Tag Archive for: Verdad

Verdad, percepción y realidad

By Brian Chilton

Can truth be found in individual perceptions or is it dependent on an independent, transcendent reality? Many businesses and even churches tend to use the phrase “perception is reality” when talking about meeting customer needs. If a customer feels that they are not receiving the kind of service they expected, then their perception of the service provided will cause them to walk away from the establishment. My intention is not to endorse or censure businesses or churches that use this phrase, but as someone who is drawn to theology and philosophy, every claim and concept must be put to the test. Therefore, one must ask whether a person’s opinions about a certain activity and/or thought make that belief real or even true.

This phrase was coined by the mind of political strategist Lee Atwater who worked for George Bush Sr. in the 1988 political campaign. Atwater died three years after coining the phrase due to brain cancer, but with it he managed to help Bush obtain the 17 points with which he won the 1988 presidential elections. Atwater argued that if someone were able to lead the population to believe that something is true, then each individual’s perception of the truth becomes real by belonging to that group. So, it matters little what the truth is compared to what people assume about what is true.

Others have taken Atwater’s statement further by claiming that perception is more real than reality itself. This means that personal belief about truth matters more than demonstrable truth. If we understand this statement correctly, then we are approaching a situation where truth is manipulated to suit the interests of the person who supports a certain perception. But what is the difference between doing this and deception?

This article is not intended to debate politics. And as such, it will not endorse any political party or its candidates. The only reason for discussing political figures is that the phrase originated in that realm. As I mentioned before, this article is not intended to defame those who have used this phrase. However, the seeker of truth must ask himself if the logic of the phrase holds up philosophically, since the philosopher questions everything.

It is undeniable that the wars that have arisen and the political compromises and undertakings that have been made have been based on the perceptions of one person or group. But do such perceptions automatically guarantee that the perception promoted matches reality as it actually exists? Certainly, the perceptions of Hitler and other radical extremist groups do not match reality. Furthermore, is the course of reality going to change according to what we assume rather than following its natural course? There are quite a few logical problems with the statement, far more than I assumed when I began my research.

We have two ideas being debated: One is reality drives perception (i.e. reality has greater consequences than the individual’s perception) versus perception shapes reality (i.e. everything that exists in space and time is easily redefined by the individual’s perception). The theory of reality drives perception seems to be a better viewpoint. Before we examine this debate we must define what the words reality and perception mean. Then, we must establish differences between these two concepts in order to demonstrate, with facts, why reality is better at driving perception than shaping reality solely from perception. Finally, we will discuss the dangers that arise when perceptions are chosen instead of truth and reality.

The Nature of Reality and Perception

The main issue is knowing what makes something true. Does truth exist independently of the individual? Or is truth something relative that depends on each person’s belief system? This is the crossroads that shapes the main difference between the perception-directing theory of reality and Atwater’s perception-shaping theory of reality. What is truth? The answer determines how each person will approach the debate.

Truth (i.e., reality) was well defined by Aristotle: “To say that what is is not or that what is not is is false, but to say that what is is and that what is not is not is true; and therefore he who says that something is or is not will say either the truth or the false.” In other words, truth is that which corresponds to external reality. Therefore, truth is something transcendent. And it exists separate from the opinion and whims of the person. If a person claims that the sky is red when the wavelengths match the color identified as blue, it cannot be said that that person is telling the truth. Likewise, if a student claims that 5+5=15 he is remarkably wrong, even though his convictions tell him that he is right.

On the other hand, perception is the way a person takes in reality as it is filtered through their senses. Philosophically, this encompasses what is known as qualia , which means “sensory experience—the way things look, feel, smell, taste, and make sounds.” A person’s qualia can differ depending on their experience of reality. For example, some Protestants support the work of Martin Luther as he led the Protestant Reformation during the 1500s. In contrast, some Catholics abhor his work, believing it unnecessarily divided the Church. The beliefs of each group influenced their perception of their qualia, and vice versa.

Why the Natural Transcendence of Reality Far Outweighs Perception

To recap, truth is a transcendent reality that exists outside of personal experiences, whereas perception is how an individual or group interprets their qualia. However, reality necessarily displaces individual perception due to the nature of truth.

We recently gave the example of the color of the sky. Some would argue that a person with average vision would see almost the same color, while those who are color-blind would perceive that color in a different shade. This is a sign that each person’s qualia is different. But the argument is not as strong as it seems, because even though the color is perceived differently, the wavelength of the visible electromagnetic spectrum for that color is still the same. So even though a person’s qualia leads them to believe that the color they see is purple when it is actually blue, the wavelength of the color in question is the same even though it is perceived differently.

Another example we saw was what happened with the Protestant Reformation. Protestants and Catholics judge the work of Luther and the Reformation differently, the common and transcendent reality is that Luther and other reformers led this movement in the 16th century. One person’s perception of the event does not change the historical realities found in the work of Luther and other reformers of the time.

Finally, you’ve probably heard the philosophical riddle about the tree in the forest. If a tree falls in the middle of the forest, would it make a sound if no one is around to hear it? We know from the laws of physics that sound waves are generated when vibrations are transmitted through a medium such as air or water. Therefore, the impact of the tree when it fell propagated the vibrations that generate the sound regardless of the number of witnesses who audibly heard the vibrations. Even if no one was around, the propagation of the vibrations has the potential to be heard. As these examples show, reality does not depend on the perception of the individual. Rather, the perception of the individual is based on the contact that he or she has with external reality.

Consequences of Elevating Perception Above Reality

If people begin to elevate perception over reality, then the foundations on which historical and scientific studies are conducted crumble. No one could postulate what happened before the time in which we are living and there would be no scientific progress because everything would be a personal assessment. Medical services would enter into crisis because each person would claim that he or she does not suffer from any disease, even though the evidence shows the opposite. So the individual would not accept the treatment that will cure him or her of that disease because he or she is convinced that he or she does not have it.

Theologically, matters of faith would become imaginative inventions rather than encounters with divinity. Utopian cults would emerge whose leaders could persuade countless people to perform reprehensible acts for the leader’s own benefit. The leader would claim that his perception is true even when reality does not unfold as he says. People could not be charged with any crime, and judges could never convict criminals. In the written word, the author’s intent is replaced by the reader’s misrepresentation, and other such things would occur. Disregarding the truth of external reality will create a downward spiral that will lead to a host of problems.

Conclusion

Truth matters. Truth allows us to stand on something firm and immovable. Jesus highlighted the liberating nature of truth when he said, “The truth will set you free” (John 8:32). It is not surprising that businesses and churches revolve around Atwater’s phrase. These institutions want to create the best experience for their customers, and rightly so. The intention behind this phrase is therefore understandable and justifiable. However, the philosophical implications of the phrase are quite problematic. Therefore, I propose that we should replace the phrase “reality is what you can perceive” with the phrase “perception is a personal perspective on reality.” In this way, the nature of truth is not diminished and at the same time, individual perception of reality is considered. The provider of a service seeks to deliver the best possible experience to its customers. However, it is very risky to eliminate the essential value of truth.

Recommended resources in Spanish:

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

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

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian has been in ministry for over 15 years and serves as a pastor in northwestern North Carolina.

Translated by Gustavo Camarillo
Edited by Jennifer Chavez

 

/by

La redefinición del amor como resultado de la pérdida de la verdad

Por Rich Hoyer

La mayoría de la gente está de acuerdo en que debemos amarnos unos a otros. Pero ¿Qué significa amar a los demás?

Amar no puede ser lo que nuestra cultura dice que es. Tampoco puede estar desconectado de un estándar moral y trascendental (por ejemplo, la Palabra de Dios y las Leyes naturales) dejando que nuestros sentimientos lo definan subjetivamente, darle la forma que las tendencias sociales actuales le den. El ciudadano promedio en los Estados Unidos de América es un Secularista Popular[i] y ha aceptado la definición de amor dada por el Secularismo Popular. Cuando se habla de amor hoy en día, se hace referencia a “amar a otros” y decir esto parece tener el siguiente significado. “Deseo que obtengas aquello que anhelas; y que supones que te hará feliz.” En estos tiempos el amor es entendido desde los principales valores del Secularismo Popular que son la comodidad y la felicidad y se han desechado los valores tradicionales de la bondad y la verdad. Asi, en nuestra cultura actual, ser incapaz de amar o ser cruel está relacionado con interponerse entre las personas y su elección de un estilo de vida el cual consideran que les brindará felicidad y satisfacción, basta con decirles que lo que anhelan es “equivocado” desde cierta perspectiva e invitarles a que por voluntad propia se abstengan de ciertos anhelos y deseos. Hoy en día a eso se refiere nuestra cultura Secularista Popular con ser “incapaz de amar.”

Cuando el concepto de verdad moral comprensible (una norma para diferenciar lo bueno de lo malo y el bien del mal cuyo origen se encuentra fuera del ser humano y de la opinión social) es rechazado por una cultura, nos quedamos sin una norma confiable para medir nuestros anhelos y deseos. Se vuelve imposible decir, “Mi deseo hacia esa persona es incorrecto,” o “Mi anhelo de hacer esto es dañino para mí y para la sociedad. “Lo único que queda es que la gente y la sociedad expresen su opinión.  Sin embargo, muchos de los integrantes de nuestra sociedad actúan sin considerar que su definición de amor es una opinión más. Algunos se esfuerzan por imponer sus opiniones sobre quienes están en desacuerdo con la perspectiva socialmente aceptada a pesar de que carecen de fundamentos filosóficos sólidos para sostener sus afirmaciones. La sociedad aún delibera sobre varios conceptos como el amor, pero se ha perdido la definición tradicional del amor que firmemente se vincula con la Verdad.

Todo esto deja al amor en la misma situación de un bote que carece de amarras y va de aquí para allá de acuerdo con el viento y las olas de las pasajeras modas sociales.

No obstante el amor y la Verdad van de la mano. Sin la Verdad, cualquier cosa que se afirme del amor es falso —muy parecido a lo que sucede cuando una persona confunde enamoramiento con amor. Amar a otro implica el deseo de todo tipo de bien en la vida del otro. Siendo más específico, amar a alguien es esforzarse por traer el bien a la vida del otro. Sin embargo para medir “el bien” es indispensable una norma que provenga de una fuente que no sea la opinión de la sociedad con esta norma podremos examinar cada opción que se presente. Afortunadamente, tenemos una verdadera vara de medir el bien en la forma de la revelación de Dios que se nos da a través de la Biblia y de la Ley natural.

Los cristianos deben saber qué es el amor y cómo se manifiesta. No debemos dejarnos engañar y aceptar la definición cultural del amor que se basa en los sentimientos y  no en la verdad. De hecho, podemos aprender mucho acerca del amor simplemente observando los aspectos que están en juego en la conversación cuando Jesús respondió a la pregunta de un  fariseo en Mateo 22:36 (LBLA), “Maestro, ¿cuál es el gran mandamiento de la ley?” La respuesta de Jesús la encontramos en los versos 37-40:

Mateo 22:37-40 (LBLA)

  1. Jesús le dijo: —”Ama al Señor tu Dios con todo tu corazón, con todo tu ser y con toda tu mente”.
  2. Este es el primer mandamiento y el más importante.
  3. Hay un segundo mandamiento parecido a éste: “Ama a tu semejante como te amas a ti mismo”.
  4. Toda la ley y los escritos de los profetas dependen de estos dos mandamientos.

Jesús dijo que amar a Dios y amar a los demás como a ti mismo es el mayor de los mandamientos, la mayor responsabilidad del ser humano.Es en este punto donde el secularista popular podría estar de acuerdo en decir: “¡Sí, el AMOR es el mayor valor!  Observa, que aún Jesús dijo eso. Ustedes los cristianos deberían mostrar más amor a la gente. Deberían aprobar lo que otros hacen y no criticar su estilo de vida ni sus creencias solo porque son diferentes a las suyas.” Tristemente, cada vez vemos a más y más cristianos aceptar estilos de vidas inmorales bajo el nombre  de ser  inclusivos,  accesibles y de mostrar más amor ¡incluso en el espíritu del Amor del propio Cristo! i

Sin embargo aquellos que adoptan esta postura han fracasado en considerar el contexto y LAS RAZONES IMPLÍCITAS tanto en la pregunta del fariseo como en la respuesta de Jesús. Ambos están de acuerdo en que la verdad moral PUEDE CONOCERSE… Ambos basan su definición de amor, no en la subjetividad de los sentimientos, sino en la clara revelación de la Verdad moral que  proviene de Dios mismos. Después de todo, la pregunta era, “¿Cuál es el mayor mandamiento de la Ley?” Así que debemos hacer la siguiente pregunta, “¿De qué Ley se refieren ambos?” La respuesta, es clara, ¡es la Ley que fue dada por Dios al pueblo de Israel! ¿Y de dónde vino esa Ley? ¡De Dios! En otras palabras, si tú deseas amar a Dios y amar a los demás, debes cumplir con las cosas que Dios mandó en la Ley que le entregó a Israel.[ii]Tal como dijo Jesús en el versículo 40, “Toda la ley de Dios está hecha para ayudarte a amar a Dios y a amar a los demás” (el parafraseo es mío). Esto no es otro concepto subjetivo del amor, sino que está basado en clara capacidad de acceder y conocer la revelación de Dios hacia hombre. En pocas palabras amar a Dios y amar a los demás implica obedecer la Ley de Dios.

Esta misma revelación hacia el hombre  es la que se niega en la cosmovisión de los Secularistas Populares. De acuerdo con el Secularismo Popular, puede que Dios exista o puede que no, pero estamos completamente seguros que no podemos decir “quién” es Dios, y mucho menos qué es lo que Dios quiere. Por lo tanto, el concepto del amor está a la deriva para ser definido por cualquier ola y viento de doctrina que la sociedad esté promoviendo en ese momento. Este amor se parece a un bote que por no estar amarrado anda de aquí para allá sin un rumbo fijo.

No nos sorprende que los no cristianos, como los Secularistas Populares adopten este punto de vista, lo que nos debería sorprender    es cuando los que profesan la fe cristiana acepten este mismo punto de vista. Y se debe en parte a que muchos cristianos no conocen las Escrituras porque no leen la Biblia, por ello son fácilmente arrastrados por los “vientos y olas” de falsas doctrina  que nace  de la cosmovisión de los Secularistas Populares. Algunos se dicen cristianos, yo me atrevería a decir que son, desde el fondo de su corazón Secularistas Populares aunque afirmen creer en Jesús. Sus acciones y actitudes, al igual que las de los demás, nacen de sus convicciones más profundas, que se alinean más con la cultura en general que con el cristianismo. Pero como cristianos, si en verdad lo somos, debemos aceptar las enseñanzas de la Biblia,  las palabras del propio Jesucristo, en vez de adoptar las convicciones de la cultura en la que vivimos. Debemos medir cada cosa que vemos y oímos con la norma que Dios nos ha revelado. Si no hacemos esto, no seremos transformados a la imagen de Cristo y nos conformaremos a todo tipo de falsas nociones —incluyendo distorsiones  de conceptos fundamentales, como el amor.

Notas:

[i] El Secularismo Popular es la cosmovisión dominante en el Occidente de hoy en día. El Secularismo Popular sostiene las siguientes suposiciones sobre la realidad:

  1. Dios puede que exista o puede que no.
    1. Si Dios existe, nadie sabe cuál es el Dios verdadero.
    2. Nadie puede decir con razón, si una religión es la correcta y otra está equivocada.
    3. Hacer tales afirmaciones es intolerante
  2. Nadie puede asegurar que sabe lo que Dios quiere de la humanidad y excluir las afirmaciones   de los demás.
    1. Por lo tanto, ningún libro religioso (la Biblia, el Corán, etc.) puede proclamar rotundamente ser la Palabra de Dios.
    2. Cada libro tiene el mismo peso, pero menos peso que la sabiduría
  3. Es probable que la moral exista pero tiene que ver más con la supervivencia de la sociedad y no con aquello que le agrada a Dios.
    1. Es innegable que el “mal” es real
    2. Como no sabemos si Dios es real o quién es, nadie puede afirmar que las acciones de otro son objetivamente erróneas a menos que la mayoría de la sociedad esté de  acuerdo.
    3. Por lo tanto, la moral es un constructor de la sociedad y no es el producto de lo que Dios nos ha revelado.
  4. La comodidad y la felicidad son las máximas consideraciones humanas.
    1. La humanidad debería esforzarse para lograr que todos alcancen la comodidad y la felicidad.
    2. Cualquier cosa que impida la comodidad y la felicidad debe ser evitada y en lo posible debe estar prohibida.
  5. Los fines económicos siempre deben estar por encima de cualquier reclamación religiosa.
    1. Las políticas y leyes públicas deberían decidirse  tomando en cuenta si traerá más dinero a la sociedad  y no basándose en las consideraciones morales de la “religión”.
    2. Como ejemplo moderno: Al legalizar los juegos de apuestas se generarán ingresos económicos que servirán de apoyo a los raquíticos presupuestos que se le otorgan a la ciudad, esta razón debe ser considerada como más importante que las directrices religiosas que afirman que los juegos de apuesta no son “buenos” para la sociedad.
    3. “El bien” se define en términos de la economía, lo sexual y lo ambiental.
  6. La (casi) total libertad sexual es algo que todos deben tener derecho.
    1. La homosexualidad, la transexualidad y el sexo fuera del matrimonio son estilos de vida y elecciones legítimas de estilo de vida, ya que las personas deben tener derecho a hacer lo que quieran.
    2. Solo las actividades sexuales que “lastimen” a otros son incorrectas.
    3. Un creciente número de Secularistas Populares creen que cada persona debería dársele el derecho a no ser ofendido, lo que implica censurar toda opinión contraria.
  7. La ignorancia y el abuso causado por “los ricos” son los dos principales problemas de la humanidad.
    1. Si educamos a la gente, mucha de la maldad del mundo y sus desigualdades desaparecerán.
    2. El gobierno también debe perseguir la redistribución de los bienes para establecer justicia económica.
    3. Si todos cooperamos, podríamos generar condiciones casi utópicas, y la vida mejoraría para todos.
  8. Nadie sabe lo que pasa cuando morimos.
    1. Si no existe Dios, no debemos preocuparnos por el Juicio Final.
    2. Por otro lado, algunos creen que casi todos van al cielo.

En la mente de aquellos, solo las personas realmente malas van al infierno, si tal lugar existe.

[ii]  Hoy en día, no hay que instituir inmediatamente todas las leyes del Antiguo Testamento a la ligera. Debemos reconocer que existe una revelación progresiva de Dios. El Código Moral lo volvemos a encontrar en el Nuevo Testamento y aún es válido, mientras que las leyes Ceremoniales y Civiles están obsoletas porque han sido cumplidas por Cristo.

Recursos recomendados en Español:

Robándole a Dios (tapa blanda), (Guía de estudio para el profesor) y (Guía de estudio del estudiante) por el Dr. Frank Turek

Por qué no tengo suficiente fe para ser un ateo (serie de DVD completa), (Manual de trabajo del profesor) y (Manual del estudiante) del Dr. Frank Turek

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Rich Hoyer es el Ministro Principal de la Iglesia Cristiana Lyndon en Louisville, Kentucky. También es presidente del consejo administrativo de la Reveal Conference, la cual se esfuerza por educar a la gente del área de Louisville en las evidencias y verdades del cristianismo. Rich obtuvo su título de maestría en religión de la Universidad Cristiana de Cincinnati. La apologética cristiana es la pasión más grande de Rich.

Fuente Original del blog: https://bit.ly/3EYaMC1

Traducido por Jennifer Chavez 

Editado por Monica Pirateque 

 

/by

Viviendo en la cultura de la Post Verdad

By Bob Perry 

I have shown that truth, goodness, and beauty are objective properties of the world we live in. I hope those three articles have been of interest to you. Please don’t go thinking that what you are about to read are unimportant doctrines or viewpoints. They are not. We are living in a post-truth culture. And yet it is a place where the nature and qualities of truth, goodness, and beauty are of the utmost importance. Our view of objective truth completely affects the way we live our lives. It is the antidote to moral relativism. Truth is important. And understanding the depth of this simple fact will radically change the way you interact with the world. Here is why.

But is faith belief without evidence? Is it something else? Here are the Top Five Reasons Why Faith Is Not What You Think It Is.

The assumptions of culture

Consider the three values ​​I’ve been talking about. And remember the way others often talk about them: Truth — “That may be true for you, but not for me.” Goodness — “Don’t try to impose your moral standards on me!”  Beauty — “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” Despite thousands of years of human knowledge and experience, modern-day culture has made each of these values ​​subjective. They have suddenly become things we decide for ourselves. In fact, if you were to say that the concepts for each of these values ​​are not subjective, you would be treated as an arrogant, oppressive Neanderthal who wants to impose his personal values ​​on the rest of the world. Who do you think you are to do that?!

The world is upside down

We live in cultural relativism. The place where we are expected to accept the idea that any individual’s opinion on any subject is equally valid. And remember that awkward definition of truth as “what corresponds to reality”? It’s a thing of the past. The new normal is that our highest aspiration is to “be true to ourselves .” But what exactly does that mean?

Follow your heart

When your standard for truth and virtue is the person you see in the bathroom mirror, you don’t need much imagination to know what’s next. Feelings rule. You’re encouraged to “follow your heart.” And following your heart means you evaluate reality by relying on emotions rather than using reason and logic. If it feels good, do it. “If it makes you happy, it can’t be that bad…” Sherlyl Crow. Living according to reality has become passé. An archaic obstacle. But there’s a problem with that. And the problem is that “persistent belief in something that doesn’t fit reality” is called delusion. Our culture has embedded delusion into the arts. Our culture has elevated delusion to an art form.

Philosophy is about the real world

It turns out that all this discussion of truth, goodness, and beauty goes beyond a pastime of self-absorbed philosophers. These ideas have consequences in the real world. Ideas are always put into practice. Good or bad, we live in a world where those ideas will be put into practice.  And so we see the consequences of erroneous beliefs about state policies and about the families and relationships of community members on which our politics depend. We hear about it on the news—and also in the false rumors that are generated on both sides of the political spectrum. We suffer the repercussions for denying the reality of the economic situation of the country. And our children and grandchildren will pay—in the broadest literal sense—the price for these deliberate delusions. Above all, we see it in the glorification of sexual autonomy that has infiltrated every corner of our culture. The denial of reality is at the core of issues such as abortion, sexual licentiousness, transsexualism, and homosexual behavior. Defending each of them can only be chronic madness.

Faith communities are not immune

The Church is certainly not immune to the corrosive acid of bad reasoning. The Word of Faith Movement, Universalism, and so-called “progressive” Christianity are proof that you can find nonsensical nonsense. And each of these social ills has found ways to creep into the church. When we strip away the window dressing, we see that the problems in our culture are not new. In fact, they are as old as humanity itself. The rejection of truth, goodness, and beauty began soon after we arrived on the scene. The fall of man was the first moment where human beings used their free will to exchange God’s truth for a lie. Since then, we have only expanded the boundaries of that futile exercise. The good news is that the antidote to bad reasoning remains the same. Seek truth in all its forms. Then align your life with it.  The Church should never be a safe space for bad ideas. It should be a place where people are treated with kindness and respect, but also a place where corrupt reasoning ceases to exist. Bob Perry is a Christian apologist who writes, teaches, and speaks on the subject of Christianity and culture at truehorizon.org . He is a senior writer for the Christian Research Journal and has also written articles for Touchstone , and Salvo . Bob is a professional pilot with 37 years of experience in military and commercial aviation. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Aerospace Engineering from the US Naval Academy , and a Master of Science degree in Christian Apologetics from Biola University . He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. Their five children are grown.

Recommended resources in Spanish: 

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

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

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bob Perry is a Christian apologetics writer, teacher, and speaker who blogs about Christianity and culture at truehorizon.org. He is a contributing writer to the Christian Research Journal, and has also been published in Touchstone, and Salvo. Bob is a professional aviator with 37 years of experience in military and commercial flight. He holds a BS in Aerospace Engineering from the United States Naval Academy and an MS in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. They have five grown children.

Original source of the blog: https://bit.ly/3Q6FQSi

Translated by Jennifer Chavez 

Edited by Monica Pirateque 

 

/by
Por qué es un error decir que todas las religiones son iguales

Por qué es un error decir que todas las religiones son iguales

By Al Serrato

Every year in the United States, thousands of crimes occur in which there are no witnesses and little evidence. Sometimes, the perpetrator leaves a fingerprint—a latent print—somewhere at the crime scene. In the past, these prints had little value in identifying the criminal; before they could make a match, police had to already have a known suspect.

Today, law enforcement officers have access to far better technology, in the form of AFIS, the Automatic Fingerprint Identification System. Maintained by the FBI, it houses data on millions of fingerprints, allowing an unknown latent print to be compared to millions of known criminals. Within minutes, the AFIS computer can spit out the twenty best possible matches to the unknown latent print. But this is only the beginning of the analysis, since with only one latent print at the scene, there is only one real source of the print. A trained analyst must then spend time carefully examining each suspect’s patterns—the whorls and arches and loops, the ridges and grooves—to determine if an exact match can be obtained. The first twenty possible matches have much in common, but upon closer examination, differences in the pattern of ridges and details will appear until the real source can be identified.

So what does this have to do with the field of apologetics? Just this: Living as we do in very pluralistic times, we often encounter people who believe that all religions are basically the same. Examining them superficially, you will see that religions share a number of traits; for example, most teach the utility of treating others with respect, of being kind, of helping the poor. So, while acknowledging some differences in doctrines, people who hold this view believe they have arrived at a great truth: there is no one right religion, only people who mistakenly, and sometimes dangerously, think they have the corner on the truth. This makes them feel at ease, for the moment, as they conclude that there is no need to investigate further. Just be kind to others and follow your heart and all will be well. But on closer inspection, all they have done is stop searching for the truth, the “source” of the life they have been given and the universe around them.

Like fingerprints, religions may appear on the surface to be identical, or nearly so, when in fact they are not. And determining how and where they differ requires rigorous and close inspection. This, of course, is crucial in a fingerprint analysis because we know that for a fingerprint there can be only one source. No analyst would stop when he narrowed the search down to three possible sources, because common sense and reason dictate that two of the three—or perhaps all three—must also be excludable in further investigation. It is the nature of the thing examined.

The same is true of knowledge of God. The world’s major religions make mutually exclusive truth claims about the nature and attributes of God. Do we live and die once, and then face judgment, as Christianity teaches? Or do we undergo a continuous cycle of life, death, and reincarnation? Is there one God composed of three persons, or is there instead a single god or a multitude of deities? For one religion to be true, the others cannot be.

It is logically possible, of course, that all religions are false. It is not possible, on the other hand, that religions that hold contrary positions are all true. Either Jesus Christ is the Son of God who rose from the dead and thus provides salvation to a fallen world, as Christians claim, or he is not. He cannot be both a savior and a mere sage.

Careful and critical analysis of a latent fingerprint can lead to the discovery of the truth about who left it. Making the effort is essential to the pursuit of justice, the importance of which we all intuitively recognize.

But careful, critical analysis can also lead to knowledge of the one God who brought us into existence. When we fail to investigate this question because we mistakenly believe that we already know all we need to know—that is, when we delude ourselves into believing that all religions are more or less the same—we may not intuitively realize how much we are giving up.

After all, what comes next—what awaits each of us at the end of our days here on Earth—is arguably the most important question we must face. And the sooner we begin that process, the sooner we will find that good and satisfying answers await us.

Recommended resources in Spanish: 

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

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

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Al Serrato received his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he continues to work. An introduction to the works of C.S. Lewis sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He began writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com .

Original Blog: https://cutt.ly/kUG3Ys6

Translated and edited by Yatniel Vega García

 

/by
Cinco cosas que debe tener la apologética cristiana

Cinco cosas que debe tener la apologética cristiana

By Doug Potter

I was raised in a Christian home, was always active in an evangelical church, and even got on first-name terms with my youth pastor. However, I was not prepared “apologetically” for my first year of college. It started after freshman orientation, when my coordinator met with us and said, “Look, you’re pursuing a Liberal Arts degree, so you have to take a religion and philosophy class. Do that now. Don’t wait until the end.”

 

So, by the end of my freshman year, after taking Bible and Philosophy classes, I still considered myself a Christian, but I was pretty convinced as a result of taking those classes that the Bible contained historical errors and that no argument could prove the existence of God. Those were just the things I could verbalize. I had also internalized that some truths, especially religious ones, must be subjective and relative.

Yet, I still had this nagging inclination in the back of my mind. Remember that youth pastor, the one I knew by name? He thought he was smart, he’d gone to seminary, he knew Greek and Hebrew and even some philosophy, and he didn’t believe the things I learned in class. Why did I believe them? Because my college professor did? All I knew at that point was that I had to dig deeper.

Apologetics to the rescue

Up to that point, all I had seen was what I now call historical or evidential apologetics. In other words, I knew the biblical and historical points concerning Jesus’ resurrection. However, that didn’t help me with philosophy or even with the supposed errors of the Bible.

Then I finally bought a book called When Skeptics Ask . It changed me. It was the apologetic baptism I had been waiting for and looking for. What made that exposition better than any other? In short, it defined what apologetics is and is not, covered truth, arguments for the existence of God, different views of God (worldviews), and organized the questions and points into a systematic defense of the Christian faith.

I got hooked and I still am. However, I have discovered that not all approaches to apologetics are created equal. I now use five principles to evaluate apologetics systems, people, books, curricula, and other materials. If it doesn’t measure up, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s all bad, but it’s not complete. Apologetics must include these five things:

  1. Apologetics must be distinguished from evangelism . Apologetics answers questions about Christianity (1 Pet. 3:15) and can build a positive case for the Christian faith (Luke 1:4). But this is distinctly different from evangelism or sharing the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-4). Evangelism is done anytime, anywhere, to anyone, in any conversation. Apologetics is only done when and if it is necessary for unbelievers or even believers—to defend the faith or strengthen it.
  2. Apologetics must define truth and tear down any relative notion of it. To counter today’s postmodern world, truth must be defended as absolute. The world says that beliefs about religion or God are subjective – true for you, but not necessarily true for them. But if truth corresponds to reality, the way things are, then truth is based on the objective world that everyone knows. The law of non-contradiction shows us that something cannot be true or false at the same time and in the same sense/relation. So if “C” (Christianity) is true, then everything “non-C”, everything that opposes “C”, is false. The truth is that there is no such thing as relative truth. Relativism is self-refuting, since it assumes that relativism is true for everyone (=absolute), which is nonsense.
  3. Apologetics must prove the existence of God. If point number 2 is correct, then we can reason from a changing reality to an unchanging cause of all things. The traditional arguments for the existence and nature of God are not dead if truth is absolute and knowable. Furthermore, we must connect such arguments to the theistic nature of the God of the Bible (Ex. 3:14) and show that there can only be one Being (God) who is necessary, eternal, omniscient, and omnipotent.
  4. Apologetics must show that worldviews opposed to theism are false. Given points 2 and 3, it is possible to show that no opposing view of God is or can be true. Atheism, the view that there is no God, and pantheism, the view that God is identical with creation, are false if theism (there is a transcendent God) is true. This, therefore, provides the context for understanding everything else in the world, including science and history.
  5. Apologetics must offer a systematic defense of the Christian faith. An apologetic must connect the theistic view of God with the historical truth of the New Testament, showing that Jesus claimed to be God, fulfilled prophecy by rising from the dead, and taught that his apostles had the same God-given inspiration and miraculous power as the Old Testament prophets .

Only in them can we support the claim that Christianity is true and everything that opposes it is false. Yes, there are difficult passages in the Bible, but the clear things are the main things. And yes, truth exists outside the Bible, but nothing that contradicts the Bible can be true since Jesus, the Son of God, taught that he is the Word of God (John 17:17).

I never imagined that apologetic resources would be as widely known and accessible as they are today. The Internet has certainly made this possible. However, it can be both a blessing and a curse. I encourage you to evaluate apologetic programs, ministries, and materials so that these five things are not lacking. Your faith and the faith of your disciples can be compromised.

Recommended resources in Spanish:

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

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

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Potter is the author of Developing a Christian Apologetics Educational Program (Wipf & Stock, 2010) and co-author (with Dr. Norman Geisler) of The Teacher’s Guide to Twelve Points that Show Christianity is True (Bastion Books, 2015). He has written and published articles in the Christian Apologetics Journal , The Homeschool Digest , as well as the Christian Research Journal . Dr. Potter also serves as the Academic Registrar and Director of the Doctor of Ministry Program.

Original Blog: https://cutt.ly/CQ69HU1

Translated by Yatniel Vega Garcia

Edited by Elena Romero 

 

/by
Una celebridad cristiana versus un psicópata

Una celebridad cristiana versus un psicópata

By Bob Perry

If you were looking to follow a Christian apologist you could trust completely, would you choose someone who is a world-famous figure because of his unparalleled ability to articulate the gospel? Or would you go with a diagnosed and confessed psychopath? The best choice is not as obvious as it might seem at first glance. In this case, I would choose the psychopath. And I would say that I am going with the recommendation of the… psychopath. But if this sounds strange to you, read on.

A Christian celebrity

Last month we learned that world-famous apologist Ravi Zacharias was leading a double life. This was admitted by the ministry he founded, Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). On the one hand, Ravi was an extraordinary expositor of the gospel. A great thinker. Who defended the faith with clarity and with the experience provided by a rich cultural background. He truly ticked all the boxes. A man who could deal with the most aggressive skeptic with humility, grace, and truth. He was a model apologist. The kind of person every defender of Christianity longs to emulate. At least outwardly.

Behind closed doors, it turned out that Ravi was a degenerate. An abuser of women. His creepy sexual proclivities have been exposed for the world to see. Ravi’s post-mortem downfall is sad. But it is also proof that the prophet Jeremiah was right when he wrote (Jeremiah 17:9) that “The heart is deceitful above all things, and beyond remedy; who can understand it? ”

The psychopath

Although not as popular as Ravi Zachary, David Wood is also an extraordinary communicator. Known for being a reference on the subject of Islam. But David Wood is much more than that. Wood has a PhD in Philosophy of Religion, with a major in “the problem of evil.” He is an expert on this subject as well – mainly because he has lived his entire life as a psychopath. This is not my personal opinion, but a clinical diagnosis. If you wish, you can listen to his testimony here . The thirty-four minutes you spend listening to him will leave you speechless.

https://youtu.be/DakEcY7Z5GU

David Wood feels no emotion when his pets die, or even when his friends die. He admits to the difficulties he experiences as a husband and father. In his own words, he is a “mess of an individual.” He goes into more detail about why he says this, here (starting at minute 30:30).

Wood attempted to kill his father by beating him with a hammer. As a result, he served a prison sentence. It was there that he met Randy, a fellow inmate and Christian who challenged him to answer some questions—and to reflect on the implications of his self-proclaimed atheism. Wood idolized reason and rationality. But Randy forced him to reason about the existence of objective morality, and the Source of it. His story is a powerful example of why the search for truth should be our primary goal. And a reminder that the Truth is found in Jesus of Nazareth—in Him alone.

Reaction to Ravi

The Ravi Zacarias case has received a lot of press. Some of it comes from Ravi’s supporters who deny the allegations against him. People in this camp tend to believe that multiple women, from all over the world, all interviewed privately, have miraculously arrived at identical descriptions of Ravi’s methods and tastes. To continue to believe that is simply delusional.

Then there are the critics of Christianity who are weaponizing Ravi’s story. Turning it into the latest version of the false argument that hypocritical Christians make Christianity impossible to believe. It’s ridiculous. As David Wood puts it: “If you tell me that 2 + 2 = 4 and then punch me in the mouth, that shouldn’t make me doubt that 2 + 2 = 4. And if you tell me that 2 + 2 = 5 and then buy me a new car, that shouldn’t make me believe that 2 + 2 = 5.”

The truth Ravi communicated is still the truth, even if it came from the mouth of a diabolical sexual predator.

These are the extremes. On the other hand, the most reasonable comments have come from those who have given wise counsel about personal and professional accountability. No one who claims to be a minister of the gospel can feel empowered to demand unchecked freedom, as Ravi Zechariah did. And no ministerial leadership team should have allowed him to receive it. Both Ravi and RZIM are responsible for the consequences. The heart referred to in Jeremiah 17:9 lives in all of us. Even those who are considered Christian “celebrities.”

Contrasting characters

Pride is a powerful drug. It allowed Ravi Zacharias to rationalize his perversions. And he used the reach of his global ministry as a justification to cover them up. Because indeed, millions of people would be “disappointed” if the women he abused told the world what he was doing. So this Christian celebrity dug himself deeper and deeper into his own sewer and never admitted that he was drowning. No apologies. No remorse.

On the other hand, the psychopath’s callous rationality led him to recognize his own vulnerability to the trap of pride. In this case, at least, he is the one we can trust. But in his wisdom, he knows better than to encourage us to trust him. Instead, his message is a word of warning: Put your trust in no man .

The immutable truth

Celebrity status has never been a measure of moral virtue. Ravi Zacharias is certainly not the first Christian celebrity to prove this point. And he won’t be the last.

Nor does being a sinner deny anyone the ability to know and live the truth… even if he or she is a psychopath.

The lesson for all of us here is that the truth, goodness, and beauty of Christianity does not reside in any human being. It rests only on the objective reality that is its Source—the character of God Himself. Men will disappoint you. But Truth does not change. And it never will.

Recommended resources in Spanish:

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

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

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bob Perry is a Christian apologetics writer, teacher, and speaker who blogs about Christianity and culture at truehorizon.org. He is a contributing writer for Christian Research Journal and has also been published in Touchstone and Salvo. Bob is a professional aviator with 37 years of experience in military and commercial flight. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Aerospace Engineering from the United States Naval Academy and a Master of Science degree in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. They have five adult children.

Original source of the blog: https://cutt.ly/qnSxsek

Translated by Daniela Checa Delgado

Edited by Amber Porta

 

/by
¿Qué es la filosofía y por qué no puedes evitarla_

¿Qué es la filosofía y por qué no puedes evitarla?

By J. Brian Huffling

Many Christians believe that philosophy is a pagan discipline practiced either by ivory tower professors or Starbucks hippies. This belief has led some to object to the importance of philosophy, believing that only a relatively small group can do it, or that it deals with problems so mysterious or abstract that it would be a waste of time. Many Christian theologians object that philosophy is rooted in paganism and therefore has no place in Christian theology. After explaining what philosophy is about, it should be abundantly clear that these objections are not only incorrect, but that philosophy is inevitable.

‘Philosophy’ literally means “love (philo) of wisdom (sofia).” It is the search for knowledge, truth, and how to live the good (moral) life. There are several general branches of philosophy. Among them, one and the most fundamental, is metaphysics. Metaphysics is the study of being, or what it means to be true. While biologists study life as things happen, mathematicians study beings according to their number, and physicists study beings according to their physical parts or motion, the metaphysician studies what it means to be in general. They ask questions like, “What is the difference between Snoopy and the bloodhound you might go for a walk with?” Another branch of philosophy is epistemology, which is the study of knowledge. Epistemologists ask the questions, “How can knowledge be obtained?” “What is knowledge?” and “Is there a difference between knowledge and belief?” Moral philosophy seeks to know what it means to be good in the moral sense. Where does goodness come from, and what makes something good? Logic studies correct reasoning and the mistakes (fallacies) that are often made when making a rational argument. Aesthetics studies the nature of beauty, asking questions like, “What does it mean to be beautiful? Is beauty objective?” And so on.

A large number of philosophical fields emerge from these categories. The philosophy of mathematics deals with the nature of numbers, and asks whether numbers are real (for example, does the number 4 really exist?). In other words, it deals with the nature of mathematics. The philosophy of science deals with the nature of science. The philosophy of history deals with the nature of history and historical knowledge. My area is the philosophy of religion, which deals with issues such as the existence of God and His nature, how we talk about Him, the problem of evil, and the nature of miracles.

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

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

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

 

J. Brian Huffling, Ph.D., holds a B.A. in History from Lee University, M.A. (3 M.A.s.) in Apologetics, Philosophy, and Biblical Studies from Southern Evangelical Seminary (SES), and a Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from SES. He is the Director of the Doctoral Program and Associate Professor of Philosophy and Theology at SES. He also teaches courses for Apologia Online Academy. He previously taught at the Art Institute of Charlotte. He has served in the Marine Corps, Navy, and is currently an Air Force Reserve Chaplain at Maxwell Air Force Base. His hobbies include golf, backyard astronomy, martial arts, and guitar.

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

Translated by Natalia Armando

Edited by Malachi Toro Vielma

/by
Lógica 07 Prueba Condicional, Prueba Indirecta y Reductio ad Absurdum

Lógica 07: Prueba Condicional, Prueba Indirecta y Reductio ad Absurdum

En este apartado quisiera hablar sobre tres tipos de pruebas para demostrar la validez de un argumento.

PRUEBA CONDICIONAL

La prueba condicional (CP) sirve para demostrar que, si damos por cierto algo, entonces ciertas conclusiones se siguen. CP solo puede ser utilizada en argumentos cuyas conclusiones sean proposiciones condicionales. Veamos el siguiente argumento:

  • (P v Q) → (R ^ S)
  • (S v T) → U
  • ∴ P → U

Ahora apliquemos la regla por prueba condicional. Para eso debemos colocar nuestra conclusión en el mismo reglón de la premisa anterior, colocando una diagonal para indicar que se va a realizar la demostración por prueba condicional a partir del siguiente reglón, por lo que debemos indicarlo colocando CP entre paréntesis. Veamos:

Argumento Premisas a demostrar Razón
1.       (P v Q) → (R ^ S) Premisa
2.      (S v T) → U / ∴P → U Premisa
3.      P / ∴ U CP
4.      P v Q 3, Add.
5.      R ^ S 1, 4, MP
6.      S ^ R 5, Conm.
7.      S 6, Simp.
8.     S v T 7, Add.
9.      U 2, 8, MP

Como puedes ver, lo que ocurre con la prueba condicional, es tratar al antecedente de ∴ P → U como una premisa asumida, en este caso P. Es como decir: “Supongamos que P es verdadera, ¿entonces qué? Veamos un último ejemplo:

  • P → Q
  • Q → R ^ S

Supongamos ahora que queremos demostrar la verdad de S a partir de P. Con nuestras veinte reglas de inferencia hasta al momento aprendidas no es posible hacer eso, por lo que tenemos que usar la regla por prueba condicional.

Argumento Premisas a demostrar Razón
1.       P → Q Premisa
2.      Q → R ^ S / ∴ P → S Premisa
3.      P / ∴ S CP (Prueba Condicional)
4.      Q 1, 3, MP
5.      R ^ S 2, 4, MP
6.      S ^ R 5, Conm.
7.      S 6, Simp.

De esta manera podemos demostrar proposiciones condicionales usando la prueba condicional.

PRUEBA POR REDUCCIÓN AL ABSURDO (REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM)

La prueba condicional por reductio ad absurdum (RAA) nos dice que, si alguna premisa se supone verdadera e implica una contradicción, entonces la premisa es un absurdo, por lo que debe ser rechazada.

La forma de proceder para este argumento es muy sencilla. Primero se parte de una(s) premisa(s) en las que ambas partes están de acuerdo. Luego añades una premisa condicional la cual el oponente también está de acuerdo, pero que tú crees que es falsa. Luego das por supuesta dicha premisa y utilizando las reglas de inferencia ya conocidas llegarás a una conclusión que es contradictoria. Veamos un ejemplo:

Argumento Premisas a demostrar Razón
1.       P Premisa aceptada
2.      ¬R → Q Premisa aceptada
3.      Q → ¬P Premisa aceptada
4.      ¬R Premisa condicional
5.      Q 2, 4, MP
6.      ¬P 3, 5, MP
7.      P ^ ¬P 1, 6, Conj. (Contradicción)
8.     ¬R / ∴ (P ^ ¬P) 4, 7, CP
9.      ¬¬R 8, RAA
10.  R 9, DN

Como puedes ver, a partir de la presuposición de (4) llegamos a una contradicción (7), por lo que concluimos que su contrario es verdadero.

DEMOSTRACIÓN INDIRECTA

El método de demostración o prueba indirecta (IP) para un argumento dado es similar al reductio ad absurdum, la diferencia radica en que este se construye agregando como premisa adicional la negación de la conclusión en cuestión y deduciendo entonces una contradicción. En otras palabras, por medio de la prueba indirecta, lo que se busca es confirmar la validez de nuestro argumento al demostrar que, si negamos la conclusión y llegamos a una contradicción, entonces quiere decir que su contrario, nuestra conclusión original, es verdadera. Veamos un ejemplo:

Argumento Premisas a Demostrar Razón
1.       P → ¬R

Premisa aceptada
2.      Q ^ R / ∴ ¬P Premisa aceptada
3.      ¬¬P IP (Prueba Indirecta)
4.      P 3, DN
5.      ¬R 1, 4, MP
6.      R ^ Q 2, Conm.
7.      R 6, Simp.
8.     ¬R ^ R 5, 7, Conj. (Contradicción)

Como puedes ver, dado que (8) implica una contradicción, entonces la negación de nuestra conclusión debe ser falsa, por lo que nuestra conclusión original es verdadera.

 

Jairo Izquierdo Hernández es el fundador de Filósofo Cristiano. Disfruta estudiando filosofía y lingüística. Actualmente trabaja como Director de Social Media y autor para la organización cristiana Cross Examined. Es miembro en la Christian Apologetics Alliance y ministro de alabanza en la iglesia cristiana bautista Cristo es la Respuesta en Puebla, México.

/by
Objeciones al argumento del ajuste fino del universo

Objeciones al argumento del ajuste fino del universo

Por Huge Ross

Cuando se trata de las características de ajuste fino del universo, los no-teístas se encuentran en un aprieto. La evidencia es demasiado significativa y concreta como para dejar de lado. La evidencia es inanimada; así que no se puede apelar a hipótesis darwinistas. Las apelaciones a un tiempo casi infinito se ven frustradas por las pruebas de la creación del tiempo sólo unos pocos miles de millones de años atrás. Los siguientes cinco argumentos parecen cubrir el rango de las respuestas no teístas a la evidencia del diseño cósmico:

Argumento 1: nosotros no estaríamos aquí para observar el universo si lo extremadamente improbable no hubiera ocurrido.

La evidencia a favor del diseño es meramente accidental. Nuestra existencia simplemente testifica que lo extremadamente improbable ciertamente tuvo lugar por azar. En otras palabras, no estaríamos aquí para reportar las características del universo a menos que el azar hubiera producido estas propiedades altamente improbables.

Refutación: Este argumento es fundamentalmente una apelación a las probabilidades infinitas que ya ha sido contestada (ver capítulo 12). Otra respuesta ha sido desarrollada por el filósofo Richard Swinburne[1] y ha sido resumida por otro filósofo, William Lane Craig:

Suponga que cien tiradores expertos son enviados para ejecutar a un prisionero en un escuadrón de fusilamiento, y el prisionero sobrevive. El prisionero no debería asombrarse de que no ve que está muerto. Después de todo, si estuviera muerto no podría observar su muerte. No obstante, tendría que asombrarse de que esté vivo.[2]

Extendiendo el argumento de Craig y Swinburne, el prisionero debería concluir, dado que está vivo, que todos los tiradores expertos erraron por algún azar extremadamente improbable. Él podría querer atribuir su supervivencia a una increíble buena suerte, pero sería mucho más racional que él concluyera que los fusiles estaban cargados con salvas o que los tiradores erraron a propósito. Alguien tiene que haber tenido el propósito de que viva. De la misma forma, la conclusión racional que se deduce del ajuste fino del universo es que alguien tuvo el propósito de que nosotros viviéramos.

Argumento 2: el diseño del universo es simple antropomorfismo

El astrofísico Joseph Silk, en su más reciente esfuerzo de comunicar la física de la cosmología del Big Bang a los legos, se mofa de la conclusión de que el universo ha tenido un ajuste fino para soportar la vida. Compara la “tontería” de la idea del diseño con la suposición absurda de la pulga de que el perro del que se alimenta ha sido diseñado precisamente para su beneficio. El error de la pulga, sugiere, se vuelve muy aparente apenas se le coloque al perro un collar para las pulgas.[3]

Refutación: El argumento de Silk ignora algunos temas clave. Si bien la pulga puede estar un poco centrada en sí misma al suponer que el perro fue diseñado exclusivamente para ella, no hay ninguna razón para negar que el perro fue diseñado para un propósito, o para varios propósitos. (El mito de que la vida es producto estrictamente de procesos naturales accidentales es tratado en el capítulo 16.) El collar contra las pulgas puede ser un argumento más fuerte a favor del diseño (por ejemplo, el control de la población) que a favor de la falta de diseño. Más importantemente, si bien podemos imaginarnos un amplio rango de huéspedes adecuados para soportar a la pulga, cada uno de ellos requiere elementos de diseño para facilitar la supervivencia de la pulga.

Aunque son bastante abundantes los huéspedes adecuados para la pulga, no lo son los universos adecuados para la vida. Los astrofísicos no han sido capaces de inventar universos hipotéticos significativamente diferentes del nuestro que pudieran soportar seres humanos o, para el caso, cualquier tipo de vida física inteligente concebible.

Argumento 3: los argumentos del diseño están fuera del dominio de la ciencia y, por lo tanto, deben ser ignorados

Las publicaciones del National Center for Science Education, entre otros grupos anti-creacionistas, aseveran repetidamente que la ciencia está “basada en lo empírico y es necesariamente materialista; los milagros no deben ser permitidos” y que “cualquier teoría con un fundamento sobrenatural no es científica.”[4] Dado que los argumentos de diseño implican la intervención sobrenatural, pueden ser ignorados justificadamente porque “no pueden ser considerados científicos.”[5]

Refutación: Afirmar que la ciencia y la teología son mutuamente excluyentes puede ser conveniente para los materialistas que no están dispuestos a defender su filosofía, pero es insostenible. La ciencia raramente es neutral en lo religioso. Análogamente, la fe religiosa raramente es neutral en lo científico. Tanto la ciencia como la teología tratan frecuentemente con causa y efecto y con procesos de desarrollo en el mundo natural. Tanto la ciencia como la teología tratan con el origen del universo, el sistema solar, la vida y la humanidad.

Cuando se trata de las causas, los procesos de desarrollo y los orígenes, existen siempre dos posibilidades: natural o sobrenatural. Insistir dogmáticamente que nunca deben considerarse respuestas sobrenaturales equivale a decir que todos los seres humanos sigan una sola religión, la religión del materialismo ateo. Encuentro irónico que, en nombre de la libertad religiosa, ciertos proponentes de la educación científica insisten en librar a nuestras instituciones de enseñanza e investigación de cualquier fe que se atreva a competir con la suya.

Argumento 4: el orden puede surgir del caos

La idea de que bajo condiciones estrictamente naturales el orden puede surgir y surgirá del caos fue propuesta primeramente por David Hume, casi doscientos años atrás. Recientemente, ha sido revivido por el químico galardonado con el premio Nobel, Ilya Prigogine en su libro Order out of Chaos (El orden a partir del caos)[6] y por la exitosa película Jurassic Park (Parque Jurásico). Hume hizo la afirmación sin ningún apoyo de las evidencias. Prigogine señaló varias reacciones químicas en las que el orden parece surgir de sistemas caóticos. Jurassic Park en realidad toca otro tema, a saber la teoría del caos y la lógica borrosa.

El principio detrás de la teoría del caos y la lógica borrosa es que, al tratar de predecir el resultado del estado futuro de sistemas excepcionalmente complejos, el investigador estará mejor si se conforma con respuestas o conclusiones aproximadas en cada paso en la solución de un problema en vez de respuestas o conclusiones exactas. La presunción de un principio auto-organizador en los sistemas caóticos surge del hecho de que cuanto más complejo es el sistema mayor es la oportunidad de desviaciones del equilibrio termodinámico en pequeñas porciones del sistema (y mayor es la dificultad para determinar cuáles son realmente los estados de equilibrio termodinámico). Según la segunda ley de la termodinámica, la entropía crece en todos los sistemas, pero la entropía puede decrecer (es decir, el orden puede crecer) en parte de un sistema, siempre que un incremento adicional de entropía (es decir, desorden) ocurra en otra parte del sistema.

Debido a que los investigadores humanos pueden ser propensos a subestimar la complejidad de algunos sistemas, se sorprenden ocasionalmente por cuánto puede desviarse una pequeña porción de un sistema del equilibrio termodinámico. No obstante, las leyes de la termodinámica predicen que estas desviaciones son temporarias, y cuanto mayor la desviación, más rápidamente se corrigen los desvíos.

Sin los desvíos del equilibrio termodinámico, no se formarían las gotas de lluvia y los copos de nieve, por ejemplo. Pero la formación de gotas de lluvia y de copos de nieve se acerca a los límites de auto-organización de un proceso natural. Si bien los copos de nieve exhiben un alto grado de orden, su contenido de información o nivel de diseño permanece bastante bajo. La distinción es aproximadamente como la diferencia entre el Nuevo Testamento y un libro que contenga la oración “Dios es bueno” repetida 90.000 veces.

El último ejemplo muestra un orden considerable, pero no mucha información. El primer ejemplo contiene un alto grado de orden y un alto grado de información (o diseño) a la vez. Los ejemplos de Prigogine exhiben incrementos de orden pero sin incrementos significativos en el contenido de información. Los procesos naturales solos no pueden explicar el nivel excepcionalmente alto de diseño y de contenido de información en los organismos vivos o en la estructura del universo que hacen que la vida sea posible.

Argumento 5: a medida que seguimos evolucionando, llegaremos a ser el creador-diseñador

En su libro, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (El principio antrópico cosmológico), los astrofísicos John Barrow y Frank Tipler reseñan muchas nuevas evidencias del diseño del universo.[7]

Luego pasan a discutir versiones del principio antrópico como el WAP (Weak Anthropic Principle – principio antrópico débil: los seres conscientes sólo pueden existir en un medio ambiente con características que permitan que lo habiten), el SAP (Strong Anthropic Principle – principio antrópico fuerte: la naturaleza debe adoptar aquellas características que admitan, en algún lado y en algún tiempo, la existencia de seres conscientes), y versiones más radicales, incluyendo el PAP (Participatory Anthropic Principle – principio antrópico participativo: los observadores conscientes son necesarios para traer a la existencia al universo, y el universo es necesario para traer a la existencia a los observadores). Pero lo que ellos propician es el FAP (Final Anthropic Principle – principio antrópico final).

Con el FAP, la vida que existe (pasado, presente y futuro) continuará evolucionando con los recursos inanimados del universo hasta que alcance un estado que Barrow y Tipler denominan el “Punto Omega.”[8] Este Punto Omega, dicen, es una Entidad que tiene las propiedades de omnipotencia, omnipresencia y omnisciencia, con la capacidad de crear en el pasado.[9] En otras palabras, el Dios-Creador no existe todavía, pero nosotros (toda la vida y todas las estructuras inanimadas del universo) estamos evolucionando gradualmente hacia Dios. Cuando Dios sea construido finalmente así, Su poder será tal que Él puede crear un universo entero con todas sus características de diseño miles de millones de años atrás.

En su último libro, The Physics of Immortality (La física de la inmortalidad),[10] Tipler propone que la evolución hacia el Punto Omega ocurrirá mediante el avance de la tecnología de las computadoras. Extrapolando el tiempo de duplicación de la capacidad de computación (en la actualidad, alrededor de dieciocho meses) hacia algunos millones de años en el futuro, Tipler predice que una generación futura de seres humanos podrá no sólo alterar todo el universo y todas las leyes de la física sino también crear un Dios que aún no existe. Más aún, podremos resucitar cada ser humano que haya vivido jamás mediante la recuperación de los recuerdos que alguna vez residieron en el cerebro de cada persona.

Refutación: Es difícil tratar estas hipótesis del FAP y del Punto Omega en forma seria. En el New York Review of Books, el conocido crítico Martin Gardner ofreció su evaluación del trabajo de Barrow y Tipler:

¿Qué podemos decir de este cuarteto de WAP, SAP, PAP y FAP? En mi opinión no tan humilde, creo que el último principio puede llamarse mejor CRAP, Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle – principio antrópico completamente ridículo (nota: en inglés, la palabra “crap” significa “basura”).[11]

En The Physics of Immortality, Tipler sobrestima groseramente el papel de la memoria humana y la capacidad futura de las computadoras. Así como las computadoras no pueden funcionar solamente con bancos de memoria, tampoco la mente humana y la conciencia humana operan solamente mediante la memoria. Si bien están teniendo lugar hoy notables progresos en la tecnología de computación, las leyes de la física imponen límites finitos predecibles sobre el hardware de las computadoras futuras. Como ha sido documentado rigurosamente por Roger Penrose en The Emperor’s New Mind y Shadows of the Mind, estos límites no permiten siquiera la duplicación de la conciencia humana, y mucho menos las capacidades fantásticas que sugiere Tipler.[12]

Pero Tipler aparentemente quiere alterar mucho más que sólo el universo y las leyes de la física. Él cree, por ejemplo, que las computadoras futuras serán capaces de exponer a la gente a los principios de la teoría del juego tan efectivamente que todos los pensamientos y acciones destructivos serán purgados y ya no habrá maldad, aún para gente del tipo de Adolf Hitler y Mata Hari.[13]

En la religión de Tipler, la obra redentora de un Salvador se vuelve innecesaria. Considere, sin embargo, que si la propuesta de Tipler fuera cierta, cuanto mejor la gente comprendiera la teoría del juego menor sería la propensión que exhibirían a cometer el mal.

Desafortunadamente para Tipler, no hay evidencias de ninguna correlación de este tipo.

Tipler no sólo descarta el infierno, sino que redefine el cielo. El “cielo” de Tipler trae la dicha relacional (más precisamente, sexual) a todo hombre y mujer. Él produce una ecuación para “probar” que su utopía generada por la computadora traerá a cada hombre una mujer, y a cada mujer un hombre, capaces de entregar 100 000 veces el impacto y la satisfacción del mejor compañero que uno pueda imaginar en la vida que conocemos.[14] La atracción popular de esta idea documenta la bancarrota espiritual de nuestro tiempo. Evidentemente muchas personas nunca han saboreado un placer mayor que lo que puede dar la experiencia sexual.

En un artículo para el Skeptical Inquirer, Gardner nuevamente blandió sus cuchillos satíricos:

Le dejo al lector que decida si deberán optar por OPT (Omega Point Theology – teología del punto omega) como una nueva religión científica superior a la Cienciología – una religión destinada a elevar a Tipler al rango de un profeta más grande que L. Ron Hubbard – u optar por el punto de vista de que OPT es una fantasía descabellada generada por la lectura de demasiada ciencia-ficción.[15]

En su rechazo persistente de un Creador eterno y trascendente algunos cosmólogos (y otros) están recurriendo a opciones cada vez más irracionales. Hay cierta lógica en esto, sin embargo. Si por motivos personales o morales el Dios de la Biblia no es aceptable, entonces, dada toda la evidencia para la trascendencia y el diseño, las alternativas están restringidas a vuelos de la imaginación.

A lo largo del tiempo y a medida que destrabamos más de los secretos del vasto cosmos, los hombres y mujeres estarán más sobrecogidos por cuán exquisitamente está diseñado el universo. Pero ¿a qué estará dirigido ese sobrecogimiento – a la cosa creada o al Creador? Esa es la elección de cada persona.

Notas

[1] Swinburne, p. 165.

[2] William Lane Craig, “Barrow and Tipler on the Anthropic Principle Versus Divine Design,” British Journal of Philosophy and Science 38 (1988), p. 392.

[3] Joseph Silk, Cosmic Enigma (1993), p. 8-9.

[4] NCSE staff, Education and Creationism Don’t Mix (Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education, 1985), p. 3; Eugenie C. Scott, “Of Pandas and People,” National Center for Science Education Reports (Enero-Febrero1990), p. 18; Paul Bartelt, “Patterson and Gish at Morningside College,” The Committees of Correspondence, Iowa Committee of Correspondence Newsletter, vol. 4, no. 4 (October 1989), p. 1.

[5] Education and Creationism Don’t Mix, p. 3; Eugenie C. Scott and Henry P. Cole, “The Elusive Scientific Basis of Creation Science,” The Quarterly Review of Biology (March 1985), p. 297.

[6] Ilya Prigogine and Isabelle Stengers, Order out of Chaos: Man’s New Dialogue With Nature (New York: Bantam Books, 1984).

[7] Barrow y Tipler.

[8] Barrow y Tipler, p. 676-677.

[9] Barrow y Tipler, p. 676-677, 682; Martin Gardner, “Notes of a Fringe-Watcher: Tipler’s Omega Point Theory,” Skeptical Inquirer 15, no. 2 (1991), p. 128-132.

[10] Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead (New York: Doubleday, 1994).

[11] Martin Gardner, “WAP, SAP, PAP, and FAP,” The New York Review of Books, vol. 23, no. 8, 8 May 1986, p. 22-25.

[12] Roger Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), p. 3-145, 374-451; Roger Penrose, Shadows of the Mind (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), p. 7-208.

[13] Frank J. Tipler, p. 253-255.

[14] Frank J. Tipler, p. 256-257.

[15] Gardner, “Notes of a Fringe-Watcher,” p. 132.

 

Blog Original: http://bit.ly/2OERFPO

Traducido por Alejandro Field

/by
A Quantum Christian

Un cristiano cuántico

By Terrell Clemmons

The man to whom science proved religion

Dennis Garvin grew up the second of three sons born into a Norman Rockwell-infused environment in the Berkshire Mountains of upstate New York. After graduating as valedictorian of his class from the Citadel Military College in South Carolina, he went on to graduate with honors from the VCU School of Medicine in Virginia and served thirteen years in the U.S. Air Force. By the time he reached his mid-30s, he had achieved every one of his life goals. He had raised a family with children he loved. He was a successful doctor doing well in Roanoke, Virginia. And, to his delight, he had earned a good four-year degree that certified him as a smart kid. So why, after having accomplished so much, did he feel so empty?

It was not depression; his life was full and active. No, his existential weariness was like that of Alexander the Great, who looked over the vastness of his domain and wept because there were no more worlds to conquer. And when he looked inside himself, he saw a life in black and white. On the other hand, his then wife seemed to have access to a joy that he did not possess. He thought she had colour in her life. What was behind this?

Having been raised in a Unitarian Universalist home, Dennis was a staunch atheist. But, having adopted his mother’s liberal feminist ethic, which held tolerance to be a supreme virtue, he had no particular hostility toward Christianity. So, with an appearance of open-mindedness, the rational scientist in him became curious.

This was, philosophically speaking, new territory for him. But the time had come. As a lifelong devotee of Darwin, he had begun to realize that there were many cracks in Darwin’s theories, chiefly that of altruism, as he saw it. He could explain any human behavior except that, and he could not shake that uneasiness. Worse still, he had begun to realize that he had long parroted the phrase “science denies religion,” but had never questioned it. This was utterly and utterly embarrassing for a man who considered himself a scientist.

So he began to honestly re-examine his hypotheses. The main one he had accepted a priori  was atheism. Okay, he said, let’s say there is a God. How could he have done all that he did? Since the Bible, the book of Christianity, was the first thing he had discarded, that was where he turned in his search for answers.

A dangerous book

As he read on, he became increasingly astonished to discover that the Bible – the book he had dismissed as a stupid fairy tale – was probably one of the most accurate books on quantum physics he had ever come across. This was not quite what he had expected, and as a knowledgeable expert in modern physics, it began to turn his entire epistemological orientation on its head. Dennis had long been fascinated with the study of light, and he believed that the quantum physics of light accurately explained the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. This brought him to his knees.

There was also an evangelistic element at work during this time. His wife had introduced him to some people who were part of the Campus Crusade for Christ. Now Dennis had an arsenal of sharp verbal missiles designed to destroy belief in God or revealed religion in any form. He was not your run-of-the-mill, friendly atheist, but a predator, the kind of atheist no Christian parent wants their children to be friends with when they go off to college. He delighted in destroying the faith of poor, miserable souls, and with his scientific credentials and the academic degree to back them up, he was pretty good at it.

But the good people at Campus Crusade for Christ met his childish attacks like brave soldiers. He raised one objection.  “But what about Christ?” someone would say. He raised another.  “But what about Christ?”  He ranted and raved about Isis and Osiris and the mythological figure of Christ who is reborn every winter and how Christianity was just mythology writ large. They listened patiently. And then they came back with, “  Okay, but what about the God who loves you?”  Finally, he ran out of arguments. Science brought him to his knees. Through Campus Crusade, he became a new creature in Christ.

A violent man conquered by God

In the United States, it is extremely rare for someone to come to the Christian faith after the age of 35. And for someone to do so carrying the burden of science on their shoulders is almost impossible. But that is what happened to Dennis Garvin. All this happened almost thirty years ago, and since then, some things in his life have not changed all that much. He is still a family man, although two grandchildren have been added to the mix. He is still a doctor, although medicine on the mission field has been added to the schedule. And he is still a thoroughbred scientist who applies the concordant aspects of scientific knowledge to biblical concepts, and has begun writing and teaching to disseminate the findings.

There is one other thing that has not changed. The good doctor still loves a good argument. Never one to do anything halfway, the “smart boy” who has now fully graduated as a healthy intellectual Christian humbly compares himself to the apostle Paul, who had a confrontational style when he was Saul of Tarsus, and who then went on to preach the gospel in an equally confrontational tone. But, just as Paul went on to preach the faith he once sought to destroy, Dennis delights in destroying the faith he once preached, and aspires to be the kind of Christian that atheist professors and materialistic scientists do not want their students to know.

“I have a wipe-out mentality,” he says of them – not the run-of-the-mill atheists, for whom he feels a brotherly sympathy, but the wise guys who are profiteers and predators who consider themselves intellectually superior in order to destroy them. He certainly recognizes the command to love our enemies, but that doesn’t necessarily translate into playing nice with people who aren’t.

“I know these SOBs because I was one of them. And I know what makes them think. I have street credibility. And I can tell you, based on my credentials and my study, that anyone who retains a belief in atheism is an idiot . And they have the right to be idiots, but they should not dress themselves in intellectual property.”

“The great secret of atheists, the great fear of all atheists, is that they will be seen as intellectually stupid in front of their contemporaries. They don’t care if you pull down their pants in front of a bunch of religious Neanderthals or people they can label as such. But if you can go into their caves and, in front of their contemporaries, pull down their pants, you’ve done something. That’s what I want to do.”

It’s not about winning a fight. It’s about exposing and smothering a predator that’s coming to kill.

A violent man conquered by God

André Trocmé was a Huguenot pastor in the French mountain village of Le Chambon when Germany invaded France in 1940. When it came to war, Trocmé was a noncombatant pacifist. But when the Nazis demanded oaths of loyalty and complicity in the deportation of Jews, he openly defied them. “We have Jews and we will not hand them over,” he declared in an open letter to the Vichy minister sent to Le Chambon in 1942. A man who knew which war was worth dying for, he was often described as a violent vaincu par Dieu  – a violent conquered by God. “The curse on him who began with gentleness,” the pastor wrote in his diary, “will end in dismay and cowardice, and he will never set foot in the great liberating current of Christianity.”

Like Pastor Trocmé, Dr. Garvin is by profession a servant of healing. And like him, he knows which battle is worth firing a bullet into. That is why, for the sake of a generation subjugated by arrogant SOBs with big egos and pompous academic degrees, he stands ready and eager to enter the ring and do violence for the sake of truth.

 

Terrell Clemmons is a freelance writer and blogger who writes about apologetics and matters of faith.

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

Translated by Natalia Armando

Edited by Maria Andreina Cerrada

/by