so if a human kills another human it is a moral act based on the Image of God in both the victim and the killer. And the morality of that act must be justified by the Moral Law that God has written on the hearts of every human (via His Image) and in His further revelation of Scripture.

This means that if humans wish to hold other humans morally responsible for their actions, the Image of God is necessary on two accounts. Without the Image of God, there is no ground for moral responsibility, no ground for reward or punishment. In fact, if either intrinsic value or free will are missing from the equation, moral responsibility (and reward and punishment) cannot do not make sense; they are meaningless.

The Ability to Reason

Often times it is difficult to distinguish between what is true and what is practical because the two do not always seem to align. What is practical is derived from what allows us to survive and thrive in any given environment. We act and react, according to what stimulates our senses, with those two purposes as the end goal. This is the mode of operation of a creature that not only does not possess free will but also one that does not possess reliable reasoning faculties. If our ability to reason is grounded in a process or object that is focused on survival, then that is exactly what it will do, and the misalignments between what is practical and what is true will never be detected. We are forced to conflate truth with practicality, on this view, because as the environment changes, what is necessary for survival also changes (think of living in Saudi Arabia vs. living in the United States).

On the other hand, if our reasoning faculties are grounded in something that is essentially concerned with what is true, then that faculty can be trusted to be able to detect the difference between a belief that is merely practical for an environment and one that is true (independent of the environment). The Image of God provides this grounding in the Creator, who IS omniscient and desires that humans come to know what is true and not just what is practical for their given environment. In being made in the Image of God, humans not only possess the ability to freely choose among options, we have a reliable tool to identify which option is the correct option. Thus this makes our moral responsibility even more binding.*

The Origin and Current Status of the Image of God

Because all four of those characteristics are tied to the Image of God, it is important that in our defense of the Christian worldview, and specifics within the worldview, that we consistently hold and defend a specific view regarding its origin and status.

Testing Origins Views Via The Image of God

Regarding its origin, some people believe that the Image of God came about by natural processes- it is a functional distinction between us and the animals based upon our evolution from the lower species. This view is most commonly found in the origin position called “theistic evolution” or “evolutionary creationism” (but not all of them hold this view of the Image of God; I’ll address that important distinction in a minute). This cannot be the way the Image of God appeared because it is merely a difference in degree of development between animal and human rather than a difference in ontological essence (“kind”). A difference in degree is not an ontological difference, but the Image of God, in order to be an ontological ground for the four characteristics I described above (and the many others I didn’t), must be an ontological difference. If one holds that the Image of God is not a difference in kind, then all the implications of the above-described characteristics’ absences are actually the reality- human intrinsic value does not exist, free will does not exist, moral responsibility does not exist, and the ability to reason does not exist.

While I do not defend common descent of humans with any animal (I’m not an evolutionary creationist), I must understand that not every evolutionary creationist holds to this view of the Image of God because of its dire philosophical and theological (biblical) implications. These theistic evolutionists hold, just as much as any creationist (young-earth or old-earth), that the Image of God appeared suddenly in history (as a special creative work of God) and that sudden appearance is evident in the fossil and archaeological record.

Where things get difficult, though, is that many naturalists insist that all features of humans appear gradually in the fossil and archaeological records. If that is true, then even the Image of God appears gradually. That would imply that the Image of God is merely a difference in degree and not in kind. So, if a Christian theistic evolutionist wishes to maintain common descent of humans with prior animals (and they wish to avoid the implications of merely a functional Image of God), then they must reject the interpretation of the historical records that naturalists offer regarding the Image’s features appearing gradually (descending from “lower” species).

What is really interesting is that the more that the data is reinterpreted to be consistent with an ontological Image of God (a sudden appearance), the more the line is blurred for the theistic evolutionist between the sudden appearance of the Image of God and the sudden appearance of humans. Perhaps a persuasive case for the rejection of common descent between humans and animals (and the acceptance of humans as a special creation of God independent of His other creations) is found in our defense of the proper view of the Image of God and its endowments (e.g. intrinsic value, free will, moral responsibility, and the ability to reason) upon humans. Our maintaining the proper view of the Image of God helps us to test and guide our view of human origins. If this has intrigued you, I highly recommend reading the book “Who Was Adam” by biochemist Dr. Fazale Rana to see the scientific evidence for the sudden appearance of the Image of God (and humans) in the scientific record.

One More Thing- Abortion and Active Euthanasia
Before I leave the origins debate, though, I do want to bring up one more implication for holding that the Image of God is merely a difference in the degree of development. If you are familiar with some of the more common defenses for abortion, you will know that one of the reasons offered to deny the unborn intrinsic value (and the intrinsic right to life) is the degree of their development. (Now, I have to be extremely careful not to equivocate on the term “degree of development,” because if the terms do mean the same thing in both the common descent view and the abortion view, then we have a serious problem.) Simply put, the argument for abortion from the degree of development points to the lack of certain features in the unborn that a fully developed human being possesses. The pro-abortion advocate uses this lack of development to conclude that the unborn are not really human, thus do not possess intrinsic value (which means that killing the unborn is perfectly acceptable).

In the book “The Case For Life,” pro-life apologist Scott Klusendorf points out that the “degree of development” argument, applied consistently, also removes intrinsic value (thus justifies intentionally killing) from those living with health issues, including physical handicaps, degenerative diseases, mental disorders and others. If the Image of God is merely a matter of degree of development, then any human who manifests cognitive, creative, or physical limitations akin to those of our pre-human ancestors (on the theistic evolutionary view), they too necessarily lack the Image of God. This would include the unborn (abortion would be morally permissible) and the born (active euthanasia would be morally permissible).

This is one more way that we can use the proper view of the Image of God to test our view of human origins. Unfortunately, it can also be used in the opposite direction to justify abortion and active euthanasia- which is one more reason why maintaining the proper view of the Image of God is so important. We must hold to the proper view of the Image of God to guard against such logically fallacious and morally reprehensible (sinful) views from entering our worldview (even if we insist on maintaining the belief in the common descent of the physical human body).

Testing The Current Status of the Image of God

In the on-going debate about how God’s sovereignty and man’s free will work together, some Christians have opted to deny that man has free will at all by positing that the Image of God was destroyed at the Fall of Adam and Eve. However, when the implications I described above are explained, the Christian usually quickly changes their position, but in many cases the change holds that the Image of God was damaged specifically in a way to destroy human free will but maintain the other traits. While this may seem like an acceptable position, it poses a severe problem.

If intrinsic value does exist, but free will does not, then punishment is a moral evil because it is a violation of (attack against) the intrinsically valuable human, created in the Image of God, who did not have a choice to not commit the crime against another intrinsically valuable human, created in the Image of God. This means that if free will does not exist, God’s punishment of those who commit sin is His attacking Himself- a moral evil. However, we know from the Bible that God cannot sin, that He cannot deny Himself, that a house brought against itself cannot stand, and that God does punish the wicked. If a Christian is to maintain the doctrine of eternal conscious punishment (or even the heterodox view of annihilationism), yet deny free will, then they are saying that God is sinning in virtue of His immoral attack against a creature created in His Image.

Some have attempted to say that God can do whatever He wants. However, this then enters into the debate about God and morality. A common objection to God’s existence comes in the form of the Euthyphro dilemma. This poses the question, “Is God good because He says what is good, or because He is subject to good.” The dilemma is that if the first option is selected then morality is subjective and arbitrary (not objective) because God could simply change His mind about what is good, while if the second option is selected then God is not the highest being, thus He cannot be God. If it is not obvious, the attempted escape from the implication of denying free will but affirming intrinsic value fails because it is the first option of the dilemma- morality is then arbitrary and subjective, thus there is no objective standard by which God can judge, which adds another level of problems because without objective morality, nothing is evil, even an act that attacks a bearer of the Image of God (so, murder, abortion, rape, and every other “sin” is not objectively evil- it is merely God’s opinion at the moment that they are or are not)- moral responsibility essentially was destroyed if free will was also.

The only way to avoid this implication is to affirm that man’s free will is still intact regardless of how we view the effects of the Fall of Adam and Eve. Because of that, we can use the proper view of the current status of the Image of God (intact) to test our views regarding the coexistence of God’s sovereignty and man’s free will.

Conclusion

The Image of God is an important doctrine of Christianity. It provides the ontological grounding for intrinsic value, free will, moral responsibility, and the ability to reason. Without these characteristics in place in humans, Christianity is, at worst, false, and at best unknowable and indefensible. So, it is important that as we defend the truth of the Christian worldview that we do not also defend a scientific or theological position that either asserts or implies that the Image of God is not ontological or was damaged in a way to destroy free will. If we do, then we are defending contradictory claims, and the unbeliever can use that as a reason (because they are made in the Image of God) to freely choose to reject the truth of the Christian worldview.

Recommended Books for More on this Topic

*Of course, mere observation of reality and reason do not always lead to the correct conclusion. The Image of God also provides the Moral Law that is written on all humans’ hearts (since all humans are made in the Image of God). Further, God has given us His special revelation that gives us explicit moral codes. But He did not just give us a book without establishing that it was divinely inspired by the Source of the Image of God. The Bible contains numerous claims about reality, and especially history when no human was present to observe the events (thus eliminating any reasonable natural explanation [e.g. that the author saw it or guessed it). Dr. Hugh Ross explains these in his numerous books on the scientific evidence for the inspiration and authority of the Bible. So, there are two additional tools that solidify man’s moral responsibility and the fact that all men “are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2q1OxlG

/by