tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-51271744516840990582024-03-15T20:12:15.461-05:00Faithful ThinkersThe goal of Faithful Thinkers is to equip Christians to deal logically and truthfully with the challenges of skeptics and atheists to demonstrate evidentially that God does exist and that He has revealed Himself through the historical person of Jesus Christ. Faithful Thinkershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04089768576413860677noreply@blogger.comBlogger471125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5127174451684099058.post-29076747999878489932024-01-29T05:00:00.003-06:002024-02-03T06:40:59.516-06:00In the Image of God: The Battle for Human Identity<h3 style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGHRf9bMLuSJdxrhNU5RVfXXXQFazUSi-wOTwQNtmIpvc566Hg5BtmYZHP-j_TEqZrBcnEWzWemEcdIAZhSU7dSn7qJV0tDBu6uZLK1GwCvP_3LGGECJTt-CCfKjWzSU89DLrQXI_pccfs1PTySuWsmgCiCdJPsXCiLGoR5PMkF_cW-uL6JAPqSeMqIdo/s1280/bible-2778631_1280.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="855" data-original-width="1280" height="134" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGHRf9bMLuSJdxrhNU5RVfXXXQFazUSi-wOTwQNtmIpvc566Hg5BtmYZHP-j_TEqZrBcnEWzWemEcdIAZhSU7dSn7qJV0tDBu6uZLK1GwCvP_3LGGECJTt-CCfKjWzSU89DLrQXI_pccfs1PTySuWsmgCiCdJPsXCiLGoR5PMkF_cW-uL6JAPqSeMqIdo/w200-h134/bible-2778631_1280.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>Introduction</h3><p>Human origins is a fascinating area of research today. With all the different models for the origins of humanity being proposed, I see an increase in the discussions, both scientific and theological. For everyone reading this post, this area of research should be of utmost interest for you as well. Two critical ideas about humanity are at stake depending on which model (or family of models) is true: intrinsic and equal human dignity and value, and the sinfulness of humanity. </p><p>The age-old debate about God's existence has great implications on this area of the debate about human origins. The Judeo-Christian claim that all humans are created in God's Image and that humans possess a sin nature that will cause them to tend toward the immoral. These paradoxical doctrines together explain both the greatness and wretchedness of humanity that we see everyday, throughout history, and expect in the future.</p><span><a name='more'></a></span><p><br /></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>The Image of God</b></h3><p>If we are created in the image of God that means that all humans possess intrinsic and equal human dignity and value. If this is false, then humans are not valuable in virtue of their being human but in virtue of a myriad of other characteristics and stati that change in fashionability with the culture. One moment a human can be valuable and the next moment they are not. If humans do not have value at any point, that gives justification for their expendability (murder) at the hands of those who have power over them at that point. If humans are not created in the image of God, then there is nothing wrong with humans abusing their power against other humans. Any model of human origins that does not allow for the Image of God in humans places the very lives of every human at risk. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Human Sinfulness</b></h3><p>Genesis also records that Adam and Eve sinned against God and with that action brought the sin nature into all future humans. Humans are not born good or even neutral. This means that the abuse of power described above is not just possible but inevitable. Any model of human origins that does not allow for the Fall or for the transfer of the sin nature (whether through the biological, spiritual, or some combination) denies this element of human psychology, sociology, and history. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Denying Both?</b></h3><p>Any model that does not allow for one or the other already makes human lives less worthy of protection because either it is not worth protecting or there is nothing to necessarily protect against. But if a model denies both, then that is a recipe for disaster. This means that the debate about human origins is not just a scientific question but also a philosophical one, even for the atheist or naturalist. An interesting analysis of the implications of these two characteristics is provided in Os Guinness' book "<b><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2023/01/book-review-magna-carta-of-humanity.html">The Magna Carta of Humanity</a></b>" which I highly recommend, particularly for those involved in human origins discussions and debates. It provides a renewed urgency for the importance of the debate about human origins. </p><h1 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Should Theology Judge Science?</b> </span></h1><p>I often hear the claim that many Christians allow their theology to determine their interpretation (and maybe even rejection) of the scientific data. The implication is that we should not allow any knowledge discipline (or at least, theology) other than science in developing our model or that we should at least give precedence to science. </p><p>It is important to recognize at this point the distinction between "science" and "data of nature." The data that is discovered is the raw information that must be accommodated in any model, whereas "science" is the interpretation (which is fallible, but not necessarily false) of that data. Because multiple sources of truth (philosophical and historical as described above, and not just the natural data) exist about humans, the data of each must be recognized and accommodated in any model of human origins that claims to accurately reflect the natural history of human origins (what really happened). Just as the data of nature can judge our interpretation of the data of history and Scripture, the data of history and the data of Scripture can judge our interpretation of the data of nature <a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2014/03/are-nature-and-scripture-compatible.html">in virtue of their being true</a>. </p><p>We cannot allow an epistemic (knowledge) posture of strong or even weak <a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/p/book-reviews_27.html">scientism</a> to prevent our discovery of the correct model of human origins. To do so, would be dangerous. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Conclusion</h3><p>With the work in the field of human origins being done at numerous Christian organizations, the number of possible models and level of detail may seem confusing to many yet exciting to others. But they are important for all of us. I encourage these organizations to continue (or begin) working together to gather all the data that each emphasize in their respective models and adjust those models to reflect the data provided by others. We need to be careful and respectful of any accusations of heresy- ensure that our accusations are demonstrably reflective of the model not the Christian, and that we address such accusations with or adjust our models based on the biblical data and logic. It is important that even though we may disagree on details that we present a united front that is based on the data and sound reasoning from that data, not only for the future of humanity, but as a demonstration of the unity and love that Christ prayed for and told us that unbelievers will see. We need to not only demonstrate the truth of these important Christian doctrines (ones that are often under attack and used as excuses to reject Christ) but we need to emphasize our love, respect, cooperation, and dedication to truth that unbelievers often overlook.</p><p><b>For more, I recommend these additional articles: </b></p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"></ul><p></p><li style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2014/03/are-nature-and-scripture-compatible.html" style="color: #333333;">Are Nature and Scripture Compatible?</a></li><li style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2010/07/consistency-among-disciplines.html" style="color: #333333;" target="_blank">Consistency Among Disciplines</a></li><li style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2017/06/deconstructionism-constitution-and.html" style="color: #333333;" target="_blank">Deconstructionism, The Constitution, and Biblical Interpretation</a></li><li style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2023/04/the-dangers-of-scientism-to-truth-seeker.html">The Dangers of Scientism to the Truth-Seeker</a></li><li style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2017/03/why-is-image-of-god-so-important.html">Why Is the Image of God So Important?</a></li><li style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2023/02/the-moral-freedom-of-atheism.html">The Moral Freedom of Atheism</a></li>Faithful Thinkershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04089768576413860677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5127174451684099058.post-54672325000422957012024-01-15T05:31:00.010-06:002024-01-15T05:57:38.737-06:00Giving Lip Service to Martin Luther King and The Civil Rights Movement<p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0l26CCF0WBGRoqjJxk74PsSEIYuRa6OESLT8yMSdslQScp1ZPKBhQA3CYqyi-NeE07GSzBSut9XBfNbGfD1iUmkHKQnu0TaLxXouxOOTGwmam9VzcP4k5p8KHTAms6n1wLBc-WOcvyJpqnwpmj6_HOZU5DHK8tZ9TTUAe7lKCq5mu5iE52KmdSYVg0O4/s660/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr..jpg" style="clear: left; display: inline; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="660" data-original-width="440" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0l26CCF0WBGRoqjJxk74PsSEIYuRa6OESLT8yMSdslQScp1ZPKBhQA3CYqyi-NeE07GSzBSut9XBfNbGfD1iUmkHKQnu0TaLxXouxOOTGwmam9VzcP4k5p8KHTAms6n1wLBc-WOcvyJpqnwpmj6_HOZU5DHK8tZ9TTUAe7lKCq5mu5iE52KmdSYVg0O4/w133-h200/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr..jpg" width="133" /></a></p><h3>The American Charade</h3><p>I find it quite interesting that a large portion of the American population has abandoned Martin Luther King's dream but still gives lip service to civil rights every year. What do I mean by that? Take a look at this quote from his speech "I Have A Dream": </p><p></p><blockquote>"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that <u>all men are created equal</u>."</blockquote><p></p><p>Notice that Dr. King appeals to the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson (and the Declaration's signatories) understood that the idea that "all men are created equal" and that all people have intrinsic and equal rights and dignity (black lives matter, and so do all other lives) is completely dependent upon the truth of the claim that all humans are created in the <a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2017/03/why-is-image-of-god-so-important.html">Image of God</a>. If that claim is false, then no humans have intrinsic or equal rights or dignity (black lives do not matter and neither do any other lives). As <a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2022/10/monday-musings-human-depravity-and.html">Americans continue to abandon God</a>, they abandon the only foundation for intrinsic and equal human rights and dignity; they are abandoning the idea that black lives matter but are holding on to the phrase because everyone knows that the phrase conveys a truth about reality despite their philosophical denial of it. These Americans are playing a charade.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmXApbDz5O9v9VlMoa2kw-qu7-EabsoSZMNvNLRBIrE8n96ASNzFQ6MAL7R7Ystz4nxF_I1zX94PxUIwEGwJps630kyithDY_C_PWV80etXmg3Tr8yGgsKnBl8udjG5CrH2h_oF37QWt8hgcXS-TAOsPJdeSOVI2gk8pHtCcNQKDhIfOEYkOxGsBVU8HY/s1920/Slide13.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Quote from "Magna Carta of Humanity" by Os Guinness- "Where Sinai (and Jesus of Nazareth and his followers down through Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.) stand for love that drives out hate, just as light drives out darkness, the left perpetuates and exploits the hate and the darkness as its instruments of power."" border="0" data-original-height="1073" data-original-width="1920" height="358" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmXApbDz5O9v9VlMoa2kw-qu7-EabsoSZMNvNLRBIrE8n96ASNzFQ6MAL7R7Ystz4nxF_I1zX94PxUIwEGwJps630kyithDY_C_PWV80etXmg3Tr8yGgsKnBl8udjG5CrH2h_oF37QWt8hgcXS-TAOsPJdeSOVI2gk8pHtCcNQKDhIfOEYkOxGsBVU8HY/w640-h358/Slide13.JPG" title="Quote from "Magna Carta of Humanity" by Os Guinness- "Where Sinai (and Jesus of Nazareth and his followers down through Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.) stand for love that drives out hate, just as light drives out darkness, the left perpetuates and exploits the hate and the darkness as its instruments of power."" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p>Further, from Dr. King:</p><p></p><blockquote>"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."</blockquote><p></p><p>In today's cultural climate of identity politics, classification by skin color (ala Critical Race Theory [CRT]) is one of the many (illegitimate) ways that people are judged. This is explicitly what Dr. King said his dream was <b>not</b>. All those who support CRT have slapped Dr. King and the civil rights movement in the face. How?</p><p>In Critical Race Theory, "oppressed" and "oppressor" are defined by the immutable attribute of skin color. And only the "oppressed" can identify true oppression. If you have the skin color that is categorized as "oppressed," you literally cannot not be oppressed. Even if you don't feel like you're being oppressed and all actions around you and toward you are not oppressive, you are still oppressed. This is a victimhood trap that cannot be escaped. CRT places certain groups of people permanently under oppression with no escape from oppression and no hope of ever <b>not </b>being oppressed.</p><p>CRT gives lip service to racial reconciliation and healing, but it not only does not provide a mechanism for such reconciliation and healing, it conducts psychological warfare against every race that ensures that there is no possibility of reconciliation and healing. Critical Race Theory promotes hate and revenge among races. CRT is a trap for all races, not just the "oppressed" ones. It offers no escape, no hope, no healing, and no future.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvhnKplCC7Gmv2ZVd1YnKk5wWZqfss4WpV1h5Ny75eIZtc9tNVOXoRH49cScj91vsso85aWCPki6lQZ47vLtvcs4hxwKoM_nOzNiWPIgc1_KYf_hUQEoBsND2Ec5jUO2jV1YMXi0eAk9S42qjmJdjnmNWSxfpVmVAZeNM1QsByZ1fx5EiyNmGnQdUrvQw/s1920/Slide28.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Quote from "Magna Carta of Humanity" by Os Guinness- "Americans, including many on the progressive left, pay homage to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. but the chasm between Dr. King and the progressive left has grown vaster by the year. His ideal of the 'content of your character' matters little today. The highly racist color of your skin (or the sexist combination of your X and Y chromosomes and the ageist date of your birth) is everything."" border="0" data-original-height="1073" data-original-width="1920" height="358" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvhnKplCC7Gmv2ZVd1YnKk5wWZqfss4WpV1h5Ny75eIZtc9tNVOXoRH49cScj91vsso85aWCPki6lQZ47vLtvcs4hxwKoM_nOzNiWPIgc1_KYf_hUQEoBsND2Ec5jUO2jV1YMXi0eAk9S42qjmJdjnmNWSxfpVmVAZeNM1QsByZ1fx5EiyNmGnQdUrvQw/w640-h358/Slide28.JPG" title="Quote from "Magna Carta of Humanity" by Os Guinness- "Americans, including many on the progressive left, pay homage to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. but the chasm between Dr. King and the progressive left has grown vaster by the year. His ideal of the 'content of your character' matters little today. The highly racist color of your skin (or the sexist combination of your X and Y chromosomes and the ageist date of your birth) is everything."" width="640" /></a></div><br /><h3>The Record of History</h3><p>History has already demonstrated what happens when a nation rejects such an idea and its foundations in the Holocaust. Unfortunately, it seems that this piece of history may be in preparation of being repeated as anti-Semitism is on the rise today, and CRT certainly has not way to stop it. </p><p>History has also demonstrated what happens when individuals say that they believe humans have equal and intrinsic rights then act inconsistently with such beliefs (many of America's founding fathers did have slaves). Once again, Dr. King:</p><p></p><blockquote>"We must develop and maintain the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power to love."</blockquote><p></p><p>The way of Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement is love and forgiveness not hate and revenge. What identity politics and critical race theory have done for America is pit group against group, race against race. Because it permanently labels people as "oppressed" and "oppressor," there is no path to forgiveness, reconciliation, cooperation, or love. <b>Critical Race Theory offers nothing to achieve Martin Luther King's dream; in fact, it explicitly denies the goodness and rightness of Dr. King's dream and deliberately works against it to ensure that the dream is never realized. </b></p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Americans' Role in Stopping the Charade</h3><p>It is time for Americans to take a stand against and a stand for. <b>Against </b>the ideas that will destroy any foundation for objective human rights, dignity, and intrinsic value (including atheism, identity politics, and all forms of critical theory). <b>Against </b>the ideas that promote hate and revenge. And <b>for </b>the truth of the reality that humans are created in God's Image, thus the reality that all humans have intrinsic value and equal rights and dignity. <b>For </b>the truth that love and forgiveness are the best way forward. For the fact that these are not merely opinions that are only as fashionable as those in power but are backed up by their reflection of reality. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;">The Church's Role in Stopping the Charade</h3><p>While truth is true even if no one believes it, and falsehood is false even if everyone believes it, it is time that the Church takes the defenders of truth seriously (apologists). If Martin Luther King and the legacy of the Civil Rights movement is to be properly honored and maintained (and not just the terms used with different notions), the Church needs to present its case for the Truth to the world. Americans need to have confidence in the knowledge that all humans <b>are </b>created in God's Image, that it is not just a nice ideology that is as tenuous as the culture of the day (or minute with social media).</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Conclusion- Martin Luther King's Legacy Is In Danger</h3><p>If there is not a change in the heart of America, <b>might will make right</b>, not truth and not reality. Americans will become slaves to the power of culture's existential fancies. As long as Martin Luther King is useful to turn group against group, lip service will continue to be given in order to mask the "divide and conquer" strategy to maintain power and control against those who those in power despise. But once that pretense is no longer fashionable, Martin Luther King will be erased from the history books, and America will become the next perpetrator of human rights violations (again) against whichever groups of people are unpopular, hated, or despised at that moment.</p><p><b>For more on this I highly recommend these resources:</b></p><p></p><ul><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2023/01/book-review-magna-carta-of-humanity.html">Magna Carta Of Humanity</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2021/05/book-review-another-gospel.html">Another Gospel</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2016/05/book-review-who-was-adam.html">Who Was Adam?</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2016/08/book-review-legislating-morality-is-it.html">Legislating Morality</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2019/10/book-review-time-for-truth-living-free.html">Time For Truth</a></li></ul><p></p><div><br /></div><span><a name='more'></a></span>Faithful Thinkershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04089768576413860677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5127174451684099058.post-13737737955645822982023-07-17T08:00:00.011-05:002023-10-29T06:48:08.523-05:00Book Review: Person of Interest🕵<p><b></b></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4GjnD8OWQcKR5pS2LkHVeeUcBjXfH-waWES89dp_Lc1zzZI-XOtogpmoDp-wUaxISnLUrUkKxzNzBsf6Hi8yOAa9JLc35mwTKtEexGKs-nGBtUj0Y3Ht2Wh9siXap9I2yeas0rFjldRC9Etjc_sNfiPXrxqd8JpAH6bh8_48pHiwv2NXMYF_pCddn/s1000/Person%20of%20Interest.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1000" data-original-width="809" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4GjnD8OWQcKR5pS2LkHVeeUcBjXfH-waWES89dp_Lc1zzZI-XOtogpmoDp-wUaxISnLUrUkKxzNzBsf6Hi8yOAa9JLc35mwTKtEexGKs-nGBtUj0Y3Ht2Wh9siXap9I2yeas0rFjldRC9Etjc_sNfiPXrxqd8JpAH6bh8_48pHiwv2NXMYF_pCddn/w162-h200/Person%20of%20Interest.jpg" width="162" /></a><b></b></div><h1 style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Person of Interest- Book Review Introduction</span></b></h1><p>J. Warner Wallace is a cold-case homicide detective who, when he was an atheist, used his investigative skills to investigate the claims of Christianity. In recent years he has written several books describing his investigations and the results of those investigations. He investigated the claims that the gospels are eye-witness accounts of actual events ("<b><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2013/01/book-review-cold-case-christianity.html">Cold-Case Christianity</a></b>"), the existence of God ("<b><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2015/10/book-review-gods-crime-scene.html">God's Crime Scene</a></b>"), and the claim that Jesus and the New Testament writers encouraged a trust based not in evidence but in blind faith ("<b><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2017/08/book-review-forensic-faith.html">Forensic Faith</a></b>"). </p><span><a name='more'></a></span><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;">What Is "Person of Interest" About?</span></b></p><p>In "<b><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Person-Interest-Jesus-Matters-Rejects/dp/0310111277">Person of Interest</a></b>" Wallace takes the reader through another one of his cold-case homicide investigations as he also takes them through his parallel investigation into Jesus as a person of interest regarding human history. In this investigation he had no body and no direct evidence of a murder, so he had to use a different method in his investigation. He explains that planned murders have a series of events that take place over time, a fuse of sorts, that lead up to the murder, the explosion. That explosion results in numerous impacts, or fallout, that can be traced back to the event. The fuse, looking forward, points to a person of interest; and the fallout, looking backward, points to a person of interest. This person is pivotal to the event in question (the murder), and if ignored, the investigator will not solve the crime, and the murderer will escape justice. </p><p>J. Warner Wallace takes this same approach as he investigates the split in the timeline of human history. Historians refer to the "common era" and "before the common era." Why this time in history and not another time in history? And, if it is centered on a specific person, who is that person that they could have such an impact on the entire world's timeline?</p><p>Wallace looks at several series of events in ancient human history before the split in the timeline (the fuse) and examines several series of impacts after the split (the fallout) in modern human history. He shows that if his approach to his murder investigation is legitimate for discovering the true identity of the murderer, then it is also legitimate for discovering the true identity of the person responsible for the split in the world's timeline. If this person is ignored, then the investigator will never be able to solve the mystery of the split and the person responsible will escape their notice. Here is a collection of several quotes that will give you a quick view of some of the evidence, arguments, and conclusions in the book. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Quotes</span></b></h3><p>"Forensic scientists examine and analyze evidence from crimes scenes and elsewhere to develop objective findings that can assist in the investigation and prosecution of perpetrators of crime or absolve an innocent person from suspicion. Forensic science is used to study past events (like crimes), but it can also be used to examine past historical events (like the origin of the universe or the resurrection of Jesus)."</p><p>"I...expected the fuse to act as a timer. If Jesus was something more than human, was the timing of his appearance significant? Was there a reason why he didn't arrive centuries earlier or decades later? Was there a historic 'deadline' he had to meet? The fuse would reveal the answer."</p><p>"A cultural fuse was burning, preparing antiquity for whatever would eventually initiate the Common Era. The Roman Empire had unified much of the known world, adopted a popular language, provided a shared alphabet, established peace, constructed, roads, developed the world's best postal service, and embraced just enough religious tolerance to detonate an explosion. Even <em>before</em> the arrival of Jesus of Nazareth, it ought to have been apparent to any careful student of history that events within the Roman Empire were aligning for <em>someone</em> special to arrive and for <em>something</em> special to happen."</p><p>"Early in my investigation, because of my distrust of the New Testament accounts, I was inclined to believe that the gospel authors simply cobbled the story of Jesus from prior mythologies. But did these authors really know enough about the pantheon of gods (across all history and every region) to shape such a tale? Would they really expect Jewish readers to accept a patchwork, pagan 'copycat' as their Messiah?"</p><p>"When you examine the details related to each similarity between Jesus and ancient, mythologies, the resemblances begin to vanish, Jesus isn't much like the other gods after all."</p><p>"While Jesus met ancient overarching human expectations related to deity, many Jews of the time held a different inconsistence expectation related to the Messiah. Many Jews who expected a <em>spiritual</em> savior and redeemer became Christ followers, but Jews who expected a *temporal king and conqueror *(who would save the nation of Israel and restore the Jewish kingdom) did not. Jesus met the expectations of those who sought eternal, spiritual truth."</p><p>"...the more the 'expected' meets the expectations of the 'expecter,' the better the response...If there is a God and he wanted to evoke the best possible response, wouldn't be meet the expectations of the expecters?"</p><p>"While 'clear' evidence points to the suspect from the onset (before he is contacted), 'cloaked' evidence points to the suspect only in hindsight (after he is identified)...The cloaked prophecies are limited in their ability to <em>point</em> us to the Messiah. They may, however, help or <em>confirm</em> his identity once we have him in view."</p><p>"Jesus was a thinker, and he encouraged his followers to be similarly committed in using their minds, even as an act of worship."</p><p>"Education is predicated on the notion that there are objective truths about mathematics, history, science, and other topics that can be transmitted from on generation to another."</p><p>'Even though many of [the top fifty universities] have abandoned their Christian identity; their buildings and charters tell a different story, unanimously pointing back to the man who inspired their creation."</p><p>"Jesus <em>matters</em> to the sciences. The history of scientific exploration was forever changed as Jesus followers studied the 'book of nature.' Christians are the 'fathers' and founders of these disciplines...Jesus followers didn't simply <em>contribute</em> to the sciences, they <em>founded and led</em> the sciences."</p><p>"<em>[Jesus] matters</em> because he established a worldview that encouraged exploration in an explosion of scientific discovery, the scientific revolution, and an unparalleled history of excellence in the sciences. From the writings of the 'science fathers'--the vast majority of whom were Jesus followers--Jesus's life, ministry, and mission could be reconstructed, even if all the Christian Bibles were destroyed."</p><p>"The religions of the world made room for Jesus, but Jesus never budged. His teaching mattered to the other religions, but Krishna, the Buddha, Muhammad, Baha'u'llah, and Ahmad <em>combined</em> didn't have a similar impact on Christianity. <em>That,</em> I thought, was remarkable."</p><p>"Jesus doesn't matter <em>because he influenced the world;</em> Jesus influenced the world <em>because he matters.</em> Everything that was important to me as an atheist was ultimately indebted to Jesus, the man who was *with *God and <em>is</em> God and *through whom *'all things were made' (John 1:3). Jesus is who he said he was; God incarnate."</p><p>"Our current terms fail to explain the reason why human history changed so dramatically. The period BCE is better described as BC (the period 'before Christ'), and the years we now refer to as part of the Common Era (CE) are better labeled as AD (*Anno Domini, *or the 'year[s] of our Lord"). While the designations BC and AD may seem like artifacts from the past, they are a far more accurate description of history's timeline, given that they reference the divine person of interest, who divided history."</p><p>"Only if Jesus was truly <em>more</em> than a man, if he was <em>God incarnate</em> as...the gospel authors claimed, would his unparalleled impact on history make sense."</p><p><b>Reviewer's Thoughts</b></p><p>First, my summary and the few selected quotes do not do justice to the scope of the investigation that Wallace conducted and describes in "<b><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Person-Interest-Jesus-Matters-Rejects/dp/0310111277">Person of Interest</a></b>." If you have not read the book and you are tempted to think that this review covers it all, you are woefully mistaken. I have often wondered myself why Jesus appeared at the time that he did. I did not realize all the conditions that needed to be in place technologically, politically, and culturally for Jesus to have the impact that he did. I also did not realize the range of Jesus' impact on all cultures of the world after he arrived in history. </p><p>Wallace definitively shows that if some government or group of people wanted to expunge culture of Jesus, they would have to destroy nearly all humanity and definitely all vestiges of the arts, the sciences, technology, history, education, and even knowledge; humanity would necessarily HAVE to be taken back to before the stone age with an extremely small group of people in uniform agreement to never speak the name of Jesus nor allow any of his teachings or the results of his appearance to influence their attempted "rebuild" of society. If they allowed their existing technological or artistic knowledge to guide their rebuild, then they would inadvertently allow Jesus back in. Society could never become "high-tech" nor educated nor artistic because the paths that lead to those attributes are necessarily grounded in the historical person of Jesus Christ. </p><p>If we expect investigators to find and bring justice to perpetrators of well covered-up crimes, then we accept their methods of investigation to be valid. If we accept their methods of investigation to be valid, then when those methods are applied to an investigation, we commit ourselves logically (though not emotionally) to the results. In one of these investigations, the investigator (J. Warner Wallace) identified Jesus as the person of interest in the event of the split of the calendar. If you accept the validity of the investigative tools used yet reject his conclusion, you must demonstrate logically how the tools were misused. <br /><br /></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Recommendations</span></b></h3><p>First, I will recommend this book for <b>anyone who enjoys reading about crimes and how investigators out-smart the perpetrators' attempts to escape justice</b>. These readers love to see methods used in order to reveal the truth of the event in history (even recent history). J. Warner Wallace demonstrates in his book not only how his method allowed justice to be served for a murder but also how the same methods can be used to reveal the truth about other events in history, particularly the truth surrounding Jesus of Nazareth. </p><p>Second, I will recommend this book to <b>unbelievers</b>. If you find the revelation of truth regarding crimes to be important to civilized society, then Wallace's methods to reveal the truth of crimes committed in the past (history) cannot be ignored. His methods work to reveal truth about history. The claims about Jesus Christ from Christians are claims about history, and if Wallace's methods to reveal truth about history reveal truth about history, then when the methods are applied to the claims of Christians about history and find those claims to be true, then it is hard to escape Christians' claims about Jesus without simultaneously dismissing the claims of a perpetrator's guilt using the same method of investigation. </p><p>Third, I will recommend that this book be in the library of every <b>Christian</b>. It is a fascinating read and will strengthen the Christian's faith. Not only that, though, but because our culture is so fascinated with crime, the revelation of truth, and the subsequent serving of justice. Wallace's book is a tool that will help Christians in their witness for Christ in everyday conversations. Because it is so valuable to evangelical witness, I will specifically recommend this book to <b>pastors</b>. They need to be aware of Wallace's work so that they can recommend it to their congregations and even have copies in their church libraries. Also because Wallace's work is part of the case for the truth of Christianity, I will recommend it to all Christian apologists (case-makers). His work provides yet another tool in our tool belt that expands the range of people's values and interests that we can directly speak truth to. </p><div>Check out J. Warner Wallace's other excellent books:</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2013/01/book-review-cold-case-christianity.html"><b>Cold-Case Christianity</b>: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2015/10/book-review-gods-crime-scene.html"><b>God's Crime Scene</b>: A Cold-Case Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2017/08/book-review-forensic-faith.html"><b>Forensic Faith</b>: A Homicide Detective Makes the Case for a More Reasonable, Evidential Christian Faith</a></li></ul><div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/FaithfulThinkers/"><img alt="For more great resources on God's existence, science and faith issues, the Resurrection of Jesus, morality and politics, theology and apologetics, follow Faithful Thinkers on Facebook." border="1" height="40" src="https://jonbennallick.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Facebook-logo-ICON-02.png" style="color: white;" width="40" /></a> <a href="http://twitter.com/FaithfulThinker"><img alt="For more great resources on God's existence, science and faith issues, the Resurrection of Jesus, morality and politics, theology and apologetics, follow Faithful Thinkers on Twitter" border="1" height="40" src="https://jonbennallick.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Twitter-Logo-Icon-by-Jon-Bennallick-02.png" style="color: white;" width="40" /></a></div></div></div>Faithful Thinkershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04089768576413860677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5127174451684099058.post-42363124113877833172023-07-03T08:00:00.018-05:002023-10-29T22:22:04.402-05:00Must Christians Love Everything "The Left" Criticizes? 🤔<h1 style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIWBBucdQwwSE5FC1SLU4GMosD2SeARgYs3XrShFqB50jigJN7I36YFFYef9oGk3UIzKRdNtWWoknyO42fWToANE5OYKbbbpxQ5staif-ZSPZbCbU1k8qMhlk0CcebVJOb9tCEs_xG97vBs-1UETgjXmS9d53dl08HLGMauZ2d_-RWOpRJZQ2Ti-fkbWs/s960/Slide28.JPG" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="540" data-original-width="960" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIWBBucdQwwSE5FC1SLU4GMosD2SeARgYs3XrShFqB50jigJN7I36YFFYef9oGk3UIzKRdNtWWoknyO42fWToANE5OYKbbbpxQ5staif-ZSPZbCbU1k8qMhlk0CcebVJOb9tCEs_xG97vBs-1UETgjXmS9d53dl08HLGMauZ2d_-RWOpRJZQ2Ti-fkbWs/s320/Slide28.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>Christians Analyzing "The Left"</span></b></h1><p>Must Christians love everything that those who are not Christians criticize? Just because someone is not a Christian, does that require that they call everything good "evil" and everything evil "good"? I frequently come across both believers and unbelievers who think that the answer to these questions is Yes. </p><p>Such agreement requires the view that man is so depraved that unless a person accepts Christ, their judgements of good and evil will <b>always</b> be wrong. On this view, a simple way to find the truth about any matter is to just affirm what is contradictory to what an unbeliever believes about the matter. Christians who hold this view apply this logic to different areas of knowledge including moral knowledge.<span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p><p>Unfortunately many unbelievers think that these Christians' thinking represent the thinking of all Christians. The unbelievers recognize the fallacious nature of this kind of reasoning (though not the second step of their own reasoning) and conclude that all Christians are illogical. From there they further conclude (in a third misstep) that Christianity cannot possibly be logical either, much less the correct worldview. Some even take it so far as to be the mirror image of what these Christians believe and say that everything a Christian says is true must be false and everything they say is false must be true. This often leads unbelievers to approach the evidence for Christianity with the idea that there <b>must</b> be a way that the evidence or logic is incorrect thus even if they cannot respond evidentially or logically, they will still reject the conclusion and hold out hope of some future discovery (an appeal to what they do not know) that will overturn the evidence. </p><p>For sinners' sake, Christians <b>must</b> abandon this kind of logic! And for their own sake, unbelievers must abandon it as well (along with the subsequent logical errors). </p><p>Christians, not everything "the Left" criticizes is unworthy of criticism. Like all humans, those members of "the Left" are also created in the <a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2017/03/why-is-image-of-god-so-important.html">Image of God</a>, so they have the moral law written on their hearts. This allows them to still (despite their sin nature) correctly identify some evil in the world. <a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2021/06/contradictions-in-life-of-christian.html">This would include sin within the Church</a>. Should Christians love the sin in the Church? No, that would be absurd. So we can join hands with "the Left" in criticizing it, yet we can offer solutions that actually work (see "<b><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2023/01/book-review-magna-carta-of-humanity.html">Magna Carta of Humanity</a></b>" by Os Guinness). </p><h2 style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">The Absurdity Leads To Rejection of Christ</span></b></h2><p>It is this kind of logic that those who disagree with us use as an excuse to say that Christianity is illogical and should be rejected. It is this kind of logic that stands as a stumbling block between the sinner and the <a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2019/04/did-historical-jesus-rise-from-dead.html">cross of Christ</a>. </p><p>If someone, with whom we disagree in general, rejects something, that not a valid reason to accept or reject that something. We must determine if it is worthy of acceptance or rejection based on its own merits- the evidence. </p><p>Believe it or not, many times the criticisms from "the Left" are valid. But they have incorrectly identified the source of the moral failure, which causes their further conclusions and solutions to fail miserably, and may cause people to question whether the original criticisms were even valid. "The Left" often blames Christianity for the moral failures they observe (again, see "<b><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2023/01/book-review-magna-carta-of-humanity.html">Magna Carta of Humanity</a></b>"). But we must show them that <b>the moral failure belongs to the members of the Church not Christ</b>. It is not Christ who has failed them but the Church who bares His name! They must reexamine their analysis of the root cause of their original critical observation and examine the evidence for Christianity. This, though, is where things get interesting (and hopefully, eye-opening towards salvation) for the member of "the Left". </p><h2 style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Moral Criticism Requires An Objective Moral Standard</span></b></h2><p>If the sin "the Left" criticizes is objectively wrong, so is their own sin. The criticizer is also a sinner in need of forgiveness. Forgiveness that is only offered through Christ to both the criticized and the criticizer. This reasoning is logically sound, but it requires humility. Humility (seemingly rare these days) is required to follow the logic and evidence. "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:8-9). </p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Conclusion</span></b></p><p>"The Left" does have valid and accurate moral criticisms that should not be rejected by Christians, rather the accurate moral criticisms need to be recognized as such with more logical and accurate root cause analysis (further criticisms) presented with viable solutions. These solutions will not only address the existential moral issues of the culture around "the Left," but they will also address the eternal moral issue of their own hearts. Rejection of this illogical type of reasoning is an opportunity to recognize where "the Left" gets things right and how so and an opportunity to demonstrate evidentially and logically where "the Left" gets things wrong and how to correct the thinking and the solutioning. Rejection of this kind of thinking can remove a stumbling block between members of "the Left" and their salvation through acceptance of <a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2019/04/did-historical-jesus-rise-from-dead.html">Jesus Christ</a>. </p><p>For more on this topic, I highly recommend these articles and books:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2023/01/book-review-magna-carta-of-humanity.html">Book Review: Magna Carta of Humanity</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2019/03/book-review-beauty-of-intolerance.html">Book Review: The Beauty of Intolerance</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2023/06/unconditional-love-or-unconditional.html">Unconditional Love or Unconditional Affirmation?</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2019/04/did-historical-jesus-rise-from-dead.html">Did The Historical Jesus Rise From The Dead?</a></li></ul><p></p><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/FaithfulThinkers/"><img alt="For more great resources on God's existence, science and faith issues, the Resurrection of Jesus, morality and politics, theology and apologetics, follow Faithful Thinkers on Facebook." border="1" height="40" src="https://jonbennallick.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Facebook-logo-ICON-02.png" style="color: white;" width="40" /></a> <a href="http://twitter.com/FaithfulThinker"><img alt="For more great resources on God's existence, science and faith issues, the Resurrection of Jesus, morality and politics, theology and apologetics, follow Faithful Thinkers on Twitter" border="1" height="40" src="https://jonbennallick.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Twitter-Logo-Icon-by-Jon-Bennallick-02.png" style="color: white;" width="40" /></a></div>Faithful Thinkershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04089768576413860677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5127174451684099058.post-72548304969459831922023-06-19T08:00:00.004-05:002023-07-04T06:59:28.240-05:00The Atheist's Moral Compass<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghbNwVU8x5PFugY_UnXe0a5xcLiRuWEPbbaDHUwvirZIBxKMEX2xPhI81tX0TUElHbNKj0uUA_q4AkLaqQ9fRhuIrL934D5BsQfP3XNXGh3zsdhcHffG1xcJyrix3akEWTGQvXh4uV7ECXxHzXfBf002wDA9Brpj00AMWOo6JZo7-yiGYzui5hB2RT/s1920/Slide14.JPG" style="clear: left; display: inline; float: left; font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1073" data-original-width="1920" height="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghbNwVU8x5PFugY_UnXe0a5xcLiRuWEPbbaDHUwvirZIBxKMEX2xPhI81tX0TUElHbNKj0uUA_q4AkLaqQ9fRhuIrL934D5BsQfP3XNXGh3zsdhcHffG1xcJyrix3akEWTGQvXh4uV7ECXxHzXfBf002wDA9Brpj00AMWOo6JZo7-yiGYzui5hB2RT/s320/Slide14.JPG" width="320" /></a></div><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Introduction</b></h3><p></p><p>"Inevitably, moral choices based on our own moral compass will often be wrong choices. And wrong moral choices can result in consequences ranging from minor disappointments to major disasters emotionally, relationally, physically, and spiritually."</p><p>This quote from Josh and Sean McDowell's book "<b><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2019/03/book-review-beauty-of-intolerance.html">The Beauty of Intolerance</a></b>" was posted to social media a few weeks ago, and it sparked some interesting responses from atheists and agnostics. Here is one such response that I feel needs a bit of unpacking and a response. </p><p>"Atheists and agnostics can still have a strong moral compass that is informed by reason, empathy, and a desire for human flourishing. In fact, many atheists and agnostics base their moral choices on the principles of humanism, which emphasizes the importance of compassion, rationality, and ethics in guiding our behavior."<span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p><h1 style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">The Atheist's Moral Compass- Stealing From God</span></b></h1><p>This is an effort to show that an objective moral compass is compatible with atheism. But there are serious problems with each proposed source of this compass; they all depend on God existing. Atheists CAN have and use a moral compass without believing in God. If they say that they get their humanism from...:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>...their intuition. Well, God created that (<a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2015/08/book-review-relativism-feet-firmly.html">the moral law </a>written on their hearts).</li><li>...what works in the world. God created the world (<a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2013/09/book-review-why-universe-is-way-it-is.html">physics</a> and <a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/book-review-making-of-atheist.html">human psychology</a>) to work in this way too.</li><li>...their reason. And God is necessary here for two reasons (via the <a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2016/11/book-review-where-conflict-really-lies.html">Image of God</a> that grants us access to <a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/book-review-word-of-god-and-mind-of-man.html">His eternal logical character</a>).</li></ul><p></p><p>The atheist who wishes to claim objective morality exists and is knowable, necessarily must (in the words of Frank Turek) <a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2023/03/book-review-stealing-from-god.html">steal from God</a>. God has made this world in such a way that everyone uses the moral compass He has written on their hearts. </p><p>Just as we do not necessarily need to know (or even acknowledge) the source of a quote we found on the internet to know that it is true, atheists and agnostics do not need to acknowledge where their moral compass comes from to know that it is generally reliable. They can certainly be good without believing in God, but they cannot be good with God existing because without God existing there would be no moral compass.</p><p style="text-align: center;"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OxiAikEk2vU" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>The Ultimate Source of Humanism</b></h3><p>I find it interesting that this atheist should also explicitly appeal to humanism. Consider this observation from cultural critic and Christian apologist, Dr. Os Guinness: </p><p></p><blockquote>"There is no question that the God who reveals himself in the Bible has been the direct source of three striking features of human existence at its most attractive: first, the highest humanism in history—humanism in the sense of championing the supreme human dignity and worth of the human individual; second, the surest grounds for the founding and developing human freedom, both personal and political; and their, the greatest and most sustained critique of the abuse of power in history."- <a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2023/01/book-review-magna-carta-of-humanity.html">The Magna Carta Of Humanity</a></blockquote><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYJ9W1WOa2dmhgy14sMNCHebQ-e75KH5SGGTzkeRCL4nX1IqQTekifbBhsY7YgRkevopEseHMjSHEEqcuqt-3GphG7fJnlq-tGtIudGd-CtmgYHSROxcdUZLZS4Oh4B4nK5IVhNX7yy3EC59R-8uiBH-qNFWX4KjXbzgVuELuoEd5LwQl2VpDp4pkD/s1920/Slide23.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt=""There is no question that the God who reveals himself in the Bible has been the direct source of three striking features of human existence at its most attractive: first, the highest humanism in history—humanism in the sense of championing the supreme human dignity and worth of the human individual; second, the surest grounds for the founding and developing human freedom, both personal and political; and their, the greatest and most sustained critique of the abuse of power in history."- The Magna Carta Of Humanity- Os Guinness" border="0" data-original-height="1073" data-original-width="1920" height="358" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYJ9W1WOa2dmhgy14sMNCHebQ-e75KH5SGGTzkeRCL4nX1IqQTekifbBhsY7YgRkevopEseHMjSHEEqcuqt-3GphG7fJnlq-tGtIudGd-CtmgYHSROxcdUZLZS4Oh4B4nK5IVhNX7yy3EC59R-8uiBH-qNFWX4KjXbzgVuELuoEd5LwQl2VpDp4pkD/w640-h358/Slide23.JPG" title=""There is no question that the God who reveals himself in the Bible has been the direct source of three striking features of human existence at its most attractive: first, the highest humanism in history—humanism in the sense of championing the supreme human dignity and worth of the human individual; second, the surest grounds for the founding and developing human freedom, both personal and political; and their, the greatest and most sustained critique of the abuse of power in history."- The Magna Carta Of Humanity- Os Guinness" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p>His point is that atheist is NOT the source of humanism. It is the Bible. In "<b><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2023/01/book-review-magna-carta-of-humanity.html">The Magna Carta of Humanity</a></b>" Guinness goes on to explain how the "supreme human dignity and worth" are established by the fact that humans are created in the Image of God. This is exclusive to the Judeo-Christian worldview; thus the idea of humans' intrinsic value and worth (humanism) is necessarily grounded in Judeo-Christian theism not atheism. Any atheist who truly holds to the supreme dignity and worth of humans (humanism) logically cannot also hold to their atheism and remain logically consistent. They are mutually exclusive views of reality. That is not to say that an atheist cannot believe both; it is just to say that the beliefs are not consistent with one another. </p><p></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>The Moral Freedom of Atheism</b></h3><p>I would submit to the atheist that they should want to maintain logical consistency, so I would also say that they need to either deny humanism or deny atheism. Of course, I am going to encourage the atheist to deny their atheism because (among numerous other reasons) I believe that the dignity and worth of humans is much harder to deny intellectually and philosophically than atheism is. However, it is quite easy to emotionally deny the dignity and worth of humans because that permits the fulfillment of untold desires that would do great harm to other humans- <a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2023/02/the-moral-freedom-of-atheism.html">if God does not exist, then harming another human for <b>any </b>reason is not truly wrong or evil, and no one can make such a bigoted judgement</a>. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Conclusion</b></h3><p>It comes down to this. What are you more committed to: your emotional desires or logical reality? Your emotional desires necessarily lead to atheism, with its unrealized amoral and alogical autonomy, while logical reality leads us to the God of the Bible as the necessary foundation that limits our moral and logical autonomy based on His eternal moral and logical nature and humans being created in <a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2017/03/why-is-image-of-god-so-important.html">His Image</a>. If you have chosen to deny the emotional route and take the logical route, I will also submit to you the evidence that <a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2019/04/did-historical-jesus-rise-from-dead.html">Jesus Christ rose from the dead</a> to demonstrate that he IS God and that forgiveness for any and all previously committed sin, when you were emotionally holding onto your moral autonomy, is freely given if you accept His sacrifice. </p><p>For more on this topic, I highly recommend checking out these books:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2015/08/book-review-relativism-feet-firmly.html"><b>Relativism</b>: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2019/03/book-review-beauty-of-intolerance.html"><b>The Beauty of Intolerance: </b>Setting A Generation Free To Know Truth and Love</a><b> </b></li><li><b><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2023/03/book-review-stealing-from-god.html">Stealing From God</a></b></li><li><b><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2023/01/book-review-magna-carta-of-humanity.html">The Magna Carta of Humanity</a></b></li></ul><div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/FaithfulThinkers/"><img alt="For more great resources on God's existence, science and faith issues, the Resurrection of Jesus, morality and politics, theology and apologetics, follow Faithful Thinkers on Facebook." border="1" height="40" src="https://jonbennallick.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Facebook-logo-ICON-02.png" style="color: white;" width="40" /></a> <a href="http://twitter.com/FaithfulThinker"><img alt="For more great resources on God's existence, science and faith issues, the Resurrection of Jesus, morality and politics, theology and apologetics, follow Faithful Thinkers on Twitter" border="1" height="40" src="https://jonbennallick.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Twitter-Logo-Icon-by-Jon-Bennallick-02.png" style="color: white;" width="40" /></a></div></div><p></p>Faithful Thinkershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04089768576413860677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5127174451684099058.post-67187694409555109632023-06-05T08:00:00.019-05:002024-02-13T13:19:05.161-06:00Unconditional Love or Unconditional Affirmation?<h1 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Introduction- </b>Unconditional Love or Unconditional Affirmation?</span></h1><p>It is increasingly becoming popular in culture to think that unconditional affirmation of one's thoughts about themselves (identity), whether objectively true or not, is a necessary feature of unconditional love. The idea is that if you claim to unconditionally love someone, you will always affirm their identity and celebrate every action and behavior that reinforces their identity. If you do not affirm and celebrate, then it is impossible for you to unconditionally love that person.</p><p>This cultural idea, though, is increasingly showing its intolerance of even the slightest disagreement, even among those who generally agree on a modern view of tolerance. Those who have championed this view for years are now finding themselves splitting from each other along the lines of sexual identity- not just what they prefer but what they are. </p><p>I believe that this newer cultural split and even the foundations of the modern tolerance movement are enabled due to a conflation between the meanings of "love" and "affirmation." Unless and until our culture distinguishes between them again, the modern tolerance movement will continue to splinter along ideological lines until every individual stands alone with neither the love nor affirmation of another. <span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>What is love?</b></h3><p>Traditionally, the concept of "love" has been described using the words of the famous biblical passage in 1 Corinthians 13: </p><p></p><blockquote>Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.</blockquote><p></p><p>Notice the characteristics of "keeps no record of wrongs," "does not delight in evil," and "rejoices with the truth." When these are taken together and not isolated from one another, they inform us that love recognizes that people can (and do) do wrong things. Love strives to correct wrong behavior, but it does not hold past failures against the person. "Love is patient." It is patient with the person who is authentically struggling with a desire or behavior that is wrong in their life. Love does not affirm a person's false view of themselves nor does it affirm every desire or behavior they exhibit. A person who exhibits true love distinguishes between what is true and false and what between what is right and wrong, and they use those distinctions to gently and patiently lead the person they love toward what is true and right. </p><p>When we crave unconditional love, we crave not just someone who will be there through thick and thin, but who will always want the best for us and tell us when we are on the wrong path, even if that is not what we want to hear. If we crave unconditional love, we crave gentle, patient correction.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>What Is Affirmation?</b></h3><p>Affirmation, though, does not have such goals. While love recognizes dangerous behaviors and necessarily warns against them and protects from them, affirmation ignores dangerous behaviors and encourages or even celebrates them. When we crave unconditional affirmation, we crave people to tell us that everything we are doing, no matter how dangerous or antithetical to our purposes our actions and behavior may be, are good. </p><p>When we crave unconditional affirmation, we do not want protection, warning, or even caution. We do not desire to have someone else looking out for us, who may merely suggest an alternative direction. We desire full ignorance of even the possibility of an alternative to our behavior or lifestyle. It is fully autonomous and self-centered (the polar opposite of love) in that we think we can navigate this world and its dangers safely using only our feelings and desires in the present moment. When we crave unconditional affirmation, the only purpose we have for others is to affirm us at every turn we make and every step we take, even if they cheer us right off the edge of a cliff. And when we show unconditional affirmation to others, we do so knowingly or unknowingly with delight. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Which One?</b></h3><p>In today's culture, many people confuse unconditional affirmation for unconditional love. They look for and value unconditional affirmation but call it "unconditional love." They are not looking for someone to walk with them and warn them of the fun dangers of life- in fact, some people surround themselves with those who <b>are </b>the fun dangers of life. They deceive themselves into thinking that these people provide unconditional love to them, when what these people really provide is unconditional affirmation. These people, unconditionally, will <b>not </b>try to protect from harm, will <b>not </b>attempt to warn of dangers, and will <b>not </b>support in behavioral struggles, for there are no behavioral struggles in a world of unconditional affirmation. These people turn a blind eye to the safety and ultimate purpose of the person they are unconditionally affirming.</p><p>This relationship is so far from true love that it borders on true hate. It encourages, if not ensures, the destruction of the person who has deceived themselves into euphemistically labeling the affirmation that they crave as "love." In word, it seems good; but in deed, it is devastating. That devastation comes from calling something we crave "love" when an essential component of true love is missing: concern for the person's future well-being. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEXBSWcRX3LR2fFfkk6kXYhIBcCSf_6XTbVlzbuDu2kdYkVXwDT11X9CElJdWwt3SApi8N0wqKQAoHENovAoeUQSuuQzgYQDKzsQdykQmJFs7sKSGSSZZ2koKMb5hYJ3KvV0dCYuRHO7JLcEmcr5EaBSiSwfsYmN7f-911UIk316niOkmKpAwcGrDb/s1920/Slide13.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Quote from Sean and Josh McDowell's book "The Beauty of Intolerance". ""Real love isn't an unlimited endorsement of just any behavior a person chooses to engage in. Many of those behaviors are inherently and inevitably harmful, and to endorse, approve, and encourage them is not loving; it is cold and uncaring. If we care about another person, we won't approve behavior that is damaging and destructive to that person's life."" border="0" data-original-height="1073" data-original-width="1920" height="358" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEXBSWcRX3LR2fFfkk6kXYhIBcCSf_6XTbVlzbuDu2kdYkVXwDT11X9CElJdWwt3SApi8N0wqKQAoHENovAoeUQSuuQzgYQDKzsQdykQmJFs7sKSGSSZZ2koKMb5hYJ3KvV0dCYuRHO7JLcEmcr5EaBSiSwfsYmN7f-911UIk316niOkmKpAwcGrDb/w640-h358/Slide13.JPG" title="Quote from Sean and Josh McDowell's book "The Beauty of Intolerance". ""Real love isn't an unlimited endorsement of just any behavior a person chooses to engage in. Many of those behaviors are inherently and inevitably harmful, and to endorse, approve, and encourage them is not loving; it is cold and uncaring. If we care about another person, we won't approve behavior that is damaging and destructive to that person's life."" width="640" /></a></div><p></p><p>Interestingly enough, unconditional affirmation begins to show its intolerance. The intolerance for a person's future well-being is accepted and even demanded because tolerance for a person's feelings and pleasure in the current moment are the most important virtue. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Tolerance Of Unconditional Love and Unconditional Affirmation</b></h3><p>Unconditional love places the value of tolerance on the future well-being and not necessarily on the current moment. This, of course, requires true tolerance and not the counterfeit that we are subjected to today. </p><p>In order for tolerance to exist, differences must exist. Tolerance is the recognition and allowance of differences even though one may not agree and, much less, encourage or celebrate the alternatives. Tolerance recognizes that people do have free will and can choose destructive beliefs and behaviors despite warnings of such implications (love). Tolerance recognizes disagreements with one another yet allows us to still live peaceably together. </p><p>To tolerate someone is not possible unless there is something to tolerate: a disagreement. The modern cultural sense of tolerance, though, demands full agreement with and celebration in the current moment's desires and behaviors of every individual. As a result modern culture has conflated "tolerance" with "agreement" and "celebration." Modern "tolerance" is not really tolerance because there is nothing that we are allowed to disagree with in order to tolerate. </p><p>True tolerance, because it exists where disagreements exist and because it promotes peaceful coexistence, is where love can thrive. Love also recognizes disagreements and encourages peaceful coexistence, but it allows for gentle and encouraging correction of the current moment in favor of a better future. From the big picture perspective, true tolerance and true love ensure the future existence of our species despite the wrong and destructive choices of a group of individuals.</p><p>The lack of disagreement or lack of communication of disagreement is intolerant because tolerance can only exist where multiple views are present and/or communicated. Where disagreements are not permitted to exist, tolerance is also not permitted to exist by logical necessity. Unconditional affirmation does not allow for disagreements or multiple views, thus unconditional affirmation is actually intolerant.</p><p>If multiple views are not permitted, then the held view cannot be wrong, thus it cannot be corrected. If correction, when a view is wrong, cannot exist, then the intolerance of unconditional affirmation goes to the next level of being unloving. Many people think that being unconditionally affirming is the loving way to be, but in reality it is not loving at all. At best, if we are unaware of the wrongness of a view, we are unloving by ignorance; but if we are aware of the wrongness of a view and refuse to warn against it, we are hateful by choice. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>We should not be cravers of unconditional affirmation</b></h3><p>No one should crave unconditional affirmation. Unconditional affirmation merely addresses immediate desires and lusts, and it never considers future implications and consequences of fulfilling such desires and lusts. Craving unconditional affirmation reduces you to a hedonistic chunk of meat and bones. It denies you any and all long-term, ultimate, or intrinsic value or purpose. Unconditional affirmation defends your sensibilities from all evidence of future consequences, and it does so repeatedly until you ultimately become a desperate peddler of your humanity in exchange for a fleeting moment of pleasure.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Jesus Christ vs. Unconditional Affirmation</b></h3><p>Christ showed us what it means to unconditionally love. He explicitly identified what is false and wrong in peoples' lives and encouraged them to turn away from it, no matter how much they desired it at the moment. But He did not just make these claims and offer them as differing opinions. He offered them as truth- features of reality, that if rejected, have real consequences. Here are the claims He made: </p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Christ claimed to be the all-loving and all-powerful Creator of the universe</li><li>He claimed to know that every person is sinful</li><li>He claimed to be the only way to spend eternity with God</li><li>He claimed that all His claims about reality would be confirmed by His overcoming something that no person had ever overcome before: death.</li></ul><p></p><p>Christ' bodily resurrection from the dead demonstrates the truth of his claims about unconditional love and the future good we will experience by rejecting the feelings of the moment and accepting His sacrifice for us.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9vpHiX47NCbw7Qjw1RBfdKVjptXZNKT6T1N2COKjzbP7f7PJWB0EkVi_SgnDc01NQB-ESm3YNmd4j4pL16tql3-vl20xPS3clRrC_dwUQfl2VuiynPySOEZ7-m7o0L8gr1bZGCWTj-UAQhrmJbEzyeOrNxiP9pXJJFychknJycKpeEXQ8LK--X_sK/s1920/Slide16.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Quote from Sean and Josh McDowell's book "Beauty of Intolerance". ""What distinguishes God's unconditional acceptance from that of our culture is authentic love. His love is intended to make the security, happiness, and welfare of another as important as his own. It is other-focused, not performance-focused. God knows the real truth about us—that we were created in his image—and that truth allows him to separate the person from performance. God unconditionally values us for who we are without always approving of what we do, because he separates the value of the person from the acts of the person."" border="0" data-original-height="1073" data-original-width="1920" height="358" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9vpHiX47NCbw7Qjw1RBfdKVjptXZNKT6T1N2COKjzbP7f7PJWB0EkVi_SgnDc01NQB-ESm3YNmd4j4pL16tql3-vl20xPS3clRrC_dwUQfl2VuiynPySOEZ7-m7o0L8gr1bZGCWTj-UAQhrmJbEzyeOrNxiP9pXJJFychknJycKpeEXQ8LK--X_sK/w640-h358/Slide16.JPG" title="Quote from Sean and Josh McDowell's book "Beauty of Intolerance". ""What distinguishes God's unconditional acceptance from that of our culture is authentic love. His love is intended to make the security, happiness, and welfare of another as important as his own. It is other-focused, not performance-focused. God knows the real truth about us—that we were created in his image—and that truth allows him to separate the person from performance. God unconditionally values us for who we are without always approving of what we do, because he separates the value of the person from the acts of the person."" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p>If we are willing to allow reality to guide our decision and not our feelings, then we can <a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2019/04/did-historical-jesus-rise-from-dead.html">investigate the historical truth of the resurrection of Jesus Christ</a>. Jesus has made some big claims and promises, and He has given us the evidence to believe that they are true. The question is whether we are willing to allow evidence from reality or our desires for momentary pleasure to guide our decisions.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Conclusion</b></h3><p>When we surrender our humanity for the sake of the moment, we deny the value of humanity and even ourselves. Unconditional love recognizes the intrinsic value of the individual. If we go back to the source of the concept of love, the Bible, we see that we are created in the Image of God, which gives us intrinsic value and means that God has created us for so much more than just a destructive, fleeting moment of pleasure. He has created us for pleasure that goes beyond the current moment and even beyond this life where we often chase future moments of pleasure and call it "future-thinking". God's plan for us is not limited to the moment nor even to the few decades we have on this earth. God's plan for us is to come into a loving relationship with Him, the all-loving Creator. But for that to happen, we must deny ourselves (our destructive and sinful desires and behaviors of the moment), take up our cross (be prepared to crave and accept unconditional love), and follow Christ (accept His atoning sacrifice for our sins and unconditionally love, not affirm, others). </p><p>To investigate more on unconditional love and Jesus' resurrection, I highly recommend these books: </p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/book-review-risen-jesus-and-future-hope.html">The Risen Jesus and Future Hope</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2019/03/book-review-beauty-of-intolerance.html">The Beauty of Intolerance</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2019/10/book-review-time-for-truth-living-free.html">Time for Truth</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2015/08/book-review-relativism-feet-firmly.html">Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted In Mid Air</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2023/01/book-review-magna-carta-of-humanity.html">The Magna Carta of Humanity</a></li></ul><p></p>Faithful Thinkershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04089768576413860677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5127174451684099058.post-9637330228507627862023-05-15T08:00:00.007-05:002023-07-04T06:57:34.638-05:00Why Doesn't God Reorder the Stars?<h3 style="text-align: left;"><b><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhP1_4wd9FCH_MeCna0B6-H4IMGHyebe8cuRFotYoHGp7d0dWZ5v23AH0JDqLcnrkyWNEDdKCYMerknGcHljm7UxHItO7e7q7E8qp-ep7YmITLG5NKf4S5ShMmiyaZ7uRFPeFPgQIPvICgAJ7VKkCpaMvyDWMpQxYktuvnKf8fw2FnMwCZ2IkTmpoVG/s960/Slide26.JPG" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Why doesn't God reorder the stars to identify himself to me?" border="0" data-original-height="540" data-original-width="960" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhP1_4wd9FCH_MeCna0B6-H4IMGHyebe8cuRFotYoHGp7d0dWZ5v23AH0JDqLcnrkyWNEDdKCYMerknGcHljm7UxHItO7e7q7E8qp-ep7YmITLG5NKf4S5ShMmiyaZ7uRFPeFPgQIPvICgAJ7VKkCpaMvyDWMpQxYktuvnKf8fw2FnMwCZ2IkTmpoVG/w320-h180/Slide26.JPG" title="Why doesn't God reorder the stars to identify himself to me?" width="320" /></a></div></b></h3><h1 style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Introduction- Why Doesn't God Reorder The Stars?</span></b></h1><p>It is not uncommon for atheists or agnostics to voice the demand that God show Himself by "reordering the stars to say 'I am Yahweh'" or something of that sort to positively identify Himself to them. This particular demand of God has always struck me illogical and hardly evidential. The reason why is because even I wouldn't accept such as evidence. The constellations are just playing "connect the dots" on a flat, two-dimensional surface where a three-dimensional volume exists. Any attempt to "connect the dots" to form a series of linguistic characters would have just as much meaning. More could be said on my challenges, but that is not the intention of this post. Rather my focus today is centered on these two questions: why would God reorder the stars to form a message that only you would understand, and why would He reorder the stars to form a message that only your people group would understand? </p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Exclusivity of Human Languages</b></h3><p>Languages and characters are exclusive by their nature. They are confined to time periods and even geographical locales. They exclude most everyone else in other time periods and in other cultures. To demand that God reorder the stars to form a message with characters and syntax only understandable to you or your group at a specific point in time (when that language developed) is to demand that God exclude the rest of humanity from the message. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Inclusivity of the Book of Nature</b></h3><p>Nature is the language that all people of all time can see and understand regardless of which written language they use (if they used one). Interestingly enough, God didn't <u>re</u>order nature to speak to people, He ordered it that way <u>from the beginning</u>. A <u>re</u>ordering is the result of <u>re</u>action, while ordering is the result of <u>pro</u>action. God did not react to the voiced concern after atheists and agnostics thought it, He knew that expectation would be thought, not only by one person but by many people in many cultures of many languages in many time periods, and He proactively designed the universe to speak to every one of them. Interestingly enough, the ordering of the stars to speak this message is the very ordering that also allows humans to exist to even voice the demand, so the message is necessary to exist from the beginning.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>God Heard Your Request From The Beginning</b></h3><p>From the beginning, God took the inclusive route, which happens to also be the route that allows humans to exist. He has actually taken this request to <u>re</u>order the stars and fulfilled it beyond the expectations of the atheist or agnostic who demands it. God fulfilled the expectation to answer all the atheists and agnostics regardless of the language they use to express the demand and the language they demand God use to fulfill it. </p><p>God expands not only the audience but the features that are ordered. Not only ordering the stars but galaxies, galaxy clusters, and super galaxy clusters to form the message that is understandable to all who live(d). Not just doing it today but from the beginning. The Creator ordered the stars from the beginning of time to be readable by all people of all languages in all human history, not just the atheist or those who speaks that individual atheist's language.</p><p>The ancients merely looked up to see the stars and saw that the stars were the work of the Creator (e.g. Psalm 8:3, Amos 5:8, and Isaiah 40:26). Many modern people, though, are not content with just looking at the cosmos, they require more in-depth study. Recently I reviewed the book "<b><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2023/05/book-review-designed-to-core.html">Designed to the Core</a></b>" by Christian astronomer <a href="https://reasons.org/team/hugh-ross">Dr. Hugh Ross</a>. He compiles numerous discoveries from the fields of cosmology and geology to show that God ordered the entire cosmos from the beginning of time to the present, from the largest scale structure to the core of our planet for life. Nature speaks in a language that all people of all languages can understand. Dr. Ross shows that God <b>did</b> order not just the stars but the groups of stars and even their planets so that humans could be alive to make such a demand of the Creator. </p><p>Interestingly enough, God did not just order the features of the cosmos, He also ordered the very physical laws at the creation of the universe to allow for such an ordering of the cosmos. Hugh Ross describes this in his book "<b><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2018/03/book-review-creator-and-cosmos.html">Creator And The Cosmos</a></b>." And let's not stop at the cosmic level; let's go down to the biochemical level where biochemist <a href="https://reasons.org/team/fazale-rana">Dr. Fazale Rana</a> demonstrates such ordering as well: "<b><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/book-review-creating-life-in-lab.html">Creating Life in The Lab</a></b>" and "<b><a href="https://support.reasons.org/category/featured-products/fit-for-a-purpose">Fit For A Purpose</a></b>". </p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Conclusion- What Are You Looking For?</b></h3><p>For those who have voiced this demand of the Creator, if you do not understand the message that the Creator has presented in nature, I invite you to read these books to help you translate, interpret, and understand how God fulfilled your request long ago far beyond your minimal requirements. If you do not wish to investigate the message, I do have to ask if you are truly looking for a message. With the existence of the shear number of characteristics ordered and scope of the audience, if the message is rejected, the request for a "message in my language" looks more like an illogical excuse than an evidential reason to reject the Creator of the universe. </p><p><b>For more, I highly recommend these resources:</b></p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><b><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2017/04/book-review-improbable-planet-how-earth.html">Improbable Planet</a></b></li><li><b><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2013/09/book-review-why-universe-is-way-it-is.html">Why The Universe Is The Way It Is</a></b></li><li><b><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/book-review-origins-of-life-biblical.html">Origins of Life</a></b></li></ul><div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/FaithfulThinkers/"><img alt="For more great resources on God's existence, science and faith issues, the Resurrection of Jesus, morality and politics, theology and apologetics, follow Faithful Thinkers on Facebook." border="1" height="40" src="https://jonbennallick.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Facebook-logo-ICON-02.png" style="color: white;" width="40" /></a> <a href="http://twitter.com/FaithfulThinker"><img alt="For more great resources on God's existence, science and faith issues, the Resurrection of Jesus, morality and politics, theology and apologetics, follow Faithful Thinkers on Twitter" border="1" height="40" src="https://jonbennallick.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Twitter-Logo-Icon-by-Jon-Bennallick-02.png" style="color: white;" width="40" /></a></div></div><p></p>Faithful Thinkershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04089768576413860677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5127174451684099058.post-46098957357530724822023-05-01T08:00:00.032-05:002023-07-04T06:56:55.494-05:00Book Review: Designed To The Core<h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Introduction</b></h3><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIbKqmSwVRFgH93xOr9lRzr-yC84kCRUkii0vwrdezZHjs0dA6rwKIeCoUJuthDD-jsPW9fw9JCTnHH4hNJcixi1JCyazMhhguGUBvvCWtITVo6r-3keKpzoE0NBHuGhiRf4YDcLox4mNAiNFpInpXtwOtdsI9NbAVNTiU9L2GXFd_QedDZlFc1oXZ/s2700/Designed%20to%20the%20Core.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2700" data-original-width="1800" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIbKqmSwVRFgH93xOr9lRzr-yC84kCRUkii0vwrdezZHjs0dA6rwKIeCoUJuthDD-jsPW9fw9JCTnHH4hNJcixi1JCyazMhhguGUBvvCWtITVo6r-3keKpzoE0NBHuGhiRf4YDcLox4mNAiNFpInpXtwOtdsI9NbAVNTiU9L2GXFd_QedDZlFc1oXZ/w133-h200/Designed%20to%20the%20Core.jpg" width="133" /></a></div>Christian astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross has been writing for decades on the scientific reasons to believe in the God of the Bible. He founded an organization called "<a href="http://www.reasons.org">Reasons to Believe</a>" specifically geared towards evangelizing the scientifically-minded skeptic. I have been following his work for quite some time and always look forward to his latest book on the incredible evidence that scientists have discovered about the universe that point to the existence of God. Some of his books include: <p></p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><b><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2018/03/book-review-creator-and-cosmos.html">Creator And The Cosmos</a></b></li><li><b><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2017/04/book-review-improbable-planet-how-earth.html">Improbable Planet</a></b></li><li><b><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2013/09/book-review-why-universe-is-way-it-is.html">Why The Universe Is The Way It Is</a></b></li><li><b><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/book-review-origins-of-life-biblical.html">Origins of Life</a></b> (coauthored with biochemist <a href="https://reasons.org/team/fazale-rana">Dr. Fazale Rana</a>, current president of <a href="http://www.reasons.org">Reasons to Believe</a>)</li><li><b><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2016/05/book-review-who-was-adam.html">Who Was Adam</a></b> (also coauthored with <a href="https://reasons.org/team/fazale-rana">Dr. Fazale Rana</a>)</li></ul><p></p><p>His latest book is titled <b><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Designed-Core-Hugh-Ross/dp/1956112014/">Designed to the Core</a></b>. In this review, I will give a quick summary of the book, some of my favorite quotes, a few of my thoughts about it, and finally my recommendations. </p><span><a name='more'></a></span><h1 style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">What's "Designed To The Core" About?</span></b></h1><p>In his latest book <b><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Designed-Core-Hugh-Ross/dp/1956112014/">Designed To The Core</a></b> Dr. Hugh Ross makes the case that the universe, at every scale level, from the outer portion of that volume to the inner core of that volume, is designed for advanced life and even advanced, high-tech civilization. As Dr. Ross examines super super clusters of galaxies, super clusters of galaxies, clusters of galaxies, our galaxy, our star and solar system, he shows how each volume at the respective level is a <b>possible </b>site for life. Beginning with the super super cluster of galaxies, Dr. Ross shows how the rest of the universe is eliminated as a possible site for life. He then zooms in to the super galaxy cluster level to show that the rest of the super super galaxy cluster is not habitable for life. He continues this methodical process until he finally zooms in on our planet to explain that it is designed from the atmosphere to the core for advanced civilization. </p><p>Throughout this process, as he is zooming in on the location, he is also zooming in on the timeline of the universe to show that it is not just any time in the history of the universe that advanced life could exist and that a high-tech civilization could exist, but a tiny window of time in which we currently exist. </p><p>This leaves the reader with the understanding that no other site and time in the universe exists for advanced life (much less advanced civilization). Even with the universe being as large as it is and as old as it is, for so many features and time windows to align in just the right way, for not only advanced life but advanced civilization, it defies probability and reason. That is unless our explanation for the appearance of advanced civilization in this universe includes that it was intended- designed. Chance and necessity are simply deficient in their explanatory power when faced with the evidence provided by Dr. Ross. The appearance of intentionality and design supported by the evidence is so strong, that this reality calls for a more-than-naturalistic explanation, more than just "appearance of design for life," an explanation that allows for creation with purpose, a Designer who created the universe and meticulously orchestrated and guided its history so that this one site could exist for the creation of His image bearers. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Key Quotes from "Designed To The Core"</b></h3><p>"For the universe to transition from its capacity to sustain prebiotic chemistry to its capacity for single-celled life-forms is no trivial matter. Transitioning to its capacity for sustaining complex, multicellular organisms replete with appendages and internal organs seems even more complex. A still more dramatic step in fine-tuning would be necessary for the universe to provide for the support of any species equivalent to the human race."</p><p>"If the observed design proves inconsequential, or only vaguely purposeful, one could argue that no intentionality is necessary. Perhaps the apparent design feature is merely a probable outcome of the operation of mysteriously self-existent natural processes. On the other hand, if the observed fine-tuning is multifaceted and every facet crucial to the outcome, then the fine-tuning source must be more than a mindless, impersonal force or process. The more numerous, specific, and purposeful the necessary fine-tuned requirements, the more these required features reveal about the characteristics and identity of the fine tuner."</p><p>"Physical life is not fluid. It will not and cannot adjust to any old universe. The fine-tuning that astronomers observe indicates that even very slight alterations to the universe's characteristics would rule out the possible existence of physical life."</p><p>"If a purposeful Tuner exists, it makes sense that the deeper our search into the features of the cosmos, the more evidence of fine-tuning this search will reveal. If no purposeful Tuner exists, then a deeper search will reveal less and less specificity and intentionality. A fine-tuner's attributes and purposes will become either increasingly clear or increasingly vague."</p><p>"More than 140 different 'exterior' features of the universe, including the values of the constants that govern the laws of physics, must fit within narrowly specified ranges. This reality reasonably points to a Source with the capacity for intentionality, for deliberate, purposeful design and implementation—in other words, a Creator who transcends the well-crafted cosmos."</p><p>"Advanced life—whether 'as we know it' or 'as physics and chemistry allow'—requires highly specified ratios of the abundances of the 94 elements in the familiar periodic table. For advanced life to be possible in the universe at any time, not only must the ratio of hydrogen to helium in the universe's first few minutes be fine-tuned, but so must the number and kinds of starts that form during each epoch throughout the ensuing years."</p><p>"The Magellanic Clouds are massive enough, sufficiently close together, and positioned at the just-right distance from the [Milky Way Galaxy] as to funnel a steady supply of the Local Group's gas-rich, low-mass dwarf galaxies into the [Milky Way Galaxy]'s core. The Magellanic Stream and its Leading Arm exemplify a shepherding role--provisional and protective. This steady, gradual supply of gas has sustained our galaxy's spiral structure throughout the past several billion years without disturbing its overall symmetry and morphology."</p><p>"Unlike other known spiral galaxies, the MWG continuously 'sips' rather than intermittently 'gulps' available matter. This unique history helps explain why the MWG today has such remarkably symmetrical spiral arms, a spiral structure and stability essential to the possibility of hosting advanced life."</p><p>"For any star within a galaxy to contain enough carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorous, iron, thorium, and uranium to make the existence of advanced life possible within its planetary system, at least two generations of stars must form, burn, and explode to enrich the gas clouds that form the next generation of stars."</p><p>"Only in a galaxy like the [Milky Way Galaxy] does star formation begin soon enough and last long enough to produce all the elements essential for advanced life."</p><p>"Just as the Sun has no 'twin,' neither do any of the planets held in its orbit. The solar system is the only multiplanet system yet discovered with a population and configuration that would allow for the possible existence of advanced life and, what's more, provide for the ongoing development and sustenance of a large, technologically and culturally sophisticated civilization within it."</p><p>"For a planet to be truly habitable, it must orbit its host star not only within the liquid water zone but simultaneously within twelve other known planetary habitable zones."</p><p>"Every one of the Sun's eight planets provides for the needs of advanced life on Earth in some crucial way."</p><div id="rendered-md">
<p>"The history and features of the solar system's asteroid-comet belts, along with the gravitational influences of the Moon's mass and early orbital proximity, ensured that Earth would receive sufficient impact events, especially before animals appeared, to salt Earth's crust with rich ore deposits. These ores played a crucial role in the early launch of metallurgy and, more recently, in the development of global, high-technology civilization. On the other hand, major impact events during the human era have been so infrequent as to pose no risk to humanity's survival nor to global civilization."</p><p>"Just as the interior structure of our supercluster of galaxies, our galaxy cluster, our galaxy, our local galactic neighborhood, our star, our system of planets, asteroids, and comets, and our Moon differ from the normal pattern in precise ways that favor the possibility of advanced life on Earth, so, too, does Earth's core."</p><p>"[The features of Earth's mantle], among others, appear so intricate and specific that Earth may well be the only rocky planet on which plate tectonic activity, at a survivable level for life, has been operating for an extended period, much less approaching 4 billion years."</p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Reviewer's Thoughts</b></h3><p>Dr. Ross has written another incredible book on the history of the universe. He achieves a good balance between a technical and non-technical presentation for both types of readers. This one is a bit more technical than some of his latest works, but that is appreciated since it places the details in front of the reader rather than in the appendix. </p><p>I must say that I noticed in this book that he reserved the majority of his philosophical and theological conclusions for the introduction and conclusion, as opposed to revisiting them in each chapter. This approach, though, while adequately setting up the investigation into the cause of our planet, allows the skeptical reader to focus on the scientific data presented before being confronted with the dramatic conclusion that has theistic, specifically Christian, significance. </p><p>Whether the reader is a Christian or not, they cannot have a comprehension of the content presented and not come away with a sense of awe about the universe and, perhaps, a sense of dissatisfaction with modern naturalistic explanations. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Recommendations</b></h3><p>I recommend "<b><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Designed-Core-Hugh-Ross/dp/1956112014/">Designed To The Core</a></b>" to any <b>Christian who is interested in science</b> and particularly astronomy. Dr. Ross really brings the magnificence of God's creative acts into focus for the reader. He also presents a distinctly abductive argument for God's existence (and design) based upon the scientific observations of the universe. For Christians who have questions about how Dr. Ross reconciles a historical reading of Genesis and the observations of God's creation, I also highly recommend his books "<a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/book-review-navigating-genesis.html"><b>Navigating Genesis</b></a>" and "<a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2015/07/book-review-matter-of-days-resolving.html"><b>A Matter of Days</b></a>."</p><p>If you are a <b>science teacher</b> presenting from a Christian perspective, you may particularly find this book of value. As science teachers present data on God's creative actions, they need to present it accurately and show how it is compatible with God's Word. The presentation of the natural data given by Dr. Ross in "<b><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Designed-Core-Hugh-Ross/dp/1956112014/">Designed To The Core</a></b>" not only shows compatibility but presents a powerful argument from the sciences against naturalistic explanations for students. </p><p>I recommend "<b><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Designed-Core-Hugh-Ross/dp/1956112014/">Designed To The Core</a></b>" to <b>agnostics and deists</b> who value nature in their investigation of whether the theistic God of the Bible exists or not. Dr. Ross presents the data from the sciences then presents his abductive argument. The book's content is focused heavily on the scientific data, but as it progresses, the argument and conclusion of intentional design become more obviously implied. The fact that Dr. Ross simultaneously argues for God's existence and intentional design dissuades the agnostic from taking the half-step into deism and pushes the deist to logically recognize God's intervention in the history of the universe. Both agnostic and deistic readers will be challenged to find a more consistent explanation in any naturalistic alternative. For agnostics and deists, I also recommend Dr. Ross' books "<b><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2018/03/book-review-creator-and-cosmos.html">Creator And The Cosmos</a></b>" and "<b><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2013/09/book-review-why-universe-is-way-it-is.html">Why The Universe Is The Way It Is</a></b>." </p><p>I also recommend this book to any <b>atheist who is interested in the argument for God</b> from the apparent design of our planet for advanced life. Dr. Ross presents numerous observations from the sciences then offers a best-explanation argument (abductive reasoning). The book spends probably 95% of its space on the scientific observations and only about 5% on the logical argument and theological conclusion, though the argument is always in view throughout its pages. If an atheist is seeking the most logical explanation of this world, without committing the logical fallacy of presupposing atheism, this book cannot be ignored.</p><p>If you have read this far into this review, you likely have a decent level of interest in this topic. Along with the Designed To The Core, I will again recommend the books above to continue your investigation and will recommend that you check out these additional resources:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2018/08/book-review-creator-revealed.html">The Creator Revealed: A Physicist Examines The Big Bang and the Bible</a>- Michael G. Strauss</li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2017/04/top-5-books-on-bible-creation-and.html">Top 5 Books On The Bible, Creation, and Science</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2017/08/top-5-books-on-science-and-faith.html">Top 5 Books On Science and Faith</a></li></ul><p></p><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/FaithfulThinkers/"><img alt="For more great resources on God's existence, science and faith issues, the Resurrection of Jesus, morality and politics, theology and apologetics, follow Faithful Thinkers on Facebook." border="1" height="40" src="https://jonbennallick.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Facebook-logo-ICON-02.png" style="color: white;" width="40" /></a> <a href="http://twitter.com/FaithfulThinker"><img alt="For more great resources on God's existence, science and faith issues, the Resurrection of Jesus, morality and politics, theology and apologetics, follow Faithful Thinkers on Twitter" border="1" height="40" src="https://jonbennallick.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Twitter-Logo-Icon-by-Jon-Bennallick-02.png" style="color: white;" width="40" /></a></div></div>Faithful Thinkershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04089768576413860677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5127174451684099058.post-11964689160077081122023-04-17T08:00:00.199-05:002023-09-24T10:19:45.488-05:00The Dangers of Scientism to the Truth-Seeker<h3 style="text-align: left;"><b><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfK6hs__k0truIUOLOAuPYZ28_HAEUDP6in8q4CpVCmHWvXysBBhEJJJ3P_zYCNSkWEZrPdEsgc8f1vvw4I24teTTZVIcCsiitx61-c5qXl5iYrjce_OPRIcdNFsTV8rxKJ4SNh4sVKaEfDxtA4EYMBJtdZImn0BS6jFIAOT6DfMZqt0uMRT-_NRnX/s960/Slide25.JPG" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="540" data-original-width="960" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfK6hs__k0truIUOLOAuPYZ28_HAEUDP6in8q4CpVCmHWvXysBBhEJJJ3P_zYCNSkWEZrPdEsgc8f1vvw4I24teTTZVIcCsiitx61-c5qXl5iYrjce_OPRIcdNFsTV8rxKJ4SNh4sVKaEfDxtA4EYMBJtdZImn0BS6jFIAOT6DfMZqt0uMRT-_NRnX/s320/Slide25.JPG" width="320" /></a></div></b></h3><h1 style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">What Scientism Is Not- The Strawman</span></b></h1><p>In discussions of the existence of God and the truth of Christianity, atheists are often understood and represented to hold to the idea of scientism. Scientism being the philosophical view that the study of nature (science) is the only valid source of truth about reality. In my conversations with atheists, though, if they start out affirming such a view, they usually concede it within a few minutes of my pointing out that everyone relies on knowledge outside the sciences all the time. There are a few hold-outs, but generally this is my experience. </p><p>I recently reviewed J.P. Moreland's book "<b><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2023/02/book-review-scientism-and-secularism.html">Scientism and Secularism</a></b>" on this subject. One of the critiques that I have seen from many people (including both atheists and Christians) is that Moreland wasted time arguing against atheism using a misunderstanding of scientism. The charge is that he argued against a view that few atheists actually defend- a strawman. Of course, most atheists recognize that other sources of truth exist outside nature. They know, understand, and accept the defeaters presented by Moreland. <span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>The Distinction and The Connection</b></h3><p>However, the value of Moreland's book is not found solely in its defeat of scientism but in the distinction identified between strong scientism and weak scientism. While atheists recognize and (generally) deny strong scientism, they still hold to weak scientism. </p><p>The distinction between strong and weak scientism comes down to the attitude of those who reject non-scientific disciplines as sources of truth. Strong scientism, even on the surface, rejects that other sources of knowledge exist and will not even waste time using them to judge their scientific theories. On the other hand, weak scientism grants that knowledge exists in other disciplines, but while it allows the scientific disciplines to judge theories in those other disciplines, the judgment is not a two-way street. Weak scientism does not allow other knowledge disciplines to judge scientific theories. </p><p>Moreland demonstrates that, while distinct in attitude regarding the other knowledge disciplines, weak scientism logically and necessarily implies strong scientism. This means that weak scientism is just strong scientism articulated and applied differently but with the same outcome. A strawman? No. Moreland recognizes the philosophical detour that such atheists take and shows how even that detour fails. </p><p>For strong scientism, science is the only source of truth, so theories that reign supreme among scientists are the only ones that can possibly be the outcome of the investigation of reality. For weak scientism, science is the final source of truth, so theories that reign supreme among scientists are the only ones that can possibly be the outcome of the investigation of reality. The destination is the same, just with a slight detour.</p><p>Because of the necessary logical connection between weak scientism and strong scientism, the same reasons that an atheist would agree as their reasons for rejecting strong scientism, are the same reasons that defeat weak scientism. If strong scientism is rejected for its falsified necessary features that are also necessary features of weak scientism, then weak scientism, logically, must be rejected as well. </p><p>The victim of the critiques of scientism is the destination. When atheists agree that the critiques defeat strong scientism then they adjust their view to the weak version, they have not rejected the destination, they have only adjusted how they get there in an effort to appear to accept the defeaters of scientism. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Protecting Against Pseudoscience</b></h3><p>Many people adopt one of the forms of scientism in an effort to protect their minds from accepting pseudoscientific claims. Accepting scientism is an unnecessary barrier to guard against pseudoscience. Unfortunately, accepting (either version of) scientism exchanges pseudoscience for illogic, irrationality, unreasonableness and a stunted investigation into reality. While pseudoscience <b>misinterprets</b> parts of reality, scientism <b>denies </b>parts of reality. </p><p>Interestingly enough, those who have accepted scientism to guard against pseudoscience have actually made their situation worse. Misrepresentations of reality still grant that those parts of reality exist and are sources of truth, thus proper representation is still an option upon further investigation of the data and logic that produced the wrong conclusions. </p><p>However, with scientism, those areas of reality are completely denied to be knowable or even exist. The opportunity for course-correction of the investigation is completely removed if one accepts scientism, and they ultimately cut themselves and others off from that portion of reality and live in denial of its existence- a delusion. </p><p>If we continue down this logical path, we discover that scientism is actually more dangerous than pseudoscience. Someone can have the wrong understanding of a portion of reality, and we can recognize that wrong understanding, but we do not need to deny that portion of reality exists or deny that it is knowable to avoid the misunderstanding. To deny either is to surrender to ignorance, and that is hardly the goal of science or any truth-seeker. </p><p>Being wrong is part of the investigation process. Every investigator of nature (scientist) is going to perform pseudoscience at some point, though not necessarily intentionally. They are going to get their data wrong, and they're going to reason fallaciously. That's just part of being human. The goal, though, is not to just conclude that what is being investigated is unknowable, but that we were wrong somewhere and that course-correction is necessary. This course-correction is done all the time by scientists in the lab, the field, and in journals. Pseudoscience is rejected, not the existence of what is being investigated or even its knowability. Rather it is the understanding that what is being investigated exists and is knowable that drives the investigation and the critique of invalid data and logical fallacy. </p><p>If one accepts scientism to avoid pseudoscientific processes in any investigation, they have denied the very goal of science- to discover what is true about this world. If pseudoscience must be vehemently rejected, then scientism should be practically unthinkable. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Testing By Non-Scientific Sources of Truth</b></h3><p>Now, let's take this a step further. Denying certain sources of truth leads to denial of testing by those sources. If a company refuses to test claims about their products by available methods, then that should raise a red flag for the consumer. Accepting scientism forces the refusal to test claims about reality by available methods. So, this should also raise a red flag for the truth-seeker. </p><p>Just because a tool of investigation does not involve one of the five senses does not mean that it cannot be used to identify (judge) bad data or fallacious reasoning. Rather quite the opposite. The more tools that we have at our disposal to identify false conclusions, the less time we will spend with pseudoscientific processes and conclusions.</p><p>The naturalist is stuck with the limited toolkit they have because they have presupposed that the natural is all that exists (they are compelled to hold to scientism), but for the theist we not only are open to a wider range of conclusions (including metaphysical/supernatural), but we also have non-physical tools at our disposal to identify pseudoscience where the naturalist cannot (at least, not without "<a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2023/03/book-review-stealing-from-god.html">stealing it from God</a>," as Frank Turek would say). We can test claims and their processes of investigation of reality by such tools as logic, mathematics, history, philosophy, and theology. </p><p>For the Christian, we have this expanded toolkit at our disposal. This means that we can use mathematics to test theories of the cause of the universe; it also means that we can use Scripture and philosophy to test theories of human origins and life's diversity. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Scientism in the Church</b></h3><div><p>So many Christians are willing to change their interpretation of data in fields other than science because of their interpretation of the scientific data and being unwilling to consider a different interpretation of the scientific data. They give primacy to their interpretation of the scientific data- no other field of study can judge the scientific interpretation, and while the other fields are valid sources of truth (the concession of weak scientism), they must be judged by scientific interpretations but never serve as judges of scientific interpretations. </p><p>This is how weak scientism works. But because weak scientism fails, this method of interpreting data fails as well. Rather, as Christians, we need to be willing to adjust our interpretation of the <b>scientific</b> data as well as the non-scientific data. The best way to approach this is to gather the interpretations that are compatible with the data from both (or all) fields then bring more fields of study and their respective data points in to further narrow the field of overlapping (possible) interpretations. The compatible interpretations of every data point in every field of study ultimately judges and is judged by the compatible interpretations of every other data point in every other field of study. </p><p>This is neither strong nor weak scientism. This is a complete rejection of all forms of scientism. Scientism will be comfortable and seem reasonable ("we're avoiding pseudoscience") until we get to the fields of study that begin to judge and rule out our preferred (or just familiar) interpretations. Super-natural explanations (causes outside this universe) do not necessarily have to be theistic, so those may still be acceptable. But then we bring more fields of study (philosophy of <a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2016/11/book-review-where-conflict-really-lies.html">knowledge</a>, design, and information) to the table to serve as judges resulting in a divine foot being placed in the door with deism in general. Still more data is brought to the table (e.g. what's presented in "<a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2017/04/book-review-improbable-planet-how-earth.html">Improbable Planet</a>" and "<a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2023/03/book-review-stealing-from-god.html">Stealing From God</a>") to lead to the more specific but still general theism. And finally, human history and the <a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/book-review-risen-jesus-and-future-hope.html">Resurrection of Jesus Christ</a>, demonstrating the truth of Christian theism in particular. </p></div><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Conclusion</b></h3><p>Scientism is often adopted as a defensive posture to avoid the dangers of pseudoscience, but that position comes with even more dangers. For the truth-seeker, it is important to recognize the dangers of both and avoid both. Moreland demonstrates in his book how accepting a weak form of scientism is not the way to truly avoid the dangers of hard scientism. Scientism must be rejected completely if the truth-seeker wishes to avoid dangers worse than pseudoscience. </p><p>For the Christian, there is nothing to be concerned about by letting go of our weak scientism. By allowing other disciplines to judge our scientific interpretations, we can rule out incorrect views of God's creation when science is trailing behind or may not even have the tools to adjudicate among scientific theories. </p><p>For the non-Christian, there is nothing to fear about rejecting scientism except for Truth, itself. Yes, a divine foot will be in the door the moment you let go, but that divine foot is nothing to personally fear. God is not a danger. Your pride and sin are the dangers. If you recognize your pride and your sin as the dangers that they truly are, you will be freed to avoid the dangers of both scientism or pseudoscience. Otherwise, you will be caught between both, never able to truly escape. When the whole of the evidential base is considered (all the sources of knowledge), Jesus Christ comes out as the only way to avoid all the dangers that keep us from seeking truth. If you are truly a truth-seeker, it is time to lay down your pride and accept Him as your Creator and Savior. </p><p>For more on this subject, I recommend these books and articles:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2023/02/book-review-scientism-and-secularism.html">Scientism and Secularism</a> by J.P. Moreland</li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2023/03/book-review-stealing-from-god.html">Stealing From God</a> by Frank Turek</li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2016/11/book-review-where-conflict-really-lies.html">Where The Conflict Really Lies</a> by Alvin Plantinga</li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2023/03/is-scientism-strawman-of-atheists-and.html">Is "Scientism" A Strawman of Atheists' and Scientists' Beliefs?</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2020/03/6-ways-atheism-is-science-stopper.html">6 Ways Atheism Is A Science-Stopper</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2010/07/consistency-among-disciplines.html">Consistency Among Disciplines</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2014/03/are-nature-and-scripture-compatible.html">Are Nature and Scripture Compatible?</a></li></ul><div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/FaithfulThinkers/"><img alt="For more great resources on God's existence, science and faith issues, the Resurrection of Jesus, morality and politics, theology and apologetics, follow Faithful Thinkers on Facebook." border="1" height="40" src="https://jonbennallick.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Facebook-logo-ICON-02.png" style="color: white;" width="40" /></a> <a href="http://twitter.com/FaithfulThinker"><img alt="For more great resources on God's existence, science and faith issues, the Resurrection of Jesus, morality and politics, theology and apologetics, follow Faithful Thinkers on Twitter" border="1" height="40" src="https://jonbennallick.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Twitter-Logo-Icon-by-Jon-Bennallick-02.png" style="color: white;" width="40" /></a></div></div><p></p>Faithful Thinkershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04089768576413860677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5127174451684099058.post-3004353664414354972023-04-03T08:00:00.018-05:002023-07-04T07:02:25.900-05:00Book Review: How To Read A Book<h3 style="height: 0px; text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNf10H3MqLnKc4V9YdHcikh6KXh-25ut_HUoRYwQpxZkSJJBz6d-18gZq_aqQNxknxx3xmi3yj1A02Z3TQm6yz7JTAI9yKSKWy63qQaTSdrL7kmPCIS-hPiRBAu3A797y8PdTG9n7HrSTFBV9VB8xvr-PML5_6KU0mTOC2QaUmGoV9iTx_XZ12m9nF/s400/How%20To%20Read%20A%20Book.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt=""How To Read A Book" by Mortimer Adler and Charles van Doren" border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="255" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNf10H3MqLnKc4V9YdHcikh6KXh-25ut_HUoRYwQpxZkSJJBz6d-18gZq_aqQNxknxx3xmi3yj1A02Z3TQm6yz7JTAI9yKSKWy63qQaTSdrL7kmPCIS-hPiRBAu3A797y8PdTG9n7HrSTFBV9VB8xvr-PML5_6KU0mTOC2QaUmGoV9iTx_XZ12m9nF/w127-h200/How%20To%20Read%20A%20Book.jpg" title=""How To Read A Book" by Mortimer Adler and Charles van Doren" width="127" /></a></div></h3><h1 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Book Review: How To Read A Book</span></h1><div>So, this review has actually been a long time coming (we're talking years). I have been hearing of the benefits of reading this book to my own efforts in reading for well over a decade (thanks to Ken Samples of <a href="https://reasons.org/">Reasons to Believe</a>). Its been on my bookshelf for a while, but I have only recently taken the time to find out for myself. "<a href="https://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Book-Classic-Intelligent/dp/0671212095/"><b>How To Read A Book</b></a>" by Mortimer Adler and Charles Van Doren is a great resource to take your reading comprehension and interaction to the next level, truly make books your own, and expand your knowledge. The basic ideas that I have gleaned over the years have been helpful, but seeing the level of activity required in analytical reading (its not just passive) and the reasoning behind the need to be so active has been further enlightening. Today, I want to take you through same basic points, give you some quotes, and finally recommend the book (don't wait years, like I did). </div><div><span><a name='more'></a></span></div><h3 style="height: 0px; text-align: left;"><br /></h3><h3 style="height: 0px; text-align: left;"><br /></h3><h3 style="height: 0px; text-align: left;">Key Points</h3><div><br /></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The reader who is not both interested and committed to taking their experience of reading and stretching their minds to the next level of understanding of reality should stop here and not waste further time. </li><li>Most readers (even college-level and adults) have never gone beyond the elementary type of reading comprehension and analysis. </li><li>For the reader who wishes to expand their understanding of the world, passive reading is unacceptable and reading simply for information or agreement is insufficient. </li><li>Speed and quantity of consumed material are not the goals; quality of consumed material and intellectual and practical (inter)action are. Readers must read material above their heads to gain understanding.</li><li>Active reading where the reader's aim is to truly understand an author and interact with their ideas is necessary and takes time.</li><li>Relatively few truly "good" books, that can expand a readers understanding, have been authored, and there exists a method of reading to identify these books.</li><li>Inspectional reading involves several activities designed to give a quick but accurate glance of the content of the book. This step is a necessary to weed out not-so-great books or books that are not worthy of more of the reader's time.</li><li>Inspectional reading allows the reader to prime his or her mind with the terms used by the author, develop a basic outline of the content, and begin to identify the argument presented.</li><li>Once inspectional reading is complete, if the reader deems the work to be a "good" book worthy of further analysis, analytical reading may begin, </li><li>Analytical reading is a much slower process than inspectional reading that involves digging into the details of what the author is presenting and their case for it.</li><li>In this process the reader must set aside their presuppositions and take the time and effort to accurately understand the full claim(s) of the author and all the evidence and logic used to come to the author's conclusion(s).</li><li>Both proper understanding of the author and critical analysis are necessary before the reader can legitimately identify agreement or disagreement.</li><li>Theoretical and practical books lend themselves to unique approaches and tools of analysis as well as books of differing content (philosophy vs. science vs. history vs. fiction).</li><li>Such agreement or disagreement, though, must be held to the same standard of the author's and requires evidence and logic. </li><li>Such understanding and active interaction with a book allows the reader to expand their understanding of the world and take action based on that new or expanded understanding. </li><li>As more and more books are read on the same topic, the reader will need to expand their activities in analytical reading to include analysis of various perspectives on a single topic or issue.</li><li>This "syntopical" reading has its own series of activities and tools involved in this next level of active analysis. </li><li>For those readers who invest their time and energy, reading beyond the elementary level of most adults is extremely rewarding and will make your life of the mind more efficient in your use of both your time and your analytical efforts. </li></ul></div><h3 style="text-align: left;">Quotes</h3><div>"Reading for information does not stretch your mind any more than reading for amusement. it may seem as though it does, but that is merely because your mind is fuller of facts than it was before you read the book. However, your mind is essentially in the same condition that it was before. There has been a quantitative change, but no improvement in your skill."</div><div><br /></div><div>"Knowledge is not as much a prerequisite to understanding as is commonly supposed. We do not have to <i>know</i> everything about something in order to <i>understand</i> it; too many facts are often as much of an obstacle to understanding as too few. There is a sense in which we moderns are inundated with facts to the detriment of understanding."</div><div><br /></div><div>"A piece of writing...is a complex object. It can be received more or less completely, all the way from very little of what the writer intended to the whole of it."</div><div><br /></div><div>"The writer isn't trying <em>not</em> to be caught, although it sometimes seems so. Successful communication occurs in any case where what the writer wanted to have received finds its way into the reader's possession. The writer's skill and the reader's skill converge upon a common end."</div><div><br /></div><div>"If you remember what an author says, you have learned something from reading him. If what he says is true, you have even learned something about the world. But whether it is a fact about the book or a fact about the world that you have learned, you have gained northing but information if you have exercised only your memory."</div><div><br /></div><div>"A book is like nature or the world. When you question it, it answers you only to the extent that you do the work of thinking and analysis yourself."</div><div><br /></div><div>"Wonder is the beginning of wisdom in learning from books as well as from nature. If you never ask yourself any questions about the meaning of a passage, you cannot expect the book to give you any insight you do not already possess."</div><div><br /></div><div>"The human mind is as naturally sensitive to arguments as the eye is to colors. (There may be some people who are argument-blind!) But the eye will not see if it is not kept open, and the mind will not follow an argument if it is not awake."</div><div><br /></div><div>"The person who, at any stage of a conversation disagrees, should at least hope to reach agreement in the end. He should be as much prepared to have his own mind changed as seek to change the mind of another. He should always keep before him the possibility that he misunderstands or that he is ignorant on some point. No one who looks upon disagreement as an occasion for teaching another should forget that it is also an occasion for being taught."</div><div><br /></div><div>"What we know, we know subject to correction; we know it because all, or at least the weight, of the evidence supports it, but we are not and cannot be certain that new evidence will not sometime invalidate what we now believe is true."</div><div><br /></div><div>"It is a good mental exercise to pretend that you believe something you really do not believe. And the clearer you are about your own prejudgments, the more likely you will be not to misjudge those made by others."</div><div><br /></div><div>"Lack of relevant knowledge makes it impossible to solve certain problems or support certain conclusions. Erroneous suppositions, however, lead to wrong conclusions and untenable solutions."</div><div><p>"The agreement of human beings about the nature of things in any field of inquiry establishes some presumption of the truth of the opinions they commonly hold. But their disagreement establishes the counter-presumption--that <em>none</em> of the opinions in conflict whether shared or not, may be wholly true."</p>
<p>"You will not improve as a reader if all you read are books that are well within your capacity. You must tackle books that are beyond you, or, as we have said, books that are over your head."</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Recommendations</h3><p>The first and most obvious recommendation is for <b>anyone who loves to read</b>. For everyone who loves to read, we all know there are more books in the world that we want to read than the time we have. This often also describes the state of our own libraries. This is where "inspectional reading" will particularly come in handy. It will help you identify which of all those books to spend your time reading in-depth. </p><p>This book is for anyone who fancies themselves <b>critics of anything</b> and <b>supporters of something else</b> (if you've made it this far in this review, that's likely you). If we wish to convince someone of a claim about reality that mutually excludes a claim they already believe, we need to make sure that we properly understand the competing claim. "<b><a href="https://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Book-Classic-Intelligent/dp/0671212095/">How To Read A Book</a></b>" will help you in being more measured, thorough, and articulate in the presentations of your own analyses of competing views. But, be ready, if your audience also has read this book, they will be prepared to analyze, challenge, and maybe even disagree with their own well-thought and presented reasons. Just don't forget what the authors said above about remaining teachable. </p><p>If <b>you like to write</b>, "<b><a href="https://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Book-Classic-Intelligent/dp/0671212095/">How To Read A Book</a></b>" is for you. As much as it is guiding readers on how to get the most out of the books they read, it will guide authors on how to communicate the most in the books they write to their readers. Of course, this is not limited to just writing books, but writing articles, blogs, or just having conversations on social media or in person. Of course, if you're going to write, you will be subject to readers who, hopefully, have also read this book. So, be prepared as I described in the recommendation above. </p><p><b>Parents</b>, as your <b>teens </b>learn to read at the high school level, have them continue their growth and passion by reading "<b><a href="https://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Book-Classic-Intelligent/dp/0671212095/">How To Read A Book</a></b>." It will give them the tools to better understand and judge the accuracy and applicability of the materials that they will encounter in high school, college, on the internet, and the world around them. In fact, you should read this along with them so that you all can take your love of and time spent reading to the next level. </p><p>For <b>Christian apologists</b>, if "<b><a href="https://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Book-Classic-Intelligent/dp/0671212095/">How To Read A Book</a></b>" is not in your library, your library is incomplete. As I mentioned at the beginning of this review, I wish that I had read this book years ago as one of the first when I became interested in defending the truth of Christianity as part of my evangelical witness. </p><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/FaithfulThinkers/"><img alt="For more great resources on God's existence, science and faith issues, the Resurrection of Jesus, morality and politics, theology and apologetics, follow Faithful Thinkers on Facebook." border="1" height="40" src="https://jonbennallick.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Facebook-logo-ICON-02.png" style="color: white;" width="40" /></a> <a href="http://twitter.com/FaithfulThinker"><img alt="For more great resources on God's existence, science and faith issues, the Resurrection of Jesus, morality and politics, theology and apologetics, follow Faithful Thinkers on Twitter" border="1" height="40" src="https://jonbennallick.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Twitter-Logo-Icon-by-Jon-Bennallick-02.png" style="color: white;" width="40" /></a></div></div><div>
<p></p></div>Faithful Thinkershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04089768576413860677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5127174451684099058.post-78831623461709549642023-03-20T08:00:00.026-05:002023-07-04T07:03:47.199-05:00Is "Scientism" A Strawman of Atheists' and Scientists' Beliefs?<h1 style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">What Is Scientism?</span></b></h1><p>Scientism is an epistemic philosophy that values science as the exclusive source of knowledge and truth about the whole of reality. Scientism is usually presented in two forms: strong and weak (though not always associated with those terms). The concept of strong scientism holds that knowledge cannot be obtained outside the sciences, so it holds all other disciplines as irrelevant to the pursuit of truth. Such disregarded disciplines are (but not limited to) history and philosophy (ironically). The main idea behind strong scientism is that if a claim cannot be tested by some form of the five senses, then it cannot yield truth. Strong scientism lends its adherent to an attitude of disdain and disregard for those in non-scientific fields who attempt to speak about reality based on their discoveries.</p><p>The concept of weak scientism holds that non-scientific disciplines are merely inferior to the sciences. If discoveries of reality from the other disciplines come into conflict with current thinking in the sciences, those discoveries are not allowed to judge or influence the interpretations of reality that come from the sciences. The other disciplines are always placed under the judgement of the sciences but never the other way around. The interpretations of reality that come from the sciences are valued over the other disciplines' discoveries and either denial of the data or reinterpretation of the other disciplines' discoveries is required. Discoveries from other disciplines are thus limited to what ever is implied by the interpretations already held in the sciences or what ever necessarily grounds those ideas. Everything else is judged false. </p><p>While weak scientism articulates tolerance of other knowledge disciplines as opposed to the intolerance of other knowledge disciplines of strong scientism, the two versions ultimately result in the same thing. Weak scientism is just a detour to the same destination of strong scientism. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Maintaining Scientism</b></h3><p>I do not know anyone who actually defends strong scientism. Very few people who articulate a philosophy of strong scientism will maintain it after a few pointed questions are asked or observations are made. When the realization of the failure of strong scientism comes (whenever that is or was), the pivot is usually towards weak scientism. The person's goal in holding strong scientism was to place the sciences as the <b>arbiter </b>of truth, and weak scientism allows them to maintain that without the ludicrous claim that science is the only <b>source </b>of truth. </p><p>Philosopher J.P. Moreland addresses this subject in his book "<b><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2023/02/book-review-scientism-and-secularism.html">Scientism and Secularism</a></b>." I reviewed it earlier this year and have seen many atheists and science-minded folks (on <a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2019/07/should-christians-abandon-social-media.html">social media</a>) toss it aside as simply rejecting a strawman of scientism. They limit Moreland's concept of scientism to the strong version and do not consider his focus on the weak version. The value of Moreland's work is not in its defeat of strong scientism (what no atheist or scientist defends- the strawman) but in its demonstration that weak scientism is a clever detour to the same destination as strong scientism. Moreland demonstrates that if those who claim to reject strong scientism reject it because of the epistemic limits it has to investigate large portions of reality, they are logically obligated to reject weak scientism as well. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKQ_kCN4OPuD-l9BzhFyO2UoYF0OBsz6rUKSM0rvi4Qt9ulW88E1Enuv2gCPeqHNMF9p70FDkzka3NUbDO59g9IqT-mwTwRLHPPPB4T37lcyLYH1OBozwagMQAvf8UWjfUHDb062diZ2SEmwryrSf8D5C1sS--_zL0CACM9F5Mf2sgMNSWg3qLPnDk/s1920/Slide2.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Quote from Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland from his book "Scientism and Secularism": "These days, if an accepted scientific claim comes into conflict with an accepted nonscientific claim from another discipline (such as theology), which claim must be set aside? In our culture, the scientific claim always wins. Why? Simply because it is scientific. Scientism seems so obvious and pervasive to people that it can be stated without any need to defend it. Appealing to science to back one's claim is a conversation stopper that settles the issue."" border="0" data-original-height="1073" data-original-width="1920" height="358" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKQ_kCN4OPuD-l9BzhFyO2UoYF0OBsz6rUKSM0rvi4Qt9ulW88E1Enuv2gCPeqHNMF9p70FDkzka3NUbDO59g9IqT-mwTwRLHPPPB4T37lcyLYH1OBozwagMQAvf8UWjfUHDb062diZ2SEmwryrSf8D5C1sS--_zL0CACM9F5Mf2sgMNSWg3qLPnDk/w640-h358/Slide2.JPG" title="Quote from Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland from his book "Scientism and Secularism": "These days, if an accepted scientific claim comes into conflict with an accepted nonscientific claim from another discipline (such as theology), which claim must be set aside? In our culture, the scientific claim always wins. Why? Simply because it is scientific. Scientism seems so obvious and pervasive to people that it can be stated without any need to defend it. Appealing to science to back one's claim is a conversation stopper that settles the issue."" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p>Moreland's point is that the obvious failure of strong scientism comes in its insistence that the whole of reality is testable via the five senses. What is not so obvious is that forcing discoveries made without the five senses to be judged by disciplines that are limited by the five senses results in the same thing- insisting that the whole of reality is testable via the five senses. </p><p>Ironically, those who have rejected <a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2023/02/book-review-scientism-and-secularism.html">Moreland's work</a> on the subject are guilty of their own accusation: rejecting a strawman. That strawman comes by the atheist's or scientist's limiting of Moreland's point to the already agreed-upon failure of strong scientism. They do not accept that Moreland accepts that they accept the failure of strong scientism. But it is that agreement that serves as the foundation for Moreland's focus: the defeat of weak scientism as well. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Skip the Detour? </b></h3><p>Once the atheist or scientist can get past their own strawman, they can find great value in Moreland's work. What is interesting is that for those who wish to maintain the sciences as the arbiters of truth, Moreland actually makes the case for the extreme inefficiency of weak scientism. If the goal and the results are the same, why waste the resources required by the detour when they could be spent on scientific discovery? Many atheists and scientists have already made it through this line of reasoning as well (another agreement they may discover with Moreland). </p><p>They recognize that the appearance of tolerance is inefficient and have doubled down on their strong scientism. But then they are jerked back to the reality of its failures. They are stuck between what they want reality to allow and what reality actually does allow or what they want people to believe that they believe and what they actually do believe.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Inefficiency Vs. Intolerance</b></h3><p>As I said earlier, I do not know anyone who defends strong scientism (this includes atheists and scientists). However, I did not say that I do not know anyone who does not believe it. How is that combination possible? Because strong scientism cannot be defended. Those who believe it often change rhetoric from moment-to-moment, from tolerance (weak scientism) to ridicule (strong scientism). This lends proponents of strong scientism to accuse proponents of weak scientism of inefficiency, and it lends proponents of weak scientism to accuse proponents of strong scientism of intolerance. Some favor one or the other and spend more time in that rhetorical space, and you may hear them defend efficiency over tolerance or tolerance over efficiency, but you will never hear them include a solid defense of science as the sole arbiter of truth. Because of that, those who wish to maintain that science is the sole arbiter of truth are forced to pick their poison: inefficiency or intolerance. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Moreland Has A Better Idea</b></h3><p>Instead of choosing between either intolerance or inefficiency, why not reject the essential premise of both weak and strong scientism? If the atheist or scientist truly rejects the idea that the sciences are the sole source of truth, they never need to maintain (much less defend) the idea. Further, any accusation of inefficiency or intolerance regarding discovery of reality or non-scientific disciplines, respectively, will be false and indefensible. Ultimately, if the atheist or scientist rejects scientism they are freed from the rhetorical distractions and investigative limits, but they are faced with more uncomfortable challenge: a Divine foot is now in the door. Are atheists and scientists who currently insist upon scientism willing to allow this, or will they continue on their indefensible rejection of other sources of truth? </p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>To Investigate Further, I recommend these books:</b></h3><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><b><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2023/02/book-review-scientism-and-secularism.html">Scientism and Secularism</a></b>- J.P. Moreland</li><li><b><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2023/03/book-review-stealing-from-god.html">Stealing From God</a></b>- Frank Turek</li><li><b><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2016/11/book-review-where-conflict-really-lies.html">Where The Conflict Really Lies</a></b>- Alvin Plantinga</li><li><b><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/book-review-origin-science.html">Origin Science</a></b>- Norman Geisler and Kerby Anderson</li><li><b><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2023/01/book-review-magna-carta-of-humanity.html">Magna Carta of Humanity</a></b>- Os Guinness</li></ul><div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/FaithfulThinkers/"><img alt="For more great resources on God's existence, science and faith issues, the Resurrection of Jesus, morality and politics, theology and apologetics, follow Faithful Thinkers on Facebook." border="1" height="40" src="https://jonbennallick.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Facebook-logo-ICON-02.png" style="color: white;" width="40" /></a> <a href="http://twitter.com/FaithfulThinker"><img alt="For more great resources on God's existence, science and faith issues, the Resurrection of Jesus, morality and politics, theology and apologetics, follow Faithful Thinkers on Twitter" border="1" height="40" src="https://jonbennallick.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Twitter-Logo-Icon-by-Jon-Bennallick-02.png" style="color: white;" width="40" /></a></div></div><p></p>Faithful Thinkershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04089768576413860677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5127174451684099058.post-14608123550987096882023-03-06T08:00:00.010-06:002023-10-21T13:19:43.067-05:00Book Review: Stealing From God<h3 style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlMhOMbdjwLi1XUgzh20sqCFsitQ04xcgSF1XRGRIV8G_Gzp0ucnuwbt1fm3oP4p8mctjTN58l8jkUIfhyqeuWvWI8PJ3uNaRm6LZP-44zRa3rFe27FSv4N1r01wx_m9pX-r_UsZfiv014AhDbDG_H87FrjnfSyjRsnetUmg0zaq7rdiYK9rJbjbo4/s2475/Stealing%20from%20God.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Stealing from God by Frank Turek" border="0" data-original-height="2475" data-original-width="1650" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlMhOMbdjwLi1XUgzh20sqCFsitQ04xcgSF1XRGRIV8G_Gzp0ucnuwbt1fm3oP4p8mctjTN58l8jkUIfhyqeuWvWI8PJ3uNaRm6LZP-44zRa3rFe27FSv4N1r01wx_m9pX-r_UsZfiv014AhDbDG_H87FrjnfSyjRsnetUmg0zaq7rdiYK9rJbjbo4/w133-h200/Stealing%20from%20God.jpg" title="Stealing from God by Frank Turek" width="133" /></a></div></h3><h1 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Book Review- Stealing From God by Frank Turek</span></h1><p>It is quite common for atheists to claim that science and reason are completely on their side and rule out the possibility of God's existence. While it is to be expected that atheists would recognize that certain philosophical foundations exist in the world they (and we) live in, it is not necessarily expected that they would understand that their explanation of reality (without God) is incompatible with such realities. Laying out that explanation is the goal of <a href="https://crossexamined.org/dr-frank-turek/">Frank Turek</a>'s book "<b><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Stealing-God-Atheists-Need-Their/dp/1612917011">Stealing From God</a></b>." In order to be a logically consistent atheist, many of reality's foundations must be denied. And if they do not wish to deny them, then they must steal those foundations from God to argue against His existence. </p><p>Turek describes seven CRIMES that atheists commit against reality and their everyday life in order make their case against God (or even to attempt to explain reality without God). As he shows that reality demonstrates atheism to be false, he shows not only how each one provides a negative argument <i>against </i>atheism but a positive argument <i>for </i>God. In the final chapters Turek argues for the existence of not just any theistic God, but the God of Christianity- the true worldview. </p><p>In this review I'll go over some of the key points Turek makes throughout the book, provide several of my favorite quotes, and give my specific recommendations. <span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Key Points</h3><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Whether atheists admit it or not, atheism does have philosophical foundations that undergird its understanding of reality. The question is whether those foundations are reflected in reality or not. If not, then atheism is demonstrably false. </li><li>Several philosophical foundations undergird reality and everyday life: causality, reason, intentionality, information, morality, evil, and science.</li><li>These philosophical foundations of reality and everyday life are demonstrably, necessarily incompatible with atheism. Thus atheism is false. </li><li>Atheists, because they live in a non-atheistic world, take them for granted yet still try to use them as evidence against God.</li><li>In the world we live in, all effects have causes, but the chain of past causes must terminate at an uncaused cause (not an effect). Atheism either explicitly states that there is no uncaused cause or looks for explanations to avoid an uncaused cause. Thus atheism is incompatible with the world we live in.</li><li>In the world we live in, logic is discovered not made up. If logic is made up, no matter how sound an argument (soundness is also made up) is, reality does not necessarily reflect it, thus no conclusion has any necessary connection to the reality we live in. In atheism, logic is made up, thus if atheism is true, no argument for any conclusion (including that atheism is true) can be made. </li><li>In the world we live in, intentionality is a feature. Intentionality is only a property of metaphysical agents. Atheism (naturalism) necessarily denies the existence of any metaphysical realities, including agents and by extension, intentionality. Thus atheism cannot accurately describe the world we live in.</li><li>In the world we live in, information exists. Atheists communicate information in the books they write and the talks they give. However, information is necessarily the product of agents, and since agents are metaphysical realities, information is incompatible with atheism, making atheism incompatible with the world we live in.</li><li>In the world we live in, morality is objective and discovered; it is neither made up nor dependent upon the person or society. Atheism only allows for morality that is made up and any attempt to objectivize it reduces down to pragmatism which is not discovered to be good but is opined (made up) as good. Atheism is incompatible with morality and the world we live in.</li><li>In the world we live in, evil is real and objective (not dependent upon opinions of people or societies). However, for evil to be real and objective, "good" must also be real and objective. See the previous point to follow the logic to the conclusion.</li><li>In the world we live in, science is a valid method for discovering truth about nature. Because science necessarily depends upon causality and atheism is incompatible with causality (and several other foundations), science is incompatible with atheism. And since atheism is incompatible with science, atheism is also incompatible with the world we live in.</li><li>Each one of these stands alone to defeat atheism, but when they are combined, someone truly has to have blind faith to be an atheist. Atheism is ironically the delusion, not theism. </li><li>Defeating atheism, though, does not automatically mean that Christianity is true (other forms of theism have been offered). </li><li>Other forms of theism can be eliminated if the Resurrection of Jesus Christ happened in history. </li><li>Given the evidence of the Resurrection, it takes more faith to deny it than to accept it. </li><li>But becoming a Christian is not merely an exercise of head knowledge of the Resurrection, it takes trust in the sacrifice that Jesus Christ made on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins. This is where the head meets the heart and brings us into a loving and saving relationship with the Creator and Foundation that undergirds and accurately explains the world we live in.</li></ul><p></p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Quotes</h3><p>"Since atheists use arguments from science, reason, morality, and evil to support atheism, God must be dead. Right? No. There's a fatal problem with all of those atheist arguments against God--they are stolen from God Himself."</p><p>"The foundational assumptions of atheism make it impossible to make a sound intellectual case for atheism."</p><p>"When most atheists attack what they think is the God of the Bible, they are actually attacking the equivalent of an Old Testament idol—exactly the kind of invented being that the true God kept warning Israel was not real."</p><p>"The need to expose the faults in atheism and provide the evidence for Christian theism has never been greater. And since atheism appears to be growing, it's especially important to refute atheistic beliefs directly."</p><p>"With a flawed foundation, the entire superstructure of atheism comes crashing down. No future scientific discoveries or elaborate theorizing will rescue it. A house build on the sand of illogic is a goner."</p><p>"The existence of wacky philosophy doesn't discredit the existence of good philosophy any more than the existence of wacky science discredits the existence of good science."</p><p>"While it is true that one can use bad philosophy, it is impossible to use no philosophy."</p><p>"In an atheistic world where reason, consciousness, and free will are illusions, 'you' and 'me' don't really exist and neither do arguments. We're all blind. So you can assert that atheism is true, but you can't rely on arguments to support the claim. You have to accept it on blind faith."</p><p>"When [archaeologists and detectives] discover inscriptions or crimes, it's not a 'gap' in their knowledge about natural forces that led them to conclude intelligence was required. It's the positive knowledge that inscriptions require inscribers and crimes require criminals."</p><p>"God and science are not competing explanations for the universe and life, any more than Henry Ford and the laws of internal combustion are competing explanations for the Model T. Both are necessary. Learning more about how a car works will never disprove the existence of the carmaker. Likewise, learning more about how the natural world works (which enables us to make technological advances) will never disprove the existence of the Creator or Sustainer of the natural world."</p><p>"Some people like to murder; others don't. Without an unchangeable authoritative standard beyond human opinion, nothing is objectively right or wrong. Only if God exists is there an authoritative and unchanging standard (God's nature) that establishes what is morally right. An atheistic reality has no such standard."</p><p>"You can know what a book says while denying there's an author. But there would be no book to know unless there was an author. Likewise, atheists can know objective morality while denying God exists, but there would be no objective morality unless God exists."</p><p>"You don't have to appeal to God to write laws, but you do have to appeal to God if you want to ground them in anything other than human opinion."</p><p>"Christians can say with confidence that while some atheists have the attitude, 'There is not God and I hate him,' Christ had the attitude, 'There are atheists, and I love them. In fact, I died for them.'"</p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Recommendations</b></h3><p>"Stealing From God" is an important work for <b>Christians, in general</b>, to read. As Christians share the Gospel of Jesus Christ, they will encounter challenges that are unrelated to the truth of the Gospel, and many of those challenges will take the form of philosophical sufficiency of life without God. As part of being "prepared to give a reason for the hope that we have" we need to be prepared to give reasons for the lack of hope of the unbeliever. When people are searching for answers, it is because they realize that something truly is missing in their lives and/or worldview, but not every unbeliever recognizes that something is missing. In "Stealing From God" Frank Turek describes several things that are missing from the worldview of atheists (and even believers of other worldviews), and if even one of these things is understood and recognized, then a window of opportunity is open for the Gospel to take hold.</p><p>Anyone who is involved in discussions about <b>origins </b>will benefit from "Stealing From God." Today's prevailing view of scientism (in either the weak or strong form) prevents many science-minded people from even entertaining the idea that God is the Creator. In "Stealing From God" Frank Turek covers several of the foundations of science that are necessarily dependent upon God for their function. While science investigates the function of nature, philosophy investigates the function of science; and Turek shows how, if we grant that science is a valid way to investigate nature, then God is necessary to explain the function of science. </p><p>Anyone who is involved in discussions about <b>the mind and the brain</b>. Intentionality, free will, and creativity are all discussed in "Stealing From God." Turek shows how all these concepts, if true and not merely illusions, require God. He also demonstrates how, if God does not exist, then all these are necessarily illusions. If someone is to hold fast to their attempts to explain this world without God, they not only need to explain the illusions of intentionality, free will and creativity, but they need to understand and accept that none of these actually exist in their worldview and that non-existence applies to them; they are not exceptions to their own worldview. If an atheist wishes to except himself or herself from these implications, then they are guilty of stealing from God- they use God in order to argue against God. </p><p><b>Any atheist who champions "reason" and eschews "blind faith"</b> will benefit from the philosophical challenges presented by Turek. While the challenges he presents can be <i>emotionally</i> dismissed or ignored, they cannot be <i>intellectually</i> dismissed or ignored. They also cannot be merely thought exercises performed from the seat of an armchair. They must be applied to the thinker; the thinker must self-reflect and grapple with what the implications mean for them if they wish to continue to explain this world without God. </p><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/FaithfulThinkers/"><img alt="For more great resources on God's existence, science and faith issues, the Resurrection of Jesus, morality and politics, theology and apologetics, follow Faithful Thinkers on Facebook." border="1" height="40" src="https://jonbennallick.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Facebook-logo-ICON-02.png" style="color: white;" width="40" /></a> <a href="http://twitter.com/FaithfulThinker"><img alt="For more great resources on God's existence, science and faith issues, the Resurrection of Jesus, morality and politics, theology and apologetics, follow Faithful Thinkers on Twitter" border="1" height="40" src="https://jonbennallick.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Twitter-Logo-Icon-by-Jon-Bennallick-02.png" style="color: white;" width="40" /></a></div>Faithful Thinkershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04089768576413860677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5127174451684099058.post-4988411245674669242023-02-20T08:00:00.018-06:002023-10-29T22:20:15.191-05:00The Moral Freedom of Atheism🎉<h1 style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Introduction- The Moral Freedom of Atheism</span></b></h1><p>Many atheists today are embracing the fact that their worldview cannot support the existence of objective morality, purpose, or meaning. When objective morality, purpose, and meaning do not exist, that frees the individual to create their own morality, purpose, and meaning without the threat of judgment or damnation based upon their choices. </p><p>For the atheist, in a sense, this is quite freeing. It allows anyone and everyone to do whatever they want without any guilt or social discomfort. The freedom to do what one wants without limits opens up a world of possibilities that many have never even dreamed.<span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>A World of Possibilities</b></h3><p>But with that world of possibilities for us comes a world of realities for others. For what freedom we grant ourselves, must be granted equally for others. And what possibilities we would never dream of is the realities others will pursue: the reality that there is no true "good" or "evil," no true "right" or "wrong". Thus others are free to slander and censor, control and dictate, to abuse and subjugate, to rape and murder. And not to do these things only to others, but to do them to us, our families, and our friends. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3W6Grb6q3WU5tdvMLTN7jMdcAjH2Zr10x-6yNXXwjR_322f0Z3IV_6TsqRI7-Cshysmxo8_XyBUmXw_wgjHe9fmXpQia0omUjWPcpsEShGh1-h1Hh2Ln4YsMAoWd7V8wH8EuZH91W5_nEOfOqYOFBEGQzMStf7kEsdZ6nwkd850n09W74oY_u7phr/s1920/Slide2.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Quote from "The Beauty of Intolerance" by Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell- "Human slavery is a graphic illustration of how justice miserably fails to protect a minority in absence of adherence to a higher moral code."" border="0" data-original-height="1073" data-original-width="1920" height="358" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3W6Grb6q3WU5tdvMLTN7jMdcAjH2Zr10x-6yNXXwjR_322f0Z3IV_6TsqRI7-Cshysmxo8_XyBUmXw_wgjHe9fmXpQia0omUjWPcpsEShGh1-h1Hh2Ln4YsMAoWd7V8wH8EuZH91W5_nEOfOqYOFBEGQzMStf7kEsdZ6nwkd850n09W74oY_u7phr/w640-h358/Slide2.JPG" title="Quote from "The Beauty of Intolerance" by Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell- "Human slavery is a graphic illustration of how justice miserably fails to protect a minority in absence of adherence to a higher moral code."" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p>The "freedom" that atheists think they have discovered in their worldview becomes a living hell of constant fear of others, constantly "sleeping with one eye open", and a never ending war for power and control over their little bubble of reality, lest it be destroyed by those who's self-created purpose is to destroy the freedom of others, to abuse them (physically, sexually, psychologically, etc.) or to annihilate them and their "kind" simply because they don't like something about them. </p><p>Even if an atheist tries to reason from a person's previously acceptable behavior to the possibility of acceptable behavior in the future, that is still just that: only a possibility. For if objective morality, purpose, and meaning do not exist, everyone is free to contradict themselves from word to action, from moment to moment, from past to present to future. There is no "hypocrisy" for their words and behaviors are all consistent with the absence of objective morality, purpose, and meaning.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBj1LLVsL94AOFiwsZ60-veopzdjB-ZhENKSNrTV-oYFDqOsGlCu5N1asiSfvBOJVjwp-4_xsYzdxN-4ejWmc3mUHMnyr6pVmymxq1FOvhLnsVJmSEkG40dEsNqhJCEfuOWUbTN38O_Aa4ArT-UCR8dUidEpCU_mEq0K-toUZkcfsqNyRKgbXxYWF5/s1920/Slide24.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Quote from Os Guinness' book "Magna Carta of Humanity": "If everything is endlessly open to question and change, then everything is permitted, nothing is forbidden, and literally nothing is unthinkable."" border="0" data-original-height="1073" data-original-width="1920" height="358" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBj1LLVsL94AOFiwsZ60-veopzdjB-ZhENKSNrTV-oYFDqOsGlCu5N1asiSfvBOJVjwp-4_xsYzdxN-4ejWmc3mUHMnyr6pVmymxq1FOvhLnsVJmSEkG40dEsNqhJCEfuOWUbTN38O_Aa4ArT-UCR8dUidEpCU_mEq0K-toUZkcfsqNyRKgbXxYWF5/w640-h358/Slide24.JPG" title="Quote from Os Guinness' book "Magna Carta of Humanity": "If everything is endlessly open to question and change, then everything is permitted, nothing is forbidden, and literally nothing is unthinkable."" width="640" /></a></div><br /><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>What About Justice?</b></h3><p>Because there is freedom to do these things, justice has no place in reality, for nothing "wrong" or "evil" was done in the first place in order seek "justice."</p><p>There is only "vigilante revenge," and every person must accept the reality that they must be ready to murder anyone and everyone who threatens their own bubble of this atheistic world. What the atheist once thought was unthinkable to themselves becomes not only thinkable, not only doable, but obligatory, if they wish to continue to live in this world of "freedom" that they insist exists. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirSnRv0KqFiZ5nmwLY23okqW05hPU3qFh0ZHs-YmIKY3giz_Hj3gAbcRGZTRCz3nn8TI7u2y5w2UqQUlaziksPdbgIuSkdQpHqGFTFTOwzV0rQuCWmR0MLziRnlfkgh8lZvKUIHioQ0-RNmqADfmX61IfrQElXw0RBFibEo9ajJbAFOBp3yKAhtONv/s1920/Slide9.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1073" data-original-width="1920" height="358" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirSnRv0KqFiZ5nmwLY23okqW05hPU3qFh0ZHs-YmIKY3giz_Hj3gAbcRGZTRCz3nn8TI7u2y5w2UqQUlaziksPdbgIuSkdQpHqGFTFTOwzV0rQuCWmR0MLziRnlfkgh8lZvKUIHioQ0-RNmqADfmX61IfrQElXw0RBFibEo9ajJbAFOBp3yKAhtONv/w640-h358/Slide9.JPG" width="640" /></a></div><br /><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>The "Useful Fiction"</b></h3><p>The idea that there is freedom in atheism is short-sighted in all aspects: it appeals only to the emotions and desires of a single individual only in the present moment. It does not look logically at the implications for the individual in the future or for others in the present or future. A society cannot continue to exist on this view of reality; society cannot exist unless its individuals deny the fact (if atheism is true) that they each have this level of freedom. A society cannot continue to exist unless they accept the "useful fiction" of objective morality, purpose, and meaning. If atheism is true, then survival absolutely requires that society not only be agnostic about the existence of that which does not exist (God) but accept the lie as if it were true. </p><p>Evolution, if God does not exist and if a group is to continue to exist and evolve, <b>must necessarily</b> reward (through survival) false beliefs and punish (through extinction) true beliefs. If God does not exist, then we have only survived this long because our brains have evolved acutely and effectively towards the end of believing that which is false. On this view, the human brain necessarily cannot be trusted to reason towards what is true. Thus when an atheist tells you that they have "reasoned" to the conclusion of atheism, the logical thing to do is to reject that claim immediately as false. Reason has no connection with the conclusion that atheism is true because it necessarily (if atheism is true) cannot be connected. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Conclusion</b></h3><div style="text-align: left;">Intolerance of slavery, racism, and injustice is beautiful. But unless God exists to provide the objective foundation for morality and human value, such beauty is only a matter of opinion. The argument is quite simple to follow but difficult to accept:</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />1. If objective moral values and duties exist, then God exists.<br />2. Objective moral values and duties do exist. Therefore,<br />3. God exists</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><center><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OxiAikEk2vU" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></center><center><br /></center><h3><center style="text-align: left;"><b>Related Posts:</b></center></h3><center style="text-align: left;"><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2023/01/book-review-magna-carta-of-humanity.html">The Magna Carta of Humanity</a></li><li><a href="http://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2019/03/book-review-beauty-of-intolerance.html">The Beauty of Intolerance</a></li><li><a href="http://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2015/08/book-review-relativism-feet-firmly.html">Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted In Mid-Air</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2019/10/book-review-time-for-truth-living-free.html">Time For Truth</a></li><li><a href="http://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2016/11/book-review-where-conflict-really-lies.html">Where The Conflict Really Lies</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2022/12/atheists-dont-need-hell-to-be-good.html">Atheists Don't Need Hell To Be Good</a></li></ul><div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/FaithfulThinkers/"><img alt="For more great resources on God's existence, science and faith issues, the Resurrection of Jesus, morality and politics, theology and apologetics, follow Faithful Thinkers on Facebook." border="1" height="40" src="https://jonbennallick.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Facebook-logo-ICON-02.png" style="color: white;" width="40" /></a> <a href="http://twitter.com/FaithfulThinker"><img alt="For more great resources on God's existence, science and faith issues, the Resurrection of Jesus, morality and politics, theology and apologetics, follow Faithful Thinkers on Twitter" border="1" height="40" src="https://jonbennallick.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Twitter-Logo-Icon-by-Jon-Bennallick-02.png" style="color: white;" width="40" /></a></div></div></center>Faithful Thinkershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04089768576413860677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5127174451684099058.post-35079359019053664942023-02-06T08:00:00.016-06:002023-09-24T10:21:21.942-05:00Book Review: Scientism and Secularism<div style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1QvVt167zDESaDk01NvUfB0jenb2gjKMKNjnymwedIFZQOX4_3wW8KjeOjUyWd2CYuCcHn8RDeKJiJqZrJQ385ZV4Npfif93IqRjCzoh-3nmbIMRZh9ph26ccriRvuzTluLftZfFNQC_ESN4mLAODHNbjxIZDcaQbo2tgTkt4xa6Hglasvgg4IkPA/s500/Scientism%20and%20Secularism.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt=""Scientism and Secularism" by J. P. Moreland" border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="324" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1QvVt167zDESaDk01NvUfB0jenb2gjKMKNjnymwedIFZQOX4_3wW8KjeOjUyWd2CYuCcHn8RDeKJiJqZrJQ385ZV4Npfif93IqRjCzoh-3nmbIMRZh9ph26ccriRvuzTluLftZfFNQC_ESN4mLAODHNbjxIZDcaQbo2tgTkt4xa6Hglasvgg4IkPA/w129-h200/Scientism%20and%20Secularism.jpg" title=""Scientism and Secularism" by J. P. Moreland" width="129" /></a></div><h1 style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Book Review: Scientism And Secularism by J.P. Moreland</span></b></h1>All scientific research, discussion, and education is affected by a series of underlying beliefs that include what one grants as sources of knowledge. It is quite common in today's culture for people to accept "scientism," which limits sources of knowledge entirely to the sciences to the exclusion of any other claimed knowledge source or places all other sources of knowledge under the authority of the sciences. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Both of these philosophies stifle scientific discovery, places knowledge of anything outside of the natural realm beyond reach and erects seemingly impenetrable barriers in discussions about ultimate reality (including morality, beauty, and theology). This has serious implications in the sciences, education, politics, and basic everyday life. In his book "<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Scientism-Secularism-Learning-Dangerous-Ideology/dp/1433556901/">Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology</a>" Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland aims to demonstrate the dangers of scientism, how it is (unwittingly?) accepted and exercised in culture even by Christians, and provide an alternative philosophy of knowledge that will avoid the dangers, expand humanity's knowledge of reality in general, and move forward Christians' internal discussions of theology and the world and give them another tool in their evangelical toolbelts as they provide "...reasons for the hope that [they] have..." (1 Peter 3:15). In this review, I'll provide some of the key points, several important quotes, and my recommendations. </div><span><a name='more'></a></span><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Key Points:</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Strong scientism is the idea that the sciences are the only legitimate sources of knowledge about reality. Other sources of knowledge are not even entertained. </li><li>Weak scientism "allows" for other sources of knowledge but holds that science is the ultimate arbiter of truth. Thus it has forced all other knowledge disciplines to reinterpret their findings according to the science of the day. Ultimately it is strong scientism by a "less-threatening" name.</li><li>Because there is no other (ultimate) source of knowledge outside the sciences, there is no moral knowledge, historical knowledge, philosophical knowledge, or theological knowledge. This has resulted in the relativism we see in the university and culture today.</li><li>Numerous examples of non-scientifically verifiable claims and knowledge do exist.</li><li>In fact, the very claim of scientism is one such example, making scientism a self-refuting claim. Thus it is necessarily false and is actually an enemy of science (and knowledge) in the long run.</li><li>Science judges philosophy, and philosophy judges science. Depending on which claim must be established before the other can be judged. </li><li>Proper order placement of knowledge disciplines has effects on claims about the beginning of the universe, origin of life, existence of mental states, and the existence of objective morality and beauty among many others. </li><li>Scientism has stunted the debates surrounding theistic evolution and intelligent design by precluding non-scientific knowledge disciplines from the debates.</li><li>There are at least five different models for how science and theology can move forward together in their discovery of what is real and true. </li></ul></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Some Important Quotes:</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">"In order for science and certain other intellectual disciplines to be possible, we humans must be able to use our reason to go beyond our sense, reach into the world's deep structure, and grasp, formulate, and verify the theories we form about that deep structure."</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">"To the extent that scientism is embraced in our culture, our moral and spiritual claims will be 'de-cognitivized.' In other words, our deepest beliefs about life, knowledge, history, and reality will seem to be utterly implausible--not just untrue, but unworthy of rational consideration."</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">"These days, if an accepted scientific claim comes into conflict with an accepted nonscientific claim from another discipline (such as theology), which claim must be set aside? In our culture, the scientific claim always wins. Why? Simply because it is scientific. Scientism seems so obvious and pervasive to people that it can be stated without any need to defend it. Appealing to science to back one's claim is a conversation stopper that settles the issue."</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">"The first problem with weak (and strong) scientism is that it diminishes the intellectual authority of other important fields, especially biblical studies and theology."</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">"Advocates of weak scientism are confused about the relative cognitive strength of <span style="font-style: italic;">an assumption</span> and <i>a claim that is based on that assumption.</i> Weak scientism believes that a <i>claim</i> based on an assumption has greater warrant than the strength of the <i>assumption</i> itself. In reality, though, the claim is only as good as the assumption upon which it rests. And because the assumptions are not scientific assumptions, but rather philosophical assumptions, philosophy has a kind of primacy over science. Therefore, weak scientism's claim that science always take precedence over other disciplines is false."</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">"...a culture, which has a set of background assumptions--or, a <i>plausibility structure--</i>sets a framework for what people think, which affects how that they are willing to listen, evaluate, feel, and behave. The framework shapes what people consider plausible or implausible."</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">"Often, in order to get people to hear the gospel, we have to address solely a person's private, felt needs and promise that Jesus will change their lives and help them. There's nothing wrong with this as long as it is rooted in the deeper claim that Christianity is true, is based on solid evidence, and can be known to be true. But scientism has forced the church to offer the gospel simply because it works rather than because it is true and can be known to be such."</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">"Classically, freedom meant <i>the power to do what one ought to do...</i>Contemporary freedom has come to be understood as <i>the right to do whatever one wants to do...</i>By undermining moral knowledge, scientism has provided the context for the contemporary view of freedom and, consequently, it has led to moral chaos."</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">"It is not enough just to know Scripture; as Christians, we must also understand the systems of thought, practice, and value in our culture that are worldly, and be able to make this clear to fellow Christians and explain how to refute those ungodly systems using both biblical and nonbiblical evidence (cf. 2 Cor. 10:3-5)."</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">"Christians must be taught not only what they believe but why they ought to believe it. This will especially involves exposing and undermining scientism, and dealing with issues relating to science and the Bible."</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">"The very concept of 'faith' has been redefined and has now replaced reason. Today, faith is choosing to believe something in the absence of evidence or reasons for the choice. Faith used to mean a confidence or trust based on what one knows. Given the current definition, ubiquitous throughout the church, we Christians have unintentionally played right into the hands of advocates of scientism. By thinking of faith in this way, we are tacitly implying that we believe in the tenets of Christianity without any evidence or reasons at all."</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Recommendations</b></h3><div style="text-align: left;"><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The first recommendation I will give is for any <b>Christian involved in scientific research, education, and/or discussions</b> (whether it is internal with other Christians or external in apologetic and evangelistic efforts). Moreland shows not only how we may be allowing some version of scientism to limit our own knowledge, but he also shows how we can identify that it may be limiting others and ways in which we may be able to make others aware so they overcome that foundational barrier and be able to move conversations (and discovery) forward. </li><li>My second recommendation is for Christians involved in discussions of morality and politics. Scientism has been a primary driving force for the moral relativism, thus the reliance in politics on who has the most power. As you learn more about scientism and how it came to be the dominant philosophy in culture, you will see how to address moral and political issues at a more foundational and wider reaching level. </li><li>My third recommendation is for a more focused audience of my first: those who are involved (either in research, education, or discussion) of origins from a Christian perspective. I often hear Christians claim that we cannot allow our philosophy or theology to interfere with our science. Unfortunately, that is a direct application of weak scientism that needs to be removed from our thinking. This book help you understand how even weak scientism fails and should be abandoned in our discussions of origins. </li><li>Finally, a general recommendation for all Christians. As we proclaim (and often defend) the truth of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, scientism (even the weak version) can get in the way of people accepting this historical fact- no matter the strength of the case for the resurrection of Jesus as the best possible explanation, a philosophy of scientism will preclude the person from accepting even the possibility of a supernatural miracle. It is important that we understand where these people are coming from and how to show the inadequacies of such a philosophy. </li></ul><h4 style="text-align: left;"><b>Articles Inspired By This Book</b></h4><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2023/03/is-scientism-strawman-of-atheists-and.html">Is Scientism A Strawman of Atheists' and Scientists' Beliefs?</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2023/04/the-dangers-of-scientism-to-truth-seeker.html">The Dangers of Scientism To The Truth Seeker</a></li></ul></div></div>Faithful Thinkershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04089768576413860677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5127174451684099058.post-29531914258024827572023-01-30T08:00:00.009-06:002023-01-30T08:00:00.181-06:00Where Do Tradition and People Meet?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjO0TRi1shgspGy-XP9SlBOvl_tTJPlnLIVPwRNwW6h0Mu0yw6MwMbT5iKnVMQfiLbVIoqMbvzAbTgWdx_oxgjjF8e4dCeIJxg2r2WPxsZvmWeiGN0muzAvKYiBtUySzV8ph1AcUzl7PBO3emslCR5gXnJushkRjXzZ2iBCWr5IDpLN5dXXw_MC3LMY/s4608/silhouette-1082129.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2592" data-original-width="4608" height="113" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjO0TRi1shgspGy-XP9SlBOvl_tTJPlnLIVPwRNwW6h0Mu0yw6MwMbT5iKnVMQfiLbVIoqMbvzAbTgWdx_oxgjjF8e4dCeIJxg2r2WPxsZvmWeiGN0muzAvKYiBtUySzV8ph1AcUzl7PBO3emslCR5gXnJushkRjXzZ2iBCWr5IDpLN5dXXw_MC3LMY/w200-h113/silhouette-1082129.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>How does an older generation communicate the truth of the Gospel to a newer generation?<br />
<br />
We have to distinguish between content and method. The content (the Gospel) is the ontological truth that <b>can not</b> be divorced from reality, thus that content <b>may not</b> be changed from generation to generation. The method is <b>how</b> the content is communicated which <b>may</b> be changed from generation to generation within objectively true (more content) moral limits.<br />
<br />
Tradition does consist of both content and method. It is important that we recognize that no matter how old or new a truth-claim is, if it is false, it must be rejected; but if it is true, then it must be accepted. The historical event of the Resurrection of Jesus is the content that has not changed since the day it happened (1 Cor 15). Part of our discipling the next generation must include historical instruction- a defense of the historical event of the Resurrection (the ontological truth that must be passed down to the next generation).<br />
<br />
But if a method of communication falls outside the limits of morality, then no matter how old or new it is, it must be abandoned. If it is within the limits, then it may continue to be used. The Apostle Paul stated that he adapted his method of communicating the Gospel not just to a new generation but to different cultures. Part of our discipling the next generation must also include moral instruction- ethical views (and a defense of the particular view based upon both moral content given in Scripture and logic) that will give them both freedom and limits to guide how they communicate what must be passed down.<br />
<br />
While there will always be differences in preferred methods of communication from generation to generation, there will always be methods of communication that are within the moral boundaries. If we wish to communicate the truth of the Gospel to the next generation, we must be willing to recognize that there is much more moral freedom in our methods of communication than some people realize, and we need to make the choice to adapt the method to the next generation.<br />
<br />
Tradition, when its claims are true, meet the new generation of people in the older generation's choice to change how that truth is communicated so that the new generation will understand it, accept it, and transmit it when they become the older generation.<div><br /></div><div>For more:</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2019/07/should-christians-abandon-social-media.html">Should Christians Abandon Social Media?</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2019/03/book-review-beauty-of-intolerance.html">The Beauty of Intolerance</a></li><li><a href="http://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2014/03/book-review-message-behind-movie.html">The Message Behind The Movie</a></li><li><a href="http://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/book-review-christian-ethics.html">Christian Ethics</a></li></ul><div><br /></div></div><div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/FaithfulThinkers/"><img alt="For more great resources on God's existence, science and faith issues, the Resurrection of Jesus, morality and politics, theology and apologetics, follow Faithful Thinkers on Facebook." border="1" height="40" src="https://jonbennallick.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Facebook-logo-ICON-02.png" style="color: white;" width="40" /></a> <a href="http://twitter.com/FaithfulThinker"><img alt="For more great resources on God's existence, science and faith issues, the Resurrection of Jesus, morality and politics, theology and apologetics, follow Faithful Thinkers on Twitter" border="1" height="40" src="https://jonbennallick.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Twitter-Logo-Icon-by-Jon-Bennallick-02.png" style="color: white;" width="40" /></a></div></div>Faithful Thinkershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04089768576413860677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5127174451684099058.post-22812124435027917162023-01-09T08:00:00.219-06:002024-01-22T19:57:50.830-06:00Book Review: The Magna Carta Of Humanityđź—˝<h3 style="text-align: left;"><b><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2b4eQG3Ow6kRgNil-3x7h4TxMl1znRtGvJqoFU5u4Y7hTQUkC1NUeKEPuUK0q22AggT_Itbe0r6aGePaPUWWiBejh7pHHAJ-nKamXRw5ZABuE94MF8a3Yw-Xp2GKqCexj3W3Z3L2roOV1DWitQpfYGsk5yeel1JOAKUcZ6QHq8UCZhBCLcjnTNznP/s500/Magna%20Carta%20Of%20Humanity.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt=""The Magna Carta of Humanity" by Dr. Os Guinness" border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="324" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2b4eQG3Ow6kRgNil-3x7h4TxMl1znRtGvJqoFU5u4Y7hTQUkC1NUeKEPuUK0q22AggT_Itbe0r6aGePaPUWWiBejh7pHHAJ-nKamXRw5ZABuE94MF8a3Yw-Xp2GKqCexj3W3Z3L2roOV1DWitQpfYGsk5yeel1JOAKUcZ6QHq8UCZhBCLcjnTNznP/w129-h200/Magna%20Carta%20Of%20Humanity.jpg" title=""The Magna Carta of Humanity" by Dr. Os Guinness" width="129" /></a></div></b></h3><h1 style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">The Magna Carta of Humanity: Sinai's Revolutionary Faith and The Future of Freedom</span></b></h1><p>In today's world it is difficult to be online, at parties, with family, at work, or even just in public without hearing about the current cultural and political climate in the United States. Even if the Christian case-maker tries to avoid politics, they still confront culture and will be challenged with the hypocrisies of the Church and those who claimed to be members of the Church who just happened to also have founded The United States of America. And it is rare that challenges stop there. </p><p>People are passionate about one political view (or party) or another. Extremes on the different sides constantly accuse opposing sides of trying to destroy democracy, the Constitution, and even freedom itself. The rhetoric and apparent goals of different politicians can get our heads spinning out of control as we try to make sense of what is going on, how it affects us (and our future), what we can do about it to bring some measure of sanity in the conversations we inevitably get sucked into, and how we can respond logically with both gentleness and respect when the challenges come. </p><p>That is where I have found great value in Os Guinness' "The Magna Carta of Humanity" (<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Magna-Carta-Humanity-Revolutionary-Freedom/dp/0830847154">Hard copy</a>, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Magna-Carta-Humanity-Revolutionary-Freedom/dp/B08T6KCPZ5/">audiobook</a>, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Magna-Carta-Humanity-Revolutionary-Freedom-ebook/dp/B08L9R61SH/">Kindle</a>). Guinness digs into the foundations, principles, and histories of the cultural and political divide in America. He compares and contrasts them in such a way that brings crystal clarity to the current situation. He points out that before we can even talk about "make America great again" (MAGA), we must truly understand what made America great <u>in the first place</u>. And before anyone wishes to reject the ideals that founded America, they must first truly understand those ideals and truly understand the implications of the ideals they are trading them for. </p><p>In my effort to help you determine if this is a book that is worth your time (and I believe it is), I will include a few of the skeletal points of the book, several of my favorite quotes (mainly from the Introduction- I don't want to spoil too much), and my more specific recommendations. </p><span><a name='more'></a></span><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>My Awareness</b></h3><div>I have to start with the podcast that drew my attention to this excellent book. <a href="https://alisachilders.com/podcast/">Alisa Childers</a> interviewed Dr. Os Guinness on her podcast (a great podcast that I highly recommend on its own, by the way) about whether or not Christians should be involved in politics. He not only answered in the affirmative but answered why that is the case and how America (and the world) has reached the point that such action is necessary. Here is the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ-W0dDdJgE">video</a>:</div><div><br /></div><div><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rQ-W0dDdJgE" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></div></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Upon completing the podcast, I immediately purchased the audio book and listened to it twice then picked up the hard copy to do a more analytical reading. This helped me to better grasp, understand, and appreciate the case presented by Guinness. It was definitely worth the additional time and effort spent. </div><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Key Points:</b></h3><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The division in the USA today is due to two mutually exclusive views of freedom. </li><li>The first originates from the Exodus and was the foundation of the American Revolution of 1776. This view understands freedom as the individuals possessing the power to do what they ought to do. ("Sinai") </li><li>The second view of freedom originates with ancient atheists and was the foundation of the French Revolution in 1789. This view understands freedom as individuals possessing complete autonomy. ("Paris")</li><li>Paris, along with its many offshoots, have all proved disastrous for human life and liberty. Whereas Sinai (even when applied inconsistently) has been the only one that has resulted in true liberty.</li><li>Paris fails (and will continue to fail) because it has a false understanding of both the dignity and fallenness of humanity. On the contrary, Sinai recognizes these realities at its core. </li><li>The freedom of Sinai, though, is not self-sustaining. It requires individual self-awareness and focused and intentional dedication of each succeeding generation if it is to be maintained for future generations. </li><li>America must recognize the sins of its past and move forward. The way forward proposed by Paris (and the progressive left) is that of hate and revenge. While the way forward proposed by Sinai and Jesus (and even Martin Luther King Jr.) is that of love and forgiveness. </li><li>Because freedom is incompatible with hate and revenge, the way of Paris necessarily offers no hope of true freedom now or in the future. It pays lip service to the term while insisting on a contradictory concept.</li><li>America is currently in the process of switching from the ideals of 1776 to the ideals of 1789, and it, along with its citizens, will suffer the same fate as all the other nations that have tried its numerous versions (including Russia, China, and North Korea). </li><li>There is still time for America to stop the current trajectory and reclaim the love and forgiveness that is required of true freedom and reject the hate and revenge that has done nothing but prove disastrous. <b> </b></li></ul><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Favorite Quotes:</b></h3><div>"The great American republic is as deeply divided today as at any moment since just before the Civil War. Yet this time no Abraham Lincoln has stepped forward to address the evils, appeal to the Declaration of Independence, defend the better angel of the American character, demonstrate the magnificence of 'government of the people, by the people, for the people' in our time, and call for a 'new birth of freedom.'"</div><div><br /></div><div>"America appears to be abandoning the ideals of the American Revolution or ideas that are disastrous not only to America but to freedom and to the future of humanity."</div><div><br /></div><div>"The American crisis is a crisis of freedom and must be understood as such...The present crisis stems from the fact that over the last fifty years, major spheres of American society have shifted their loyalties and now support ideas that are closer to the French Revolution and its heirs rather than the American Revolution."</div><div><br /></div><div>"Such current movements as postmodernism, political correctness, tribal and identity politics, the sexual revolution, critical theory (or grievance studies), and socialism all come down from 1789 and have nothing to do with the ideas of 1776...They are the *dramatis personae* without which the drama of America's current crisis cannot be understood or resolved."</div><div><br /></div><div>"The United States is suffering from profound philosophical cynicism, moral corruption, and serious social collapse...And too many Americans, especially those who are younger, have already been bewitched by the ideas coming from the other revolution, 1789, and not 1776...they now appear hell-bent on rejecting ideas from their past, which they have not tried to understand, even as they embrace ideas from the other revolution, which they have not examined as closely as they need to. Many in America see only their ancestors' errors and at once think that makes them wiser and better than their ancestors. Yet they do not try to understand what their ancestors thought and why, let alone ask where the alternative ideas will lead them."</div><div><br /></div><div>"The Russian and Chinese revolutions represented the first successful establishment of secularist regimes in history; the Russian doing so in Europe and the Chinese in Asia. Along with Hitler's Germany, the Russian and Chinese revolutions were also the first regimes to produce genuine totalitarianism. With the horrendous quartet of their total ideology, total mobilization, and total surveillance, and total repression, these totalitarian regimes became the epitome of oppressive evil and the complete denial of liberty."</div><div><br /></div><div>"Far from ushering in the final form of freedom and representing a second coming of Epicurus, [the French, Russian, and Chinese Revolutions]' claims to be the true and reliable source of human freedom have been left in tatters by the history of their repressive secularist regimes in the twentieth century and the slaughter of millions of their own citizens."</div><div><br /></div><div>"Is it still possible in the advanced modern world to build societies with both freedom and order at the same time? To build and sustain communities and nations that demonstrate the highest values of human dignity, freedom, justice, equality, compassion, peace, and stability?"</div><div><br /></div><div>"Historically, it was the Exodus Revolution and not the French Revolution, that lay behind the genius of America's ordered freedom or covenantal and constitutional freedom. A rediscovery of the foundational principles of the Exodus Revolution is therefore the once and future secret of true revolutionary faith and a sure path to freedom, justice, equality, and peace."</div><div><br /></div><div>"The...American Revolution [is] decisively different from the French Revolution, and the future of freedom depends on appreciating the differences and choosing between them."</div><div><br /></div><div>"<i>America cannot endure permanently half 1776 and half 1789. The compromises, contradictions, hypocricies, inequities, and evils have built up unaddressed. The grapes of wrath have ripened again, and the choice before America is plain. Either America goes forward best by going back first, or America is about to reap a future in which the worst will once again be the corruption of the best.</i>"</div><div><br /></div><div>"Will the coming generation return to faith in God and to humility or continue to trust in the all-sufficiency of reason, punditry, and technocracy and the transformative power of politics?"</div><div><br /></div><div>"The future for freedom and humanity is in the balance, as Sinai spells freedom for the future whereas Paris has so far spelled out freedom betrayed and the coming of a long night of expanding statism, surveillance, and repression."</div><div><br /></div><div>"This is not a plea for some special protection or exemption for faith. It is time and past time to set out the debate in its fullest terms and to recognize that the sequel to this generation's choices will be consequential and historic."</div><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Recommendations:</b></h3><p>While I believe that every reader, who takes the time to read the book seriously, would have much to gain from it, I do believe this book is of special interest for several groups:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><b>Anyone who is involved in political discussions online or in person</b>. Having a firm grasp on the sources of disagreement will guide us in how to address those disagreements. Recognizing areas of agreement will build a bridge that those we disagree with can cross to accepting the truth that we wish to communicate. Having those of these in our minds will help keep us <a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2018/04/book-review-before-you-hit-send.html">calm, respectful, loving, and confident in discussion</a> and will keep the discussion focused and productive. </li><li><b>Any scientist</b>. When untrained and unlearned politicians sense a threat to their power, they will censor scientific research and the scientists (even if the research doesn't legitimately provide a threat). Scientists will not be permitted to do research freely nor will they even be able to pretend to (much less, actually) follow the evidence where it leads. This is the way of Paris and 1789. All these naturalists and New Atheists who think that "science" is the end-all/be-all: they are about to reap a world that will destroy everything they have worked for, everything they are working towards, and everything they cherish. Not because they conceded to belief in God and man's sinfulness, but because they explicitly rejected God and his moral authority over all individuals including those in government who have power over them. Let's also not forget that this is not limited to politicians; it extends to corporations and those in power there as well. This similarly applies to any <b>educator, researcher, and creative</b>. </li><li><b>Anyone who supports the views of postmodernism, Critical Theory, tribal politics, identity politics, Marxism, socialism, and/or communism</b>. Dr. Guinness shows how hate and revenge are at the core of these ideas and that history demonstrates that each of these ends in disaster for the individual who holds to them and nations that rule by them, no matter how they are applied; and any "new" ideas of how to apply them are doomed to fail as well. </li><li><b>Private and Home Educators.</b> It is important that American and World history be taught with an eye to its application to the children we are teaching. We teach history not merely for trivial information, but so that our children will not make the same mistakes of the past. Freedom is not self-sufficient. It must be taught and applied to the world around our children so they can see the importance of this part of their education and what will happen is they too become "bewitched" by the glitter of Paris. Also, if there ever was a time to teach students the <a href="http://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2013/01/book-review-cold-case-christianity.html">evidence for Christianity</a>, it is today (see Christian apologists and theologians below). </li><li><b>Christian apologists and theologians.</b> Os Guinness' discussions and case depends highly upon the truth of several ideas that Christian apologists commonly (and maybe not so commonly) defend, thus he gives renewed urgency in showing these to be true to the world. They include: Obviously, God's existence, but also man being created in the Image of God, human fallenness, trust (biblical faith and not blind faith), objective morality, human dignity, human equality, libertarian free will (properly understood, of course), the historicity of the exodus, truth, knowledge, and numerous more that I'm sure you will see as you come across topics you frequently address. Also, the utopian promises of Paris cannot ever be fulfilled by anyone or any government because they are false and do not reflect reality. It is important to show others that these are false, so that they do not continue to trust the claims of Paris and its off-shoots and reap its consequences. Ultimately, this book highlights several strong, basic human desires, including freedom and justice, that cannot ever be fully and perpetually fulfilled in this life because of sin. It is only through the <a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/book-review-risen-jesus-and-future-hope.html">atonement of Jesus Christ and the truth of his resurrection</a> that there is ultimate hope for love and forgiveness now and perpetually in the future when He returns.</li><li><b>Pastors and Church Leaders</b>. In today's culture, that is accepting a <a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2021/05/book-review-another-gospel.html">"progressive" and false gospel</a> that is often grounded in postmodernism and is focused on social justice and politics, it is important to see the differences between those ideas that are sneaking into the Church, how they differ from Scripture and the world we live in, and the disastrous results if your congregation accepts them. You do not have to have a bent towards the political in your church, just a passion for truth and defending it (see Christian apologists and theologians, above)</li></ul><div><b>Articles inspired by this book</b></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2023/06/the-atheists-moral-compass.html">The Atheist's Moral Compass</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2023/02/the-moral-freedom-of-atheism.html">The Moral Freedom of Atheism</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2024/01/giving-lip-service-to-martin-luther.html">Giving Lip Service to Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement</a></li></ul></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b>Additional Books that I Recommend to Enhance Your Understanding</b></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2019/10/book-review-time-for-truth-living-free.html">Time For Truth</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2021/05/book-review-another-gospel.html">Another Gospel</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2019/03/book-review-beauty-of-intolerance.html">The Beauty of Intolerance</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2016/08/book-review-legislating-morality-is-it.html">Legislating Morality</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2015/10/book-review-gods-crime-scene.html">God's Crime Scene</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2018/04/book-review-before-you-hit-send.html">Before You Hit SEND</a></li></ul><div><div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/FaithfulThinkers/"><img alt="For more great resources on God's existence, science and faith issues, the Resurrection of Jesus, morality and politics, theology and apologetics, follow Faithful Thinkers on Facebook." border="1" height="40" src="https://jonbennallick.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Facebook-logo-ICON-02.png" style="color: white;" width="40" /></a> <a href="http://twitter.com/FaithfulThinker"><img alt="For more great resources on God's existence, science and faith issues, the Resurrection of Jesus, morality and politics, theology and apologetics, follow Faithful Thinkers on Twitter" border="1" height="40" src="https://jonbennallick.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Twitter-Logo-Icon-by-Jon-Bennallick-02.png" style="color: white;" width="40" /></a></div></div><div><br /></div></div></div>Faithful Thinkershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04089768576413860677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5127174451684099058.post-13001576097190832142023-01-02T08:00:00.007-06:002023-06-20T09:01:55.736-05:00Answering Death and Suffering- Christianity is the Only Option<h3 style="text-align: left;"><b><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivyogWjP49ceoIpSUaHZQ4Wpk8xGVziRT30lmDT4eYaBfGraxTPQ0J6nSCzCrbhfmAKw_Gi0XKayai3ugP_VkZgZzqlkgSgaWzkELstpqT0m8FvCnlT-Lm7aT_gbVlu_5oQlXKxV87Y02dRJ9jhdysPa8ndC2cPjIyjwwRZV1sjmG7K5m1uZR5oBY3/s960/Slide26.JPG" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="How does atheism deal with suffering?" border="0" data-original-height="540" data-original-width="960" height="113" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivyogWjP49ceoIpSUaHZQ4Wpk8xGVziRT30lmDT4eYaBfGraxTPQ0J6nSCzCrbhfmAKw_Gi0XKayai3ugP_VkZgZzqlkgSgaWzkELstpqT0m8FvCnlT-Lm7aT_gbVlu_5oQlXKxV87Y02dRJ9jhdysPa8ndC2cPjIyjwwRZV1sjmG7K5m1uZR5oBY3/w200-h113/Slide26.JPG" title="How does atheism deal with suffering?" width="200" /></a></div></b></h3><h1 style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">All Worldviews Must Address Death and Suffering</span></b></h1><div><span style="font-family: inherit; text-align: -webkit-auto;">Suffering is a great challenge of life and a great inconvenient truth to the world's religions and worldviews. Many different worldviews offer different ways to address this challenge. The worldview of naturalism simply makes the recognition that "life is suffering, then you die." If naturalism is true, then this is a very accurate, though bleak, view of life- you suffer for no apparent reason then you die and become worm food. </span></div><div><div style="-en-clipboard: true;">
<span style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-size-adjust: auto;"><span style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-size-adjust: auto;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div style="-en-clipboard: true;">
<span style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-size-adjust: auto;"><span style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-size-adjust: auto;">I have heard some people claim that this is quite satisfying because it frees them from any expectations of others and grants them the satisfaction of being able to do whatever they want to numb, avoid, or drown out the suffering of life. Granting that "life is suffering, then you die" is not satisfaction, though; it is surrender. It is not inspiring; it is depressing. But the truth is that if atheism is true, it really doesn't matter if this statement represents surrender or if it is depressing; if it is true, then we are stuck with it and its implications of surrender and depression. </span></span><br />
<span style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-size-adjust: auto;"><span><a name='more'></a></span><span style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-size-adjust: auto;"><br /></span></span><span style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-size-adjust: auto;"><span style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-size-adjust: auto;">However, if Christianity true, the situation is the complete opposite. Christianity grants that we will go through great suffering in life but gives that suffering purpose and promises ultimate defeat of suffering. </span></span><br />
<span style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-size-adjust: auto;"><span style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-size-adjust: auto;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-size-adjust: auto;"><span style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-size-adjust: auto;">"Life is suffering, then you die" is a claim about reality, and that claim can be tested. When we investigate the <a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2019/04/did-historical-jesus-rise-from-dead.html">Resurrection of Jesus Christ</a>, we are testing this depressing claim about reality directly. Jesus makes the very opposite claim in John 16:33: "In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world." If Jesus did, in fact, rise from the dead, then it demonstrates that his claim is true and that in Him there is no false hope or delusion, but that there is a <b>way</b>, there is <b>truth</b>, and there is <b>life</b> (John 14:6).</span></span></div>
<br />
We have to remember that at the very heart of the Christian Gospel is suffering- <a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2018/06/the-wounded-healer-finding-ultimate.html">the suffering of the Son of God</a>. God became human to suffer with us. He is not above suffering; He is not apathetic to suffering; He is not insensitive to suffering. <br />
<br />
The Gospel is not a plan of denying suffering. It is not a plan of avoiding suffering. It is not a plan of surrendering to suffering. It is a plan of <b>conquering </b>suffering.<br />
<br />
The plan of the Gospel is that the emotional and physical pain, suffering, and even your death in this world can be conquered in the God-man, Jesus Christ. It is through His death and Resurrection that this victory over suffering and death is achieved.<br />
<br />
Christianity is the only worldview that claims to face the suffering of life head-on and overcome it. Christianity is the only worldview that is even truly on the table of overcoming suffering. But how can we know if the only worldview that claims to conquer suffering is even true? How can we know that this promise is not just some false hope or delusion?<br />
<br />
One of the unique features of Christianity among the varying worldviews is that its truth is dependent upon an historical event that can be investigated. When we investigate the evidence for the <a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2019/04/did-historical-jesus-rise-from-dead.html">Resurrection of Jesus Christ</a>, we investigate the evidence that pain, suffering, and death can truly be overcome and that we will survive beyond this life to see their ultimate defeat.<br /><br />
I encourage you to investigate the evidence that there is hope beyond the suffering in this world. Investigate the evidence that Jesus rose from the dead and see that the claim that "Life is suffering, then you die" is just as false as it is depressing.</div><div><br /></div><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Check out these books and posts for more:</b></h3><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2018/10/book-review-historical-jesus-ancient.html"><b>The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence For The Life of Christ</b></a></li><li><a href="http://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2013/01/book-review-cold-case-christianity.html"><b>Cold Case Christianity</b></a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/book-review-risen-jesus-and-future-hope.html"><b>The Risen Jesus and Future Hope</b></a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2018/12/book-review-alive-cold-case-approach-to.html"><b>Alive: A Cold Case Approach to the Resurrection</b></a></li><li><a href="http://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2012/09/book-review-7-truths-that-changed-world.html"><b>7 Truths That Changed The World</b></a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2018/06/the-wounded-healer-finding-ultimate.html"><b>The Wounded Healer: Finding Ultimate Purpose In Your Suffering</b></a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2018/10/a-deeper-understanding-of-christs-love.html"><b>A Deeper Understanding of Christ's Love Through Suffering</b></a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2017/09/stories-we-all-got-em.html"><b>Stories: We All Got 'Em</b></a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2018/07/is-there-meaning-to-life.html"><b>Is There Meaning To Life?</b></a></li></ul>
<br /><div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><br />Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/FaithfulThinkers/"><img alt="For more great resources on God's existence, science and faith issues, the Resurrection of Jesus, morality and politics, theology and apologetics, follow Faithful Thinkers on Facebook." border="1" height="40" src="https://jonbennallick.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Facebook-logo-ICON-02.png" style="color: white;" width="40" /></a> <a href="http://twitter.com/FaithfulThinker"><img alt="For more great resources on God's existence, science and faith issues, the Resurrection of Jesus, morality and politics, theology and apologetics, follow Faithful Thinkers on Twitter" border="1" height="40" src="https://jonbennallick.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Twitter-Logo-Icon-by-Jon-Bennallick-02.png" style="color: white;" width="40" /></a></div></div><div><br /></div></div>Faithful Thinkershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04089768576413860677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5127174451684099058.post-83526255342876813542022-12-19T08:00:00.008-06:002023-06-20T09:06:39.242-05:00How Suffering and Evil Lead People to Consider Christ<h3 style="text-align: left;"><b><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhijh7iOisZEqtF3Ath0i_vcSzbC61ZyQQLPn_7tdQvkAAc-zWnbElYdubLLyxOTLGzNZiDfMzh7EYiO0UUF0GUIEkM8EvXrX9Rco4bnyMYn5ZUvhV6p4i1mBZDKb6MbSbRI4Y-DFmsLXtalaOgMFGvzGTt6AXBIElWVwloHMT9l3voUQ04oHjSfYSu/s1920/desperate-2293377_1920.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="If God exists, does He really care about my suffering?" border="0" data-original-height="1248" data-original-width="1920" height="130" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhijh7iOisZEqtF3Ath0i_vcSzbC61ZyQQLPn_7tdQvkAAc-zWnbElYdubLLyxOTLGzNZiDfMzh7EYiO0UUF0GUIEkM8EvXrX9Rco4bnyMYn5ZUvhV6p4i1mBZDKb6MbSbRI4Y-DFmsLXtalaOgMFGvzGTt6AXBIElWVwloHMT9l3voUQ04oHjSfYSu/w200-h130/desperate-2293377_1920.jpg" title="If God exists, does He really care about my suffering?" width="200" /></a></div>Introduction</b></h3><div><h1 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: small; font-weight: normal;">Evil and suffering are making their existence painfully known in our world. Whether we realize it or not or intend to do it or not, evil, pain, and suffering do cause us to reflect philosophically on their meaning and purpose. At some (breaking) point, they force us to ask deep philosophical questions of life:</span></h1><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Why me? Why now?</li><li>
Is God <b><i><u>really</u></i></b> there?!</li><li>
If he is, does he <b><u><i>really</i></u></b> care about my suffering?</li><li>
What purpose could he <b><i><u>possibly</u></i></b> have for my suffering (not to mention everyone else's too)?</li></ul>
Many unbelievers think that the very existence of evil, pain, and suffering in life is incompatible with the all-loving and all-powerful God of the Bible. However, the truth is the exact opposite. Allow me to explain:<br />
<br />
<h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Why Suffering In the Life of the Unbeliever?</b></h3>
For many of us, it takes a profound, painful event or series of painful events that cause us to seek answers to the deeper questions. God desires to be known, and if there are any experiences that would cause us to diligently seek him, we can <b>expect </b>that those experiences would enter our lives.<br />
<br />
"Anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."- Hebrews 11:6b<br />
<br />
When we reflect upon the philosophical questions triggered by evil, pain, and suffering, and we honestly search for an explanation to make sense of them, we are earnestly seeking answers. No one can escape the questions of purpose ("why" questions) without considering a Purposer (God) as an explanation. When we consider God's existence in the faces of evil, pain, and suffering, we cannot merely consider His existence on emotional grounds. Logical and evidential grounds are demanded as well. <br /><blockquote>"I have found that the more I reflect philosophically on the attributes of God the more overwhelmed I become at his greatness and the more excited I become about Bible doctrine. Whereas easy appeals to mystery prematurely shut off reflection about God, rigorous and earnest effort to understand him is richly rewarded with deeper appreciation of who he is, more confidence in his reality and care, and a more intelligent and profound worship of his person."- William Lane Craig</blockquote>The evil, pain, and suffering that we experience in life has the ultimate purpose of bringing us into a loving relationship with the Creator and Savior that will last for eternity. The evil, pain, and suffering that we experience must be seen in light of Jesus' death and Resurrection. Hebrews 11:6a states that without faith it is impossible to please God. But the faith that is described here is <a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2019/08/is-it-biblical-to-have-evidential-faith.html">not a blind leap into the dark</a>; it is a trust based on evidence of the <a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2019/04/did-historical-jesus-rise-from-dead.html">historical event of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ</a>.<br />
<br />
The evil, pain, and suffering in your life has brought you to examine the evidence of the reason for the evil, pain, and suffering of Jesus Christ. It is in the light of Jesus' suffering, death, and Resurrection that our suffering makes sense and is given an eternal purpose. God was faithful in the past; He is the same throughout eternity; therefore, God will be faithful in the present and in the future. You can reasonably trust Him with your life now and in the future. <br /><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Conclusion</b></h3>
God has a purpose for the evil, pain, and suffering in our lives- "...Our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us" (Romans 8:18). If the suffering in this finite life brings you to Christ or closer to Him, then what comes of that finite time of suffering will continue into eternity, an infinite amount of time without suffering and only with pure joy. </div><span></span><div><br /></div><div><b>For more:</b></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2018/06/the-wounded-healer-finding-ultimate.html"><b>The Wounded Healer: Finding Ultimate Purpose In Your Suffering</b></a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2018/10/a-deeper-understanding-of-christs-love.html"><b>A Deeper Understanding of Christ's Love Through Suffering</b></a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2017/09/stories-we-all-got-em.html"><b>Stories: We All Got 'Em</b></a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2018/07/is-there-meaning-to-life.html"><b>Is There Meaning To Life?</b></a></li></ul><div><br /></div></div><div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/FaithfulThinkers/"><img alt="For more great resources on God's existence, science and faith issues, the Resurrection of Jesus, morality and politics, theology and apologetics, follow Faithful Thinkers on Facebook." border="1" height="40" src="https://jonbennallick.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Facebook-logo-ICON-02.png" style="color: white;" width="40" /></a> <a href="http://twitter.com/FaithfulThinker"><img alt="For more great resources on God's existence, science and faith issues, the Resurrection of Jesus, morality and politics, theology and apologetics, follow Faithful Thinkers on Twitter" border="1" height="40" src="https://jonbennallick.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Twitter-Logo-Icon-by-Jon-Bennallick-02.png" style="color: white;" width="40" /></a></div></div>Faithful Thinkershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04089768576413860677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5127174451684099058.post-69753969986359701032022-12-05T08:00:00.007-06:002023-06-20T09:07:21.763-05:00Atheists Don't Need Hell To Be Good<h3 style="text-align: left;"><b><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaIcVQx4QZOm8ntlubGT0HTevFG7KoDTcLYKECUgAqxrWXWwSpgbEEMTbTO5bRxPJ0LuquGBU3PfZPf3pIuZvPzSDB1aYHp5uDX6fDsWZXR9w2L06J2OqB3z45mn1e_b0Jx21qt_oGQ18MhKAMKEIEAW2U8p18bovh618-4znOv3r7r6Ycl4YRXlul/s1920/heaven-g9a46dbf12_1920.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Heaven or Hell?" border="0" data-original-height="1280" data-original-width="1920" height="133" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaIcVQx4QZOm8ntlubGT0HTevFG7KoDTcLYKECUgAqxrWXWwSpgbEEMTbTO5bRxPJ0LuquGBU3PfZPf3pIuZvPzSDB1aYHp5uDX6fDsWZXR9w2L06J2OqB3z45mn1e_b0Jx21qt_oGQ18MhKAMKEIEAW2U8p18bovh618-4znOv3r7r6Ycl4YRXlul/w200-h133/heaven-g9a46dbf12_1920.jpg" title="Heaven or Hell?" width="200" /></a></div></b></h3><h1 style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Are Atheists "Holier Than Thou?"</span> </b></h1><p>Every now and then I come across an atheist who claims that atheists who choose good behavior are more moral than religious people (particularly Christians) who choose the same behavior. The reason that they give for this is that Christians need the fear of hell to scare them away from bad behavior whereas atheists do good for the sake of the behavior's being good. This is simultaneously a character attack as well as a philosophical attack. Both deserve to be addressed; however, today I will focus on the philosophical. <span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p><p>To get at the philosophical problem, a few sets of questions need to be asked: </p><p></p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li>What does "good" mean? Is that meaning true for everyone whether they believe it is true or not? </li><li>What reliable tools can be used to accurately compare behaviors to that definition? </li><li>What reliable, truth-seeking faculties can utilize such tools properly to help the atheist judge a behavior as "good"? </li></ol><p></p><p>Atheists need to be able to give a definition of "good" that is true for everyone. Without a definition, there is no comparison to be made, and since they are making a claim that is objective (true for all humans in all cultures at all times) their definition must be objective as well. </p><p>They need logic (the tool) to be able to compare and present arguments that demonstrate that a behavior meets that definition. Without a tool to judge whether the claimed comparison is accurate or not, claiming that a behavior is "good" (or "evil" for that matter) is just a matter of opinion, and has no applicability beyond the person making the claim. </p><p>Atheists also need a truth-seeking brain that can properly use the tool to make this determination. Just like any other tool, logic is useless without someone or something to use it. Our brains use the "measuring" tool of logic to measure the soundness of arguments and the truth-value of their conclusions. If we cannot properly use a tool that measures truth, then we cannot determine the truth-value of claims.</p><p>Unfortunately, the atheist has NONE of those three. If atheism is true, morality can, at best, be defined relatively (something can be true for one group of people but not another group). Logic is invented not discovered, thus reality (because it existed prior to logic's invention) is not governed by it. And the brain is the product of a process that is survival-seeking not truth-seeking, thus it is merely pragmatic in the visible moment and will use the invented logic not for truth but for what feels good or to survive at that time- even if logic was discovered, the brain will never trust the tool when the tool reveals something that is antithetical to pleasure or survival in the moment. </p><p>So, does the atheist need hell to be good? No, not at all. If good cannot be objectively defined, then "good" is just another term that we can use however we want- it does not require a definition. And since there is no tool or faculty that can reliably judge a comparison of a behavior to any definition, then no one can justify saying that any behavior is not "good" with or without "hell." Thus not only can the atheist be and is good without hell, so can everyone else be and is good without hell. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>If Everyone Is "Good"...</b></h3><p>Of course, because of how this view can remove all moral boundaries and restrictions, this view is quite appealing. But before we jettison God, three sets of questions must be asked of the person who leans towards being okay with this:</p><p>The subjective set of questions: How does this make you feel? Do you feel fear of what someone else may do to you or those you love and get away with it because they call it "good" (e.g. vandalizing, stealing, raping, murdering, etc.). Or do you feel a freedom because you can be one of those people who can do whatever you want to others no matter how it affects them and get away with it because you call it "good"?</p><p>The objective set of questions: Is this how reality actually works? Is it true that morality can only be defined relativistically? Is it true that it is "good" that people have freedom to call rape and murder "good"? Is it true that there is no reliable tool by which to make any kind of moral (much less, reality) judgments? Is it true that our brains are only focused on survival and not truth?</p><p>And the final set of questions that brings these two sets together: </p><p>Are you willing to bring your subjective feelings into alignment with the objective truth of reality? Are you willing to grant everyone else the same "freedom" you wish to have yourself, and are you willing to hold yourself to the same moral standard that you want to hold everyone else? Are you committed to what is true or to what feels good?</p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Reality</b></h3><p>The reality of the situation is this: if God does not exist, then good and evil are not objective, logic is not a reliable tool to judge claims about reality (including whether behaviors are good or evil), and our brains cannot be trusted to properly use the tool of logic. These realities make life unlivable. If atheism is true, then these false beliefs are simply "useful fictions" for explaining the paradox of reality: humans should not exist, yet they do exist. If you are entertaining the idea that God does not exist, are you satisfied with being told lies simply so that your life can merely appear to be livable? </p><p>If God does not exist, then life is unlivable, and the suffering we face is because we are constantly trying to do something this world cannot support: it cannot support our or any other being's living. If God does not exist, life is a foreign object in this world. Our suffering is due to the fact that this world's immune system is trying to remove us from it, and this world WILL win. Thus life is defined by suffering, and for what? Our suffering is purposeless and so is life and living, if atheism is true.</p><p>The good news is that none of this is true because atheism is false. God DOES exist, and there is ample evidence that He does, including the existence of objective morality, the fact that logic is not invented, that our brains are reliable tools for finding truth (despite our feelings) if we train it to use the objective tool of logic, but particularly the <a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2019/04/did-historical-jesus-rise-from-dead.html">resurrection of Jesus Christ</a>. Thus even though life is full of suffering, life is not defined by it. Our suffering does have a purpose, and life IS livable. But we have to make a conscious choice to accept this reality: the reality that God does exist, that we cannot be good without God declaring us such, and that <a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-it-arrogant-to-claim-that-jesus-is.html">Jesus Christ is the only way through which this is accomplished for us</a>. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;">For more on these topics, check out these books:</h3><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><a href="http://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2016/11/book-review-where-conflict-really-lies.html"><b>Where The Conflict Really Lies</b></a></li><li><b><a href="http://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/book-review-agents-under-fire.html">Agents Under Fire</a></b></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2019/10/book-review-time-for-truth-living-free.html"><b>Time For Truth</b></a></li><li><b><a href="http://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/book-review-word-of-god-and-mind-of-man.html">The Word of God and the Mind of Man</a></b></li><li><a href="http://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2015/08/book-review-relativism-feet-firmly.html"><b>Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted In Mid Air</b></a></li></ul><div><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/FaithfulThinkers/"><img alt="For more great resources on God's existence, science and faith issues, the Resurrection of Jesus, morality and politics, theology and apologetics, follow Faithful Thinkers on Facebook." border="1" height="40" src="https://jonbennallick.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Facebook-logo-ICON-02.png" style="color: white;" width="40" /></a> <a href="http://twitter.com/FaithfulThinker"><img alt="For more great resources on God's existence, science and faith issues, the Resurrection of Jesus, morality and politics, theology and apologetics, follow Faithful Thinkers on Twitter" border="1" height="40" src="https://jonbennallick.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Twitter-Logo-Icon-by-Jon-Bennallick-02.png" style="color: white;" width="40" /></a></div></div><p></p>Faithful Thinkershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04089768576413860677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5127174451684099058.post-12138237214276541992022-10-31T08:00:00.001-05:002022-10-31T08:00:00.183-05:00Monday Musings: COVID-19, Gratuitous Suffering, and God's Purposes<p>The last three years of the COVID-19 pandemic has taken its toll in many ways on every person. It has not really left anyone untouched. Many have had friends and family, if not themselves, in hospitals, barely clinging to life as doctors scramble to give them relief and a chance at recovery.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3ZSlEaC2wyrT1TDCBLWZztM59XCG4kU7joIw4S_fzmpEEB8sji_lBiZOIQ-x2Ktr-UUyfM5PDhstXaLDaw-mqnSBKAqlu34BCqym6qhmz1wt5dsGNBi6LjnXwOMk-ugM5ThaTCBLkq61aZsV45vHzhKyjOiSmhFf3sHYMr_EOJ-h5IsyixGI75zJu/s667/Rick%20Carr.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="667" data-original-width="500" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3ZSlEaC2wyrT1TDCBLWZztM59XCG4kU7joIw4S_fzmpEEB8sji_lBiZOIQ-x2Ktr-UUyfM5PDhstXaLDaw-mqnSBKAqlu34BCqym6qhmz1wt5dsGNBi6LjnXwOMk-ugM5ThaTCBLkq61aZsV45vHzhKyjOiSmhFf3sHYMr_EOJ-h5IsyixGI75zJu/w150-h200/Rick%20Carr.jpg" width="150" /></a></div>Rick Carr is one who found himself a victim of the virus, spent many months in the hospital and is still recovering from its effects today. As he could, he brought the readers of his blog along through the journey of pain, prayer, gratitude, and healing. You can read about it at his site <a href="https://therickcarr.com/">Extreme Gratitude</a>. <p></p><p>A line in his post on <a href="https://therickcarr.com/healing-and-prayer/">healing and prayer</a> made a profound point: <br /></p><p></p><blockquote>"If this long, miserable process has resulted in others being helped, encouraged, strengthened in their faith, and praying like they haven’t before, then it has been worth it."- Rick Carr</blockquote><p>Many people wonder how an all-loving God could allow them to suffer, even those who have followed Christ all their lives. The Apostle Paul states the purpose of our suffering in his letter to the Romans:</p><p></p><p></p><blockquote>"We know that all things work together for the good of those who love God: those who are called according to His purpose."- <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+8&version=HCSB">Romans 8:28 HCSB</a></blockquote><p>"All things." Not just the good things. Not just the enjoyable or fun things. "All things" includes the suffering that we endure. Most people have no issues with that part; however, they often think that the suffering is for <i>their </i>good. The profound point made by Carr above, that may be difficult to consider in the middle of our suffering, is that the "good" of Romans 8:28 may not necessarily be for <i>us</i> but for <i>someone else</i>. </p><p>We, of course, are not the only one who "love(s) God: who is called according to His purpose." Numerous others are in that category, as well. It is very possible, if not probable, that the suffering that we endure is for the eternal benefit of someone else: whether that benefit is coming to salvation in Christ or coming to know Christ better. And please notice that my use of "or" implies only the minimum of one person's eternal benefit; multiple people stand to have eternal benefits that can include both coming to salvation in Christ AND multiple others coming to know Christ better. </p><p></p><p>Now, let us back-track in the eighth chapter of Romans to the eighteenth verse: </p><p></p><blockquote> "For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is going to be revealed to us."- <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+8&version=HCSB">Romans 8:18 HCSB</a></blockquote><a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+8&version=HCSB"></a><p></p><p>No matter how much suffering with a finite duration we endure (even all of it combined), it is overcome by a single good purpose of God's with an infinite duration. This means that your finite suffering is not gratuitous. There is a purpose for it, even if that purpose does not necessarily involve you. And a single infinite purpose is infinitely greater than all the finite suffering in the grand view of eternity. </p><p>This can be hard to understand, much less accept, when we are in the pain of suffering. But we know that because God has been faithful in the past and that He is the same ("yesterday, today, and forever"- Heb 13:8), we know that God WILL use our finite suffering for the infinite good of <i>someone</i> who is called according to His purpose. </p><p>This is not something that is merely hoped for, or blindly believed; it is something that is logically known- a trust that is grounded in the reality of who God is and the reality of what He has done. This is not a blind faith. This is a biblical and logical faith, a faith that demonstrates reason and purpose for our suffering, a faith that demonstrates how and why an all-loving and all-powerful God would allow so much suffering in our lives. </p><p>For more on suffering and God please continue your journey of faith with these encouraging posts:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2018/06/the-wounded-healer-finding-ultimate.html">The Wounded Healer: Finding Ultimate Purpose In Your Suffering</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2018/10/a-deeper-understanding-of-christs-love.html">A Deeper Understanding of Christ's Love Through Suffering</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2019/04/did-historical-jesus-rise-from-dead.html">Did The Historical Jesus Rise From The Dead?</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/job-suffering-and-game-of-chess.html">Job, Suffering, and a Game of Chess</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2017/09/stories-we-all-got-em.html">Stories, We All Got 'em</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2012/04/is-pain-inherently-evil.html">Is Pain Inherently Evil?</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/of-tornadoes-flat-tires-and-moore.html">Of Tornadoes, Flat Tires, and Moore</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2018/07/is-there-meaning-to-life.html">Is There Meaning to Life?</a></li></ul><p></p>Faithful Thinkershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04089768576413860677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5127174451684099058.post-8742018741968597782022-10-27T21:00:00.006-05:002023-02-03T20:13:49.495-06:00Elon Musk Finally Buys Twitter- Is Truth Now In Jeopardy?<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXR8a1hqGM_Plf-jUexIYvISgFf4LAMtOcXRI6X1NUEP516qRIsBNPytwh8PsVp4ax8rzd0p2mZGAm8uyvCgbTLy2-n5Hm9HsypNQhzfbf9AVtsGR0JuPW8YEwFwOXpi_u6cVmlyUUXNXomUFYNM_VZWFNU9p2CpeoblWC0ufMXDzvudXwxEkZOHGp/s225/Elon%20Musk.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Elon Musk" border="0" data-original-height="225" data-original-width="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXR8a1hqGM_Plf-jUexIYvISgFf4LAMtOcXRI6X1NUEP516qRIsBNPytwh8PsVp4ax8rzd0p2mZGAm8uyvCgbTLy2-n5Hm9HsypNQhzfbf9AVtsGR0JuPW8YEwFwOXpi_u6cVmlyUUXNXomUFYNM_VZWFNU9p2CpeoblWC0ufMXDzvudXwxEkZOHGp/s16000/Elon%20Musk.jpg" title="Elon Musk" /></a></div>So Elon Musk has <a href="https://www.engadget.com/elon-musk-takes-over-twitter-011047797.html">finally closed his deal with Twitter</a>. We've been anticipating this purchase for quite some time, whether your anticipation of the inevitable change has been fearful or hopeful. Many people fear that Musk's purchase of the Twitter social media platform will bring a political change in the United States of America and, possibly, the world. They fear that elections in America will be affected due to <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-11362619/Elon-Musks-Twitter-look-like-Chief-Twit-plans-unleash-free-speech-defeat-spam-bots.html">Elon Musk's claimed dedication to "free speech" and lack of censorship</a>.<p></p><p>It seems that those who fear Musk's claimed dedication fear it because they do not support it. Those who fear free speech and lack of censorship do so because they know that they cannot win in the public marketplace of ideas without suppression of contrary viewpoints, evidence, and arguments. It seems that they fear that they do not have enough logical, rational points to convince an educated and thinking public to accept their policies, so they must resort to fallacious and false appeals and suppression of counter-evidence and counter-points. It seems that such fear and actions are unfounded if those who exhibit this fear truly do have evidence and logic on their side. </p><p>If Elon Musk is serious about free speech on his platform and serious about <a href="https://www.engadget.com/elon-musk-advertisers-hellscape-172909516.html">ending censorship</a>, then let the ideas and points be heard. Let them be analyzed. Let them be judged. <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/media-fears-elon-musk-taking-over-twitter-because-they-dont-trust-americans-intelligence-critics-say">If you think people are judging incorrectly, educate them on the proper and logical way to judge</a>. Be willing to be educated, yourself, and to change your mind when the evidence and logic point strongly in the other direction. </p><p>Will free speech and lack of censorship affect elections in America and around the world? It certainly could. Where there is freedom of speech and freedom to hear and analyze points of view, outcomes have a chance to be different than if the public cannot hear, much less, analyze options. But that is nothing to fear, unless you fear a land that this governed by the will of a thinking and educated people. It is nothing to fear, unless you fear a culture and society that is shaped by the majority and not the elite few who control what information is given to the public. It is nothing to fear, unless you fear open discussion of ideas and the possibility that you may be found to be wrong. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2018/04/book-review-before-you-hit-send.html" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Quote from "Before You Hit Send" by Emerson Eggerichs- “We are free to reject the beliefs we deem false. But civil people do not have a right nor desire to hate those who adhere to systems of belief they find abhorrent. Civility does not mean we sanction their 'truth claims'. However, to bring them out of their false persuasions, we must show them love and respect. If we do not, we will not win their hearts. Furthermore, we sour them to what we believe. When we detest people, they will not listen from the heart to the truth claims of our faith.”" border="0" data-original-height="1073" data-original-width="1920" height="358" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhf7S7BknsxEJ74_GpDqEKj-AsEXBOCmkmJPizWS9H57zOP44AxU_tJPIqKsD2Gc-xhlF9i55d1cfcsAnXTvprh-R7tjb9eoco_yMh1OxbK4op4rL3J2rwmU4oD-YKjCjQfki-JuW7XEE7s09z5z84u7TOLVd2u8mngtX1CgzayGDtkrjBfikNI5QCo/w640-h358/Slide11.JPG" title="Quote from "Before You Hit Send" by Emerson Eggerichs- “We are free to reject the beliefs we deem false. But civil people do not have a right nor desire to hate those who adhere to systems of belief they find abhorrent. Civility does not mean we sanction their 'truth claims'. However, to bring them out of their false persuasions, we must show them love and respect. If we do not, we will not win their hearts. Furthermore, we sour them to what we believe. When we detest people, they will not listen from the heart to the truth claims of our faith.”" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p>Of course, if the majority is truly wrong, then it needs to be demonstrated, and logical and moral efforts must be made to persuade the majority, not limiting freedom and censoring the false ideas. Limiting freedom and enacting censorship appears weak. If you have the true ideas, why use a strategy that appears weak when you have the strength of reality on your side?</p><div>In the Twitter world that Elon Musk claims to be intent on creating, for those who do fear a lack of censorship on Twitter and cannot defend their claims logically, a different strategy will be employed. <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-will-face-an-early-twitter-challenge-preventing-advertiser-flight-11666871828?mod=hp_lead_pos6">Truth and falsehoods will be heard</a>. But because both will be heard, they can be analyzed and will be freely accepted or rejected. Falsehood is now in jeopardy of more people on Twitter not believing it, but as a logical consequence, so is truth. <a href="https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/musk-tells-twitter-advertisers-platform-will-not-become-free-for-all-hellscape">Your claims and my claims will be in jeopardy on Twitter in the coming months and years if Elon Musk is serious</a>. </div><p>Those who wish to be free thinkers and not allow those with the loudest voice to think for them must prepare themselves to properly analyze the loudest claims that will come and be prepared to accept the truth even when it is not what you originally thought. We also need to be prepared to defend the claims that we believe to be true against both logical and illogical critique. No doubt that Twitter will continue to have plenty of illogical critique of ideas (even false ones), but if Elon Musk is serious about free speech and removing censorship from Twitter, then logical critiques and truth will soon be heard on Twitter once again, and users must prepare themselves to both deliver and consume tweets appropriately. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2019/10/book-review-time-for-truth-living-free.html" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Quote from "Time For Truth" by Os Guinness- "Truth is true even if nobody believes it, and falsehood is false even if everybody believes it."" border="0" data-original-height="1073" data-original-width="1920" height="358" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgU9KYXPwodkvDOY6wKs444MvPeaxV3FbaKdyhUBeoKFF5S4y2c9N7XH0E_wtVQhattM8jA8EWKm8k9Vo21ZbbJBz0-RHu-J_tEWYoZonFPWtjHUxzuiHY8gmeg3rVLrIeYSdhn6KUHgTyukOTiX35JYEip40fIuZ7Nncehiaafz8pKigwHN32fFTRO/w640-h358/Slide11.JPG" title="Quote from "Time For Truth" by Os Guinness- "Truth is true even if nobody believes it, and falsehood is false even if everybody believes it."" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p>See the posts below for more on being focused on truth and using logic to judge the soundness of arguments presented.</p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2019/08/4-questions-to-ask-before-you-hit-send.html">4 Questions to Ask Before You Hit SEND</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2020/06/8-tips-to-discuss-politics-race.html">8 Tips to Discuss Politics, Race, Religion, and Other Controversial Topics</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2019/07/should-christians-abandon-social-media.html">Should Christians Abandon Social Media?</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2020/06/5-things-all-colored-people-hold-in.html">Finding Common Ground In A Time of Stark Division</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2020/10/quotes-crisis-of-truth.html">52 Quotes on the Crisis of Truth Today's Truth</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2019/11/45-quotes-about-relativism-vstruth.html">45 Quotes About Relativism and Truth</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2019/07/norman-geisler-10-quotes-on-logic-and.html">10 Quotes on Logic and Christianity</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2018/04/book-review-before-you-hit-send.html">Before You Hit Send: Preventing Headache and Heartache</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2019/10/book-review-time-for-truth-living-free.html">Time for Truth: Living In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2017/06/book-review-come-let-us-reason.html">Come, Let Us Reason</a></li></ul><p></p>Faithful Thinkershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04089768576413860677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5127174451684099058.post-54179120907620481362022-10-17T08:00:00.009-05:002023-09-30T06:10:49.682-05:00Secularism: A World of Propaganda and Power<h1 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Secularism: A World of Propaganda and Power</span></h1><p>Logic is a reliable tool of knowledge because it is grounded in the eternal nature of God. Humans have access to this tool because they are created in the image of God. If God does not exist, then neither does the reliable tool nor the access to it (even if it did exist). The world of being a functional atheist outside the privacy of our homes (secularism) is a world with no knowledge and only propaganda and power. </p><p>There is a concerted effort to remove God from the public consciousness of America. If God is removed, then there is no higher moral authority by which to judge one party as moral or immoral, and no foundation on which to challenge the party in power. </p><p>While it seems that American politics is increasingly being characterized by secularism (regardless of which political party), it is important that we consider this trajectory when we go to the polls in November. If God is removed from the consciousness of America, there will never be an end to the power struggles among those who disagree until one has so overwhelmed the other that there is no discussion or intellectual debate allowed publicly or privately; even the implication of a challenge to those in power will be punished. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFFCCRaJtOsKFd1fuqzX-x8Ki-ZtBbMAcAQGyquo7jfsd_dFUuRtbNlaGEnSk1SIsSCRXuh5nufMxRViBDevShi9Wo57IiWY56tBx2TIsZE83Vi20SVHpBgrPofN_mGRCU2Q0hPnSuIrihMiEIG4lSd8oX9A10JJtluh7y66hFq_4JIDrBk4K1MpBM/s1920/Slide8.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Quote from "Time for Truth" by Os Guinness - “What happens when we succeed in cutting away truth-claims to expose the web of power games only to find we have less power than the players we face? If truth is dead, right and wrong are neither, and all that remains is the will to power, then the conclusion is simple: Might makes right. Logic is only a power conspiracy. Victory goes to the strong, and the weak go to the wall.”" border="0" data-original-height="1073" data-original-width="1920" height="358" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFFCCRaJtOsKFd1fuqzX-x8Ki-ZtBbMAcAQGyquo7jfsd_dFUuRtbNlaGEnSk1SIsSCRXuh5nufMxRViBDevShi9Wo57IiWY56tBx2TIsZE83Vi20SVHpBgrPofN_mGRCU2Q0hPnSuIrihMiEIG4lSd8oX9A10JJtluh7y66hFq_4JIDrBk4K1MpBM/w640-h358/Slide8.JPG" title="Quote from "Time for Truth" by Os Guinness - “What happens when we succeed in cutting away truth-claims to expose the web of power games only to find we have less power than the players we face? If truth is dead, right and wrong are neither, and all that remains is the will to power, then the conclusion is simple: Might makes right. Logic is only a power conspiracy. Victory goes to the strong, and the weak go to the wall.”" width="640" /></a></div><p></p><div><b>For more please check out these posts and books:</b></div><div><ul><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2022/10/monday-musings-human-depravity-and.html">Monday Musings: Human Depravity and American Government</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2020/06/riots-looting-and-controlling-our.html">What If God Is Removed From the American Experiment?</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2016/08/how-should-christians-vote-in-political.html">How Should Christians Vote In Political Elections</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2018/02/would-jesus-participate-in-politics.html">Would Jesus Participate In Politics?</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2019/10/book-review-time-for-truth-living-free.html">Time For Truth: Living In A World of Lies, Hype and Spin</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2019/10/book-review-time-for-truth-living-free.html">Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible?</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2020/06/whose-morality-should-we-legislate-44.html">Whose Morality Should We Legislate? 44 Quotes From Frank Turek and Norm Geisler</a></li></ul></div><p><br /></p>Faithful Thinkershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04089768576413860677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5127174451684099058.post-15048238590328108422022-10-10T08:00:00.025-05:002023-10-29T22:14:27.372-05:00Human Depravity and American Government<div style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjg6tmLsVDQumFGxk0RKXNGPRoKzqymOuEfFLycVpootsSQh0b1a39-yDhIwvPKPwOnUP_f6w9h0gxGecf48jFmtqrKR8xWYkiNKr4Y4WyqvZVqJodbHqP33PRv_Yf-oRMC9DocPfSsYCXXVEbwAKH0JFgT7k4n_eDSptgWHWpUkSERESb2mWgchkJA/s1920/Slide19.JPG" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Quote from "Time for Truth" by Os Guinness - “Few understand that the United States, because of the convictions of its founders, is a nation with a realistic view of evil embedded in its constitutional checks and balances.”" border="0" data-original-height="1073" data-original-width="1920" height="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjg6tmLsVDQumFGxk0RKXNGPRoKzqymOuEfFLycVpootsSQh0b1a39-yDhIwvPKPwOnUP_f6w9h0gxGecf48jFmtqrKR8xWYkiNKr4Y4WyqvZVqJodbHqP33PRv_Yf-oRMC9DocPfSsYCXXVEbwAKH0JFgT7k4n_eDSptgWHWpUkSERESb2mWgchkJA/w320-h179/Slide19.JPG" title="Quote from "Time for Truth" by Os Guinness - “Few understand that the United States, because of the convictions of its founders, is a nation with a realistic view of evil embedded in its constitutional checks and balances.”" width="320" /></a></div><h1 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Human Depravity and American Government </span></h1></div><div style="text-align: left;">“The depravity of man is at once the most empirically verifiable reality but at the same time the most intellectually resisted fact.”- Malcolm Muggeridge<br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">"Few understand that the United States, because of the convictions of its founders, is a nation with a realistic view of evil embedded in its constitutional checks and balances."- Os Guinness
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">It seems that both parties in America are increasingly attempting to execute their policies without the objective moral foundations and boundaries of God's character or the truth of man's sinfulness. The "separation of Church and state" has been misunderstood, and that misunderstanding has necessarily led to this result. Both parties' policies will, when unrestrained by the recognition of these two realities, result in the abuse of citizens and the destruction of the nation. The only difference in the abuse and destruction will be the direction from which the they come. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">"Like the physical universe, the moral universe is governed by unforgiving laws that we do not have the power to alter."- Frank Turek and Norman Geisler</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Each party seems to operate on the idea that they are "God's gift" to this nation and cannot do or think any wrong. The lack of humility and lack of willingness to have intellectual discussions about policies in our nation's leaders is quite frustrating and even maddening. America's three-branch system was designed as a "check and balance" on such attitudes of those in power, for if there is no recognized moral authority above the government, then those in power will determine what is right and what is wrong for those they govern or dictate.</div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span><div style="-en-clipboard: true;">No matter which party "wins" in November, the American people cannot allow that party to undermine, override, or dismantle the checks and balances that exist in our governmental system. If we allow either party to do so, the depravity in the hearts of those in power will make itself known in painful ways. </div><div style="-en-clipboard: true;"><br /></div></span><b>For more please check out these posts and books:</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2023/01/book-review-magna-carta-of-humanity.html">Magna Carta of Humanity</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2020/06/riots-looting-and-controlling-our.html">What If God Is Removed From the American Equation?</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2017/03/why-is-image-of-god-so-important.html">Why Is The Image of God So Important? </a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2016/08/how-should-christians-vote-in-political.html">How Should Christians Vote In Political Elections</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2018/02/would-jesus-participate-in-politics.html">Would Jesus Participate In Politics?</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2019/10/book-review-time-for-truth-living-free.html">Time For Truth: Living In A World of Lies, Hype and Spin</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2019/10/book-review-time-for-truth-living-free.html">Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible?</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2020/06/whose-morality-should-we-legislate-44.html">Whose Morality Should We Legislate? 44 Quotes From Frank Turek and Norm Geisler</a></li></ul></div>Faithful Thinkershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04089768576413860677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5127174451684099058.post-45254489383204734362022-05-02T09:00:00.012-05:002023-10-14T16:47:56.160-05:004 Ways Atheism Undermines the Scientific Enterprise<b><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkL5zq55pGc9Q1xvEELjWjwycqyDrQPqYCjZhQY9fJ0DFYVnf5tGbN25hxdnmiG59WFnARzeg77lsYKJXgP0nzgIwXT_okA3fxQ7a2JjPAbs-3dWNrP50zosimblQGG7kQyuIVlrXVUztpm0Ayn75WXVUxwbxuw4rnZUxxDNIC-xDdyd7T6UZdCG63/s960/Slide19.JPG" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="4 Ways atheism undermines the scientific enterprise" border="0" data-original-height="540" data-original-width="960" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkL5zq55pGc9Q1xvEELjWjwycqyDrQPqYCjZhQY9fJ0DFYVnf5tGbN25hxdnmiG59WFnARzeg77lsYKJXgP0nzgIwXT_okA3fxQ7a2JjPAbs-3dWNrP50zosimblQGG7kQyuIVlrXVUztpm0Ayn75WXVUxwbxuw4rnZUxxDNIC-xDdyd7T6UZdCG63/w320-h180/Slide19.JPG" title="4 Ways atheism undermines the scientific enterprise" width="320" /></a></div></b><h1 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Introduction- </b>4 Ways Atheism Undermines the Scientific Enterprise</span></h1><div>Have you ever wondered if atheism is compatible with science? Not many have. In today's culture it is commonly assumed that they are best of buddies. Many people even believe that science has done away with God and provides powerful evidence for the truth of atheism. A couple years ago I posted an article that describes <a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2020/03/6-ways-atheism-is-science-stopper.html">six ways that atheism defeats science as a knowledge discipline</a>, thus anyone who accepts that science can give us knowledge about reality must reject atheism as true. Today I want to discuss the more practical side of science and provide four more ways that science and atheism are incompatible. </div><div><br /></div><div>Before I start though, I want to make a couple things clear: First, I am referring to atheism as a claim about reality not merely a belief: the affirmative claim "God does not exist in reality." Second, since I am not merely talking about a belief but a reality (one's beliefs can be false), I affirm that one can certainly <u>believe</u> that God does not exist in reality and still be quite successful as a scientist and do great work. My claim here is very narrow, and it involves the dually claimed realities that God does not exist and that science is not as chaotic as it is about to be described. <br /><div><span><a name='more'></a></span><b><br /></b></div><div><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Fatalistic Events</b></h3>
If atheism is true, then no agency exists. This means that our bodies are merely "moist robots" that act and react to stimuli with no free will, choice or intention behind any of the actions and reactions. The implication of that is that no scientist intentionally performs "good" science or "bad" science or really has a choice to perform science at all. </div><div><br /></div><div>There are no deserved accolades due for "good" science because what was done was merely a determined sequence of actions based upon environmental factors that the scientist had no choice in performing. There also are no reprimands due for "bad" science because what was done was merely a determined sequence of actions based upon environmental factors that the scientist also had no choice in performing. </div><div><br /></div><div>If atheism is true, fatalism is true, and there is no intentionality. People have no free will, no choice, and are fated to do what they do, and they merely watch everything happening <u><b>to</b></u> them and nothing happening <b><u>by</u></b> them. "Science" is just a series of events that happen without a choice by anyone behind the events. Logically on the atheistic, fatalistic view of reality scientists deserve no credit or responsibility for anything that they have "accomplished" or "perpetrated". The blind, unintentional forces of "fate" determined or forced them to do everything. In such a world no one has the ability to do otherwise, thus the idea that they deserve credit or reprimand because they made the "right" choice has no ground in an atheistic world. </div><div>
<br /><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Subjective Morality</b></h3>Speaking of "accomplished" and "perpetrated," when a society discards any anchor for morality (a society based on atheism), they surrender all justification for calling anything evil or wrong. Scientists may "choose" to report their findings incorrectly due to need to survive in the scientific community or to make the data appear to support a preconceived conclusion. On the atheistic view, there is not anything morally wrong with misrepresenting data because there is no objective "right" or "wrong." </div><div><br /></div><div>Likewise, if a scientist "discovers" something completely new that helps people in the course of the research or down the road, their work cannot be seen as morally "good" because "good" does not even exist. The same goes for the scientist who "discovers" (or the engineer who "invents") something completely new that harms people in the course of the research or down the road. Their work cannot be considered "evil" or "wrong" since neither exist. </div><div><br /></div><div>Whether scientists incorrectly or correctly report data or their work leads to benefit or harm, they should neither be punished nor rewarded or even condemned or commended for their respective actions because without "good" or "evil", "right" or "wrong" having a moral value, their work and actions cannot have any moral value either.</div><div><br /></div><div>If someone decides to punish or reward or not to punish or reward (respectively or irrespectively), they have not acted rightly or wrongly either, since "right" and "wrong" do not exist. Punishing "good" science is just as "right" as rewarding "evil" science, and rewarding "good" science is just as "wrong" as punishing "evil" science. </div><div><br /></div><div>Interestingly enough because morality does not exist on atheism, justice, which is a concept necessarily dependent upon the existence of morality, cannot be promoted and will never be realized in the sciences (or in any other area of life, but that is another blog post for another time). </div><div><br /></div><div>If there is no morality, then it is up to the individuals to "choose" (see the section above for the reason for the use of the quotes) what is "right" or "wrong". One person may "choose" to punish "good" science while another "chooses" to reward it; neither is truly "right" or "wrong"; and neither are themselves worthy of reward or punishment for their recognition and related actions. <br />
<br /><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>No Design, No Engineering</b></h3>As mentioned above, if atheism is true, then intentionality does not exist. One of the implications of such a view is that the very concept of "design" also does not exist. "Design" requires intentionality. This means that no scientific study is designed, no scientific experiment is designed, no sequence or series of anything in science is designed. If intentionality does not exist, then nothing is designed. But that is not where it ends. If intentionality does not exist, the very concept of design is impossible. </div><div><br /></div><div>If the very concept of design is impossible, then we have an implication that reaches beyond the discipline of science into the discipline of engineering. The study of nature often results in the reverse-engineering of its features, which then leads to new innovations. But what of such a concept if what is being "studied" is not really designed? We cannot really claim to be "reverse-engineering" anything since "engineering" implies design necessarily, which does not exist. Nothing is being "reversed." And since intentionality does not exist, it has the same implications for the discipline of engineering, so "engineering" is not actually taking place either. </div><div><br /></div><div>If we insist that some DNA or other biological features are truly undesigned "junk" then why study it (science), much less, try to imitate it (engineering)? Notice that I asked "why" not "how." If atheism is true, the answer to "how" is "because scientists and engineers are fated to." That answer explains "how" (given fatalism) the actions and reactions that we are fated to call "science" and "engineering" take place if atheism is true. But it does not explain "why" scientists and engineers "should" study and invent or even "how" study and invention are intentionally conducted given the lack of intentionality in a fatalistic reality. <div><br /></div><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>No Progress</b></h3><div>Finally, if atheism is true, there is no objective goal or final purpose. Without an objective goal, the direction of science is not objectively established. The necessary implication of this is that multiple, divergent or even contradictory goals can be pursued (fatalistically, of course). Without an objective goal, there is no ultimate purpose in science and no way to accurately judge progress. In order to even claim that science as a knowledge discipline is making progress, we must have some objective goal by which to judge whether scientific discovery is moving towards the goal (progressing) or moving away from the goal (regressing). </div><div><br /></div><div>Sure, a person can put forth a goal that they like (again, fatalistically), but so can multiple persons. Two persons can put forth two goals that are polar opposite of each other, but there is no concept to distinguish between which one is "progressive" or "regressive", "good" or "evil." Let's also not forget that this is not limited to only one pair of polar opposite goals; numerous polar opposite pairs of goals can be in play simultaneously. </div><div><br /></div><div>Further complicating the issue is that each goal may have multiple pathways to its accomplishment that are at odds with other pathways. There are no objective ends and there are no objective means. Alignment in purpose and in policy is impossible even in theory because there is no objective purposer if atheism is true. </div><div><br /></div><div>This results in the necessity of "might makes right" in the sciences. If someone wants their purpose to be pursued, they must exercise their influence and power over those who either disagree or have purposes that redirect resources away from their purpose. Such an exercise is conducted fatalistically (as seen above), and objectively morality does not exist (as seen above). So it follows logically that judgment of such an exercise by a person, no matter how evil or good we are fated to feel that it is, cannot be judged nor resisted on any moral grounds. All reactions are fated, neither right nor wrong, neither good nor evil, neither progressive nor regressive...just things that happen <u><b>to</b></u> us, with no more significance than the event of a dust particle just now landing on my keyboard. </div><div><br /></div><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Conclusion</b></h3><div>If atheism is true, the scientific enterprise is nothing more than a baseless, fatalistic, nihilistic chaos. But no one knows this because they are presupposing (in contradiction to atheism) EVERY thing that a grounded, intentional, and meaningful system requires. </div><div><br /></div><div>The atheist scientist is borrowing from the theistic worldview at every level in order for their "chosen" profession to have any meaning whatsoever. Atheists often resist this idea and insist that they can intentionally do good, purposeful science without God. Sure, this can be done without believing in God, but it is because God exists that anyone can do so. If it were true that God does not exist, then it necessarily follows that science is chaotic, but the fact that science is not as chaotic as described above provides multiple lines of evidence that atheism is necessarily false (that, necessarily, God exists). </div><div><br /></div><div>The very chosen profession of the atheistic scientist provides numerous foundational reasons for them to abandon their atheism. Ironically for the atheistic scientist, if the scientific enterprise is as reliable as they insist, then no results from it can be used against the knowledge of God. If God does not exist, then it necessarily follows that the scientific enterprise is an unreliable source of truth. The study of nature (science) at every level, from its foundations to its operations to its results, provides numerous evidences for the existence of God and the truth of Christianity. </div></div></div><div><br /></div><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Related Articles:</b></h3><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2020/03/6-ways-atheism-is-science-stopper.html">6 Ways Atheism Is A Science-Stopper</a></li><li><a href="http://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/book-review-agents-under-fire.html">Book Review: Agents Under Fire</a></li><li><a href="http://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2010/07/consistency-among-disciplines.html">Consistency Among Disciplines</a></li><li><a href="http://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2016/11/book-review-where-conflict-really-lies.html">Book Review: Where The Conflict Really Lies</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2019/04/did-historical-jesus-rise-from-dead.html">Did The Historical Jesus Rise From The Dead</a></li></ul></div>Faithful Thinkershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04089768576413860677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5127174451684099058.post-32500629506371115592022-01-03T08:00:00.024-06:002023-06-20T09:10:53.194-05:00The Big Bang and Friends of the World<p><b></b></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><b><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi39_M4usjiEL7u2m8FzBWpy4wiKYom8ST6fIRZPNcc9lxbJAG2qV71IUT9f1JvM-HHr7rnKACvWADlwWoRumMjRl74lKgGkPvILJKfunenbh7ZsWGqzqq27QLsrLVb4p2dLYY3FS0L4fXFXlB9jWS3lzU_B_FjgmfvsSEgk2g3W8brKlLxMrbrpyOK=s960" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="The big bang and friends with the world" border="0" data-original-height="540" data-original-width="960" height="113" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi39_M4usjiEL7u2m8FzBWpy4wiKYom8ST6fIRZPNcc9lxbJAG2qV71IUT9f1JvM-HHr7rnKACvWADlwWoRumMjRl74lKgGkPvILJKfunenbh7ZsWGqzqq27QLsrLVb4p2dLYY3FS0L4fXFXlB9jWS3lzU_B_FjgmfvsSEgk2g3W8brKlLxMrbrpyOK=w200-h113" title="The big bang and friends with the world" width="200" /></a></div></b><h1 style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Introduction- Big Bang Cosmology And The Christian</span></b></h1><p></p><p>"Don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God."- James 4:4 NIV</p><p>James 4:4 warns Christians to not become a "friend of the world" because the world is God's enemy. What does that mean, though? The other day someone told me that I was in violation of that verse because I believed the "atheistic theory" of the big bang and used it as evidence that God exists. Did James mean to communicate that Christians cannot recognize when an unbeliever or group of unbelievers have a correct view of some aspect of reality? Or did he intend to communicate something else? Before I get to the specific accusation, let's examine what actually concerns James in his letter. </p><p><b>Being The World's Friends and Enemies of God</b></p><p>When we read all of James' letter, we see the answer. Consider James 1:14-15:</p><p></p><blockquote>"...each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death."- (NIV)</blockquote><p></p><p>James is talking about having the same evil desires as the world- not necessarily believing the same way about some feature of reality. James is emphasizing that we must be committed to truth not feelings or desires. If an unbeliever believes something that is true about reality that we also believe is true about reality, James does not condemn our agreement. In fact, agreement about reality may be used as a springboard for evangelism (1 Peter 3:15) and bringing the unbeliever to Christ. Enemies of God do not intentionally point others to Christ. Enemies of God do not condemn evil desires. Condemning evil desires and pointing others to Christ are necessary steps in presenting the Gospel. Enemies of God have no such interest. </p><p>It is not that having agreement with unbelievers regarding true beliefs about reality that makes us "friends of the world" in the sense that James is speaking. It is having agreement with them regarding sinful desires that makes us "friends of the world" and thus enemies of God. We certainly could allow our sinful desires to manipulate the truth into justifying sin (which will always be logically fallacious, by the way), but is that what has happened with Christians who have accepted big bang cosmology? <span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p><p><b>The Big Bang Is Hardly An Atheistic Theory</b></p><p>Contrary to popular Christian thinking, the big bang theory is about the furthest from a naturalistic theory as they come. It has so many strong theistic implications that naturalists have tried for over a century to undermine it and have only in recent decades finally come to accept it as a community. But that acceptance is reluctant and is often accompanied by failed attempts to weasel out of the absolute beginning and exquisite fine-tuning implied by this rapid expansion event. The big bang <a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2020/07/does-big-bang-posit-absolute-beginning.html">necessarily requires a cause that is outside of space and time</a>, is mind-blowingly intelligent and powerful, and caused the creation of this universe out of literally no thing (<i>creatio ex nihilo</i>) for His purposes. The big bang creation event simultaneously provides powerful evidence <i>for</i> Christian theism and <i>against</i> naturalism. </p><p>It is not the science of big bang cosmology that made big bang cosmology so reprehensible to naturalists; it was the theistic and thus moral implications. The world does hate all Christians, whether those Christians believe that the big bang was the creation event described in Genesis 1:1 or if they do not. The world hates us not because we followed the evidence where it leads, but the world hates us because of where (or more accurately, to <a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2019/04/did-historical-jesus-rise-from-dead.html">Whom</a>) the evidence leads. There is no way that big bang cosmology allows someone to justify their evil desires; in fact, it does the exact opposite, and that is why it was so vehemently opposed by atheists for so long. </p><p>The fact that the naturalistic enemies of big bang cosmology have been compelled by the continually increasing evidence for the big bang to accept that it describes how our universe came into existence provides powerful evidence of its truth. It does so just as Jesus' empty tomb is strongly evidenced by the fact that Jesus' enemies (the scribes and Pharisees) were compelled by the evidence to accept that His tomb was empty. If "enemy attestation" provides powerful evidence that Jesus' tomb was empty, then it also provides powerful evidence that the big bang occurred (see <a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2019/09/evidence-for-empty-tomb-of-jesus-and.html">Evidence for the Empty Tomb of Jesus and Big Bang Cosmology</a>). </p><p>In Romans 1, the Apostle Paul affirms that unbelievers have access to the same data of nature as Christians do. As a result, unbelievers and Christians will believe some of the same things about the creation. Paul is adamant that nature is so clear in its revelation that unbelievers are, in fact, without excuse in their denial of God. When unbelievers discover and features of creation, no doubt those features will point to their Creator. This is exactly what is going on when believers and unbelievers examine the evidence for the big bang. The world hates Christians because we do not share and we even condemn their evil desires and actions. And the world hates big bang cosmology because they know that they stand condemned, without excuse, by the images they witness through the lenses of their telescopes. </p><p><b>The Foundation for Morality</b></p><p>But despite that strong testimony of creation to God as the Creator, many Christians still insist that big bang cosmology is a naturalistic theory. The concern is that it does away with God as an objective, moral foundation for society, and, from their view, the moral degradation that we see in culture (see my previous articles "<a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/compromising-kingdom.html">Compromising the Kingdom</a>" and "<a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/unrecognized-agreement-and-unity.html">Unrecognized Agreement and Unity</a>") is a result of a culture that has accepted big bang cosmology and used it as an excuse to do away with God. But because big bang cosmology is no friend of naturalism, it should not be rejected on the false grounds that it is such a friend to the naturalist and a morally debauched society. </p><p>As mentioned above, it is true that many naturalists, skeptics, and unbelievers hold to big bang cosmology, but it is the non-theistic philosophies that have opened our culture to the moral decay that we see. God is the foundation for objective morality. God is the source of the Image of God found in all humans. And the Image of God is the foundation of humans' intrinsic value, free agency, and moral culpability (see my posts "<a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2017/03/why-is-image-of-god-so-important.html">Why Is The Image of God So Important?</a>" and "<a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2019/08/do-humans-have-intrinsic-value.html">Do Humans Have Intrinsic Value?</a>"). Not only have Christians who affirm big bang cosmology held tightly to the very Foundation (God) of objective morality and the Image of God, they have hard, scientific evidence of the existence of that Foundation via big bang cosmology (again, Romans 1, in action). </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEheKdn2-AgPXLtUxDBhzAKEf8JsHmYClM43YzGI7NpoZxt3GJSKYvZtHIn3PKjm8Fs46QZBmgS7Xqj9zNeXUKMd9YCrj8fiQMo_l-ULATuPEUoLYqQnxAOXAhXPEwVQfvhvwwaAhHIPJkTUVL-vYovNHgvjnFunqvQ8IuWakNxWDWGjBhnKvH1uhlvb=s1920" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Quote from Christian particle physicist Dr. Michael G. Strauss from his book "The Creator Revealed: A Physicist Examines the Big Bang and the Bible": : "The evidence that the big bang was God's method of creation is compelling for many reasons. For instance, it reveals the very nature of God, just as Romans 1:20 says creation should. It doesn't just reveal God's character to those who already believe in him or to those who only look superficially at nature; it reveals the very nature of his character to those who study the universe in depth. It drives people to realize that the creator is a transcendent designer who cares for humanity. It leaves them truly without excuse because they have rejected the creator, not for the record of creation."" border="0" data-original-height="1073" data-original-width="1920" height="358" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEheKdn2-AgPXLtUxDBhzAKEf8JsHmYClM43YzGI7NpoZxt3GJSKYvZtHIn3PKjm8Fs46QZBmgS7Xqj9zNeXUKMd9YCrj8fiQMo_l-ULATuPEUoLYqQnxAOXAhXPEwVQfvhvwwaAhHIPJkTUVL-vYovNHgvjnFunqvQ8IuWakNxWDWGjBhnKvH1uhlvb=w640-h358" title="Quote from Christian particle physicist Dr. Michael G. Strauss from his book "The Creator Revealed: A Physicist Examines the Big Bang and the Bible": : "The evidence that the big bang was God's method of creation is compelling for many reasons. For instance, it reveals the very nature of God, just as Romans 1:20 says creation should. It doesn't just reveal God's character to those who already believe in him or to those who only look superficially at nature; it reveals the very nature of his character to those who study the universe in depth. It drives people to realize that the creator is a transcendent designer who cares for humanity. It leaves them truly without excuse because they have rejected the creator, not for the record of creation."" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p><b>Conclusion</b></p><p>The idea that Christians, who accept the evidence God has provided for how and when He created the world, have somehow become or want to become friends with the world is misguided. Anyone who makes this accusation against a fellow Christian simply does not understand the theistic implications of big bang theory nor do they recognize that atheists saw those implications and resisted because of those implications, yet they were eventually compelled by the evidence that God has provided to us by His fully reliable actions (creation) to accept it. Even if one does not agree that the creation testifies to the big bang creation event, they cannot honestly continue to claim that the big bang is a naturalistic, anti-God theory. </p><p>For more on the big bang and Christianity, see these books and posts:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2019/11/20-myths-about-old-earth-creationism.html">20 Myths About Old Earth Creationism</a></li><li><a href="http://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2018/08/book-review-creator-revealed.html">The Creator Revealed: A Physicist Examines the Big Bang and the Bible</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2019/01/15-quotes-from-dr-michael-g-strauss-on.html">15 Quotes from Dr. Michael G. Strauss on the Big Bangs Revelation of God's Invisible Attributes</a></li><li><a href="http://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2018/03/book-review-creator-and-cosmos.html">Creator and the Cosmos</a></li><li><a href="http://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/book-review-origin-science.html">Origin Science: A Proposal For the Creation/Evolution Controversy</a></li><li><a href="https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/search?q=absolute+beginning">Does The Big Bang Require An Absolute Beginning to the Universe?</a> </li></ul><div><br /></div><p></p>Faithful Thinkershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04089768576413860677noreply@blogger.com