Faithful Thinkers

Your Challenge Does Not Apply- The Strawman

2012-01-30T06:00:00.000-06:00

Lately I've been having a lot of discussions with fellow Christians about different ideas. Typically we're are on different sides of the debate and are trying to come to either an agreement, compromise, or understanding. One of the things that I have noticed all too often (I wouldn't worry about a couple times) from too many people and from the same people after I've pointed it out, is that they will offer a challenge that does not even apply to my view. Last week I discussed "zombie" topics in Christianity. One of the identifiers of a zombie (person) is that they continue to argue against "strawmen".

"Um, that's not what I believe."
The strawman is a slight (or not so slight) variation of an argument or position that is easier to defeat than the real argument or position. This is a fallacious way to argue because it does not actually address the challenge at hand. Its power comes by the fact that the nuances of the incorrect argument or position can be so close to the actual one that those listening may not recognize the difference, and believe that the actual challenge has been addressed and defeated when, in fact, it has not been addressed, much less defeated.

Leading to the ad hominem attack
Unfortunately, for the one presenting the strawman (and the one being misrepresented), nothing of value has actually taken place. However, reactions can get interesting. It seems that there are two ways to react when someone presents a strawman of your argument or position. The first is to accuse them of intentionally misleading the audience to make their view seem more plausible. As much as I'm tempted to take this route (and have done in the past), I've realized that all I have done is just offered a personal attack on the character of the person (an ad hominem attack). The person may very well not understand the nuances of my view. They may also be intentionally addressing a misrepresentation, but what will my pointing that out so blatantly really accomplish?

Putting It Nicely
The second reaction comes from the fact that I like to assume that the person is not misrepresenting intentionally. I try to discover what exactly they are addressing and show how that does not represent my view. I will also show how the critique does not apply to my view. I don't have to state explicitly that a strawman has been offered, it will be obvious when I show that the critique does not address my view. By my avoiding the temptation to accuse the person of a strawman (intentional or unintentional), the other person is not immediately put in a position of defending their character (which is not the topic of the discussion anyway).

Pay Attention to Detail
As mentioned last week, it is important that we understand the nuances of the views that we do not believe are true. When we offer a critique of a certain view, we need to make sure that we offer a critique that applies to the view being offered. Moving outside the church: about a year ago an atheist attempted to demonstrate to me that Christianity cannot be true by refuting the idea that the universe is no older than 6000 years. The atheist was addressing a strawman, because I don't believe the universe is even close to 6000 years old. When I told her that I believed the universe to be 13.7 billion years old and that her critique did not apply to my view, she told me that I was a heretic and not a real Christian anyway. She believes that based on her first critique, she has overcome Christianity. She also believe that my view is not actually Christian, so she does not need to address it. This leads me to the next thing.

Learn From Our Mistakes
We have to be careful to recognize when we are addressing a strawman and stop addressing it. The atheist above would be perfectly justified in offering her critique to a young-earth creationist, but not to an old-earth creationist or a theistic evolutionist. In the former case, it is not a strawman; in the two latter cases, it is. If we are going to defend against a certain worldview, we need to be prepared to address different nuances within it. The atheist should have been prepared to address Christians who do not hold to a young universe, if she wished to demonstrate that Christianity was false...but I'm still here thinking that Christianity is true because she offered to critique a strawman and did not give my view the respect of being accurately represented and properly addressed.

If the atheist was willing to accept that I held a different view, then she would have had the opportunity to address it. Now, back to the Church: I have experienced too many Christians who want to debate certain doctrines with me, but continue to address strawmen of my positions and arguments. Frankly, the lack of respect and actual engagement makes it very difficult to have the desire to discuss with these people. On the other hand, I have several friends with whom I disagree, yet we respect each other enough to take the time to make sure that we understand the view before we address it. We have to be intentional about avoiding strawmen, and if we accidentally address one, the other let's us know, and we attempt to figure out where exactly the misrepresentation is. Then we either adjust our critique or drop it.

Conclusion
Avoiding strawmen is not easy, but the practice can become "second nature". There is much patience and humility involved is such a pursuit. Unfortunately, both of those go against our sin nature, so it will also take much prayer and perseverance. Over time we will become accustomed to searching for the nuances in views and adjusting our critiques based on what specific views we are addressing. It will always be easy to spot a misrepresentation of our own views, but as we get better at avoiding strawmen ourselves, we will notice when misrepresentations of views we disagree with are being addressed (even the nuanced views). That ability helps us to know what are appropriate and inappropriate challenges to a view that we don't agree with. We can learn from others' mistakes. Being able and willing to address accurate representations of alternate views is all part of offering a reason for the hope that we have with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15).

Zombies of Christianity

2012-01-23T06:00:00.000-06:00

The "Walking Dead" of Christian Discussions
For those who are not familiar with the usage of the term "zombie" when talking about topics in Christianity: Everyone knows that much diversity exists within Christianity related to our doctrines. This is where all of the different denominations come from and even smaller divisions within them. Many of the doctrines are hotly debated with no progress towards agreement. Many of the members of such discussions on the internet (especially) tend to hold their position without critically examining it or alternatives. The discussions tend to be just a reiteration of the same arguments and accusations without any actual thought. The discussions and debates never "die", not because good arguments are actually being recognized and addressed with counter-arguments being addressed following, but because people hold their hands over their ears and just repeat their points. The person mindlessly wonders around and goes into action anytime they see someone that they disagree with. There is rarely any progress in understanding for either member of the discussion- the result is typically the same as if the discussion never took place. Both the person and the topic are considered "zombies". Its a playful (though, oddly accurate) term that is used mainly because of its cultural popularity and ability to convey a specific mental image for what we're describing. Zombies remind me of people who simply like to just offer opinions, but without backing them up or defending their positions.

Now, I have had many discussions with those in the Church who disagree with me on a particular doctrine. We offer arguments and counter-arguments. We make strides to understand the other's view properly (avoiding strawmen) and learn to articulate our own views in more nuanced ways, so the other can understand our view better. Our discussions continue, but not because we are mindlessly repeating our points, but because our points are being engaged by our "opponent". Points are reiterated only at appropriate times and never so often that they lose their thrust. Our points are respected and addressed; that engagement forces our minds to work harder to maintain a specific position, and in some cases we (or they) may be persuaded to the other position, or just to the point of realizing that our (or their) position is not the only orthodox view. Both of these results bring about more civilized discussion and gracious disagreement. Even though the topic continues to be discussed, and the people discussing are eager to discuss it, neither are considered "zombies" because of the progress that is made as a result of having the discussion. That progress would not be present if the discussion had never taken place. The people in these discussions do not merely offer opinions, they make truth-claims and offer a defense of their claims.

A Zombie Was I
I have to admit that when I was younger, I was a zombie. Everything in the first paragraph described me. But then, I was challenged to a point that I could no longer cover my ears. What was challenged? One belief that I thought was necessary to be believed in order to be a Christian. Anytime I heard something that seemed to contradict that belief, I pounced. The problem was that even though I could defend the "truth" of the belief (I've since changed my belief), I could not defend the idea that it was essential for Christianity. Talk about deflating my blown-up ego! What this forced me to do was to examine what I believed is essential for a Christian to believe and what is not essential for a Christian to believe. There are so many topics that the discussions will never die because we have not first discussed the "essential" doctrine that one side believes is at stake. In some cases, we don't even know, ourselves, what "essential" doctrine we believe is being threatened. Every person has a list of what they believe is essential for Christianity, and many of the "zombie" topics are based on differences in this list. Not only do we need to identify what items are on our list, but we need to identify what is on the list for those with whom we disagree.

Some people (who claim to be Christians and who do not) want to remove from and add to our lists. As a defender of the Christian faith (and one who wishes to continue discussing the truth of my specific views within Christianity), I need to be able to defend my positions- why I have a specific "controversial" item in the list, or why I do not include another item in my list. In other words, I need to know specifically what I am defending and why I am defending it. If I know what and why, I can better formulate how.

Identifying Heretics
As I mentioned above, I have changed my view on a topic that has reached "zombie" status among many Christians. As one who is still seeking God and still wanting to learn more about Him, my highest desire is to know when I believe something that is not true, and especially when I believe something that violates the truths of Christianity. Because of that, if I hold a belief that is heretical, I want to know, so I can adjust or abandon it. In so many of these "zombie" discussions, the people accuse the other side of violating an essential doctrine. By doing this, the implication is that the other side is being "heretical". Though many refuse to use the word "heretic" (because its politically incorrect) to describe the other side, the other side knows that is what is being insinuated, and they react (appropriately or inappropriately) to that understanding.

Personal Attacks
Too many people are so sensitive to being called "heretics" these days (why it is considered politically incorrect), that it has become an emotional and personal attack, which is not a logical way to argue. People are rightly concerned, though, with the accusation because the implications of such an accusation is that everything the person says or does is evil. If such an implication is accepted, it can have huge consequences, especially regarding others' willingness to fellowship with them or support their efforts to expand the Kingdom. But the implication is what is normally reacted to, not the accusation itself. If someone wants to even insinuate that another holds a heretical belief, that claim needs to be defended. Likewise, we need to be allowed to defend against the claim.

The Danger of Assumptions
Most people have had experiences with making assumptions when they should not have done so. Those who have can testify to the traditional claim of what "assuming does" (if you're easily offended, don't bother looking it up). It is extremely important in these discussions that we not assume what is in the list of what a person believes is essential. My favorite phrase that betrays an assumption is "...obviously violates..." To add insult to injury ("heretic"), those who use similar phrases are accusing the other person of knowingly spreading false doctrine (being a "false prophet"). There is another level of "sinfulness" that is insinuated with the accusation that someone KNOWS that they are a heretic and is purposefully spreading false doctrine. How gracious do we look when we falsely accuse someone of something with such implications?

Avoid Assumptions, Encourage Discussion
Obviously, we do not want to be correctly accused of making false assumptions, yet we want to be able to identify when someone is wrong (heretical). The way that we do that is to first define a key term. We must understand that a "heretic" is simply someone who denies an essential doctrine of Christianity. Then we need to identify what essential doctrine is being denied. In order to make sure that we do not make an assumption of what one holds to be essential (or not), we need to discuss the possible essentials by asking these two questions: Does the other person believe that the doctrine I believe is violated is actually essential for Christianity; and does the other person believe that the doctrine is actually violated by their belief? Obviously, agreement on the answers to these questions will not determine if, in fact, someone is heretical, but it will make us more cautious about calling someone a heretic (or even insinuating it) or accepting just any belief.

Defending The Status of "Essential" Doctrines
When someone implies that my belief has violated an essential doctrine of Christianity (thus my being a "heretic"), I try to get out of them what, exactly, my particular belief has violated. If they are willing to engage (and not just cover their ears and repeat their point), and if we identify the essential belief they believe to be violated, we discuss it. There are two possibilities (that are not necessarily mutually exclusive) for continuing the discussion: First, if I believe that it is not an essential doctrine, I defend why I believe that it is not, and I ask them to defend why they believe that it is (I might change my mind). Our discussion must take place at this foundational level before we can expect any progress on the belief originally being debated. If, in fact, the belief is not essential, then it doesn't really matter if someone holds it or not, or any other belief that is based on its truth or falsehood. But in order to determine if a belief is essential, both sides must present their arguments (for their view and against the other view), and those arguments need to be engaged. We also need to make sure that we are not emotionally attached to the idea of a certain doctrine being essential. If it is demonstrated that it is not, then we need to be humble enough to acknowledge that fact and remove it from our list of essential doctrines. Likewise, if we don't believe a doctrine to be essential, but it is demonstrated that it is, then we can't be so emotionally attached to that idea that we can't accept it (by adding it to our list of essential doctrines) and move on to the next step in the discussion.

Not only does this step help us identify if a person's worldview is within the realm of Christianity, it also helps us keep the proper threshold of entrance into Christianity for the non-believer. We don't want to require that someone believes a certain doctrine (that they just can't accept for one reason or another) before they can enter the Kingdom of God (too many essentials), if in fact, it is not an essential belief to be saved. Yet, we don't want to open the door so wide (too few essentials) that doctrines that contradict what we know is essential are acceptable also.

Defending The Violation of or Compatibility with Essential Doctrines
Second, if I agree that a doctrine IS an essential one, the other side must show how my belief necessarily violates the essential belief, while I must show how my belief does not necessarily violate the essential belief. It is very important that we recognize the qualifier I used here: "necessarily". There are some beliefs that have the potential to violate (if articulated a certain way- some nuances may actually violate, while others may not). It is up to the other person to defend the idea that the originally debated belief as a whole (regardless of nuance) contradicts an essential doctrine, while all I have to show is that there is a nuance that is compatible with the doctrine but does not violate another essential doctrine.

"The devil is in the details"- nuances. A view can be made completely compatible via nuances; it can also be found inconsistent with another essential doctrine via nuances. Being able to nuance our view helps us to identify where our views need adjustment and where others may not quite understand our view. Understanding the nuances of another's view helps us to know the weaknesses of their view and to know what is appropriate to be challenged and what is not- one of the key characteristics of a zombie is that the person continues to bring up the same challenge even though it has been addressed, even by the same people.

There is a danger in dealing with nuances. We must be careful to not be coming up with ad hoc explanations (explanations not thought all the way through). If we keep presenting nuances to maintain our position, and they keep getting logically shot down, then we might need to consider that we have an emotional commitment to an idea that needs to be changed. For those concerned with how such a concession might affect an entire worldview, see my post "The Power of the Cumulative Case".

For The Sake of Discussion
In reality, we may not be able to reach an agreement regarding the status of a specific doctrine as being essential, but does this mean that no progress can be made? Even if we don't agree that a particular doctrine is essential, we can still discuss whether or not the questionable belief violates the doctrine. If it can be shown that it does not violate the doctrine, then there is no real need to worry about if that doctrine is essential or not (in the context of the specific discussion- it may be extremely important in other discussions). Even if we don't agree that the doctrine that is claimed to be violated is essential, we can still discuss if it is actually violated. But, if we agree that it does violate the doctrine, then we are forced back to debating if the doctrine is essential or not.

From The Outside, Looking In
One of the major complaints I hear about Christianity is that Christians rarely agree on what is "true Christianity". The inevitable question that arises is "if you guys can't agree, how am I supposed to know what specifics are right, if Christianity is even right in general?" After addressing the fact that all worldviews have those who disagree (this is the nature of the lack of omniscience), I find out that that is not the actual complaint. The actual complaint has to do with how we treat those with whom we disagree. If we act like zombies, we are being anti-intellectual, disrespectful, and unloving- all things that the world knows that Jesus taught against. However, if we actually take the time and patience to discover and discuss the foundations of disagreements, our debates will be seen as being conducted at the highest levels of intelligence, respect, and love. That is the testimony that we should have. People have many reasons to reject a worldview, but let's not allow this to be one of the reasons they reject Christianity.

Other Great Related Blog Posts

Brian Hearn at Apologetics.net wrote a great post specifically addressing the zombie topic of the age of the universe- Why OEC vs YEC
Kevin DeYoung at The Gospel Coalition talks about the necessity of nuances in his blog post.

Book Review: Christian Ethics

2012-01-16T06:00:00.000-06:00

Well, its been on my shelf for almost a year, and I finally got to it. Christian Ethics: Options and Issues by Norman Geisler is quite a read. Like Giesler's other books that I've read, this one is divided and outlined very clearly. It is easy to follow, but has lots of stimulating content. It is broken into two different parts with 310 pages.

Part 1
Chapter 1: All the Options
In Chapter 1 Geisler introduces the philosophical topic of ethics. He quickly summarizes ten different proposed foundations for ethics (including power, pleasure, human survival, and God's will). He then examines five unique attributes of Christian ethics and concludes by providing examples (using lying) of the different views of ethics.

Chapter 2: Antinomianism
Chapter 2 begins Geisler's more detailed examination of the different views of ethics. He provides a history of the antinomian view; he covers the time from the ancient beginnings to contemporary influences. In the process he looks at twelve different ethical philosophies that fall under the broad umbrella of antinomianism. He points out what they have in common and provides what he believes are the good influences of antinomianism, including the fact that it stresses individual responsibility. He then offers a critique of each individual system, then provides the issues with antinomianism in general- the major ones would be that it is self-defeating, and it is too subjective to be of value to the whole of humanity.

Chapter 3: Situationism
Chapter 3 deals with Joseph Fletcher's Situationism. Geisler begins this examination by explaining that the purpose of this ethical model was to avoid the pitfalls of legalism and antinomianism. He describes the "single-norm" ethic that is put forth by Fletcher. Basically the ethical thing to do in any situation is determined by the single absolute norm: love. Geisler states that Situationism does have its advantages over legalism (it is sensitive to circumstances, it stresses love over other possible norms, and others) and antinomianism (it does have an absolute and is a normative position). However, he does point out that the "love" does not really have a foundation- it is determined by the situation. The fact that the "absolute" is actually relative makes it a form of the antinomian view. He also points out that the end result of a decision is that the most love be accomplished- a form of utilitarianism (the subject of Chapter 4).

Chapter 4: Generalism
In Chapter 4 Geisler discusses what is more commonly called utilitarianism. The general idea of this ethical model is that any behavior may be justified if it will achieve the most good for the most people. Popularly, it is summed up as "the ends justify the means". Geisler points out that there are a few different positions within this view that distinguishes what "good" means (if it is based on quality or quantity) and how exceptions are handled. He mentions that in general utilitarianism does affirm the need for a norm or standard and provides a way to deal with conflicting norms. However, he does state that its weakness falls in the need for "good" to have an objective standard (a norm of its own) and the fact that the "end" is ambiguous (due to lack of omniscience of humans). The responsibility to determine both of these then falls back on the individual making the decision. The individual would then need to appeal to another ethical system of his choice, which ultimately defeats the need for this one and leads back to the first system described: antinomianism.

Chapter 5: Unqualified Absolutism
Chapter 5 begins looking at the alternatives to the relativistic systems discussed in the previous chapters. The first (unqualified absolutism) holds that all ethical rules are absolute and should not be broken for any reason (hence "unqualified"). According to this view, there is no true ethical dilemmas- there is either a third way out or the dilemma was caused by some sin in the person's life, and they must live with the consequences of either sin committed. Geisler describes three forms of unqualified absolutism from St. Augustine, Immanuel Kant, and John Murray. Like with the other systems, he offers pros and cons. Pros would be that it offers an absolute ethic and relies on God's nature and providence for identifying morals and dealing with dilemmas. Geisler then looks at how many adherents must appeal to God's providence to resolve dilemmas and points out that that appeal is in fact a qualification. He ends the chapter noting that we do live in a world full of sin, and that moral dilemmas are real, and people are faced with them all the time.

Chapter 6: Conflicting Absolutism
In Chapter 6 Geisler looks at the second option for the absolutist. Conflicting Absolutism, like Unqualified Absolutism, affirms that there are absolute moral duties. However, it recognizes that genuine conflicts do exist, and that they cannot be avoided. He explains that when such a conflict arises, the duty is to choose the "less evil". Unfortunately, even though there was really was no option to not commit a sin, the person will still be held accountable for sinning. Geisler points out that many of the good things about Unqualified Absolutism follow into Conflicting Absolutism. However, he did mention a couple negatives. Geisler points out that the duty to do the "lesser sin" is actually a duty to sin. He shows how an ethical dilemma would turn the duty "to do the right thing" into the duty to do "the wrong thing" (since there is no alternative). But, Geisler's main argument against Conflicting Absolutism is that if this is true then it follows that any time Jesus had an ethic dilemma, He sinned. However Scripture states that Jesus never sinned. Because of this, Geisler holds that Conflicting Absolutism is not a viable option for the Christian.

Chapter 7: Graded Absolutism
After providing several ethical options and critiquing them, Geisler finally offers the system that he believes resolves the issues of all the others: Graded Absolutism. Simply, this system has many ethical duties that are absolute. When they come into conflict, a scale is used to determine which option to go with. No duties are not considered "more absolute" than others, they are considered more binding. This system is absolute on three levels: the duties are absolute by being grounded in God's nature; each duty is absolute within its context; and the levels are absolute being grounded in God's nature. We are held responsible to correctly identify the more binding duty in a conflict, and we will not be held responsible for being stuck with the less binding duty. Geisler spends several pages responding to challenges that this system is actually one of the others already described. He concludes by giving some of the values of Graded Absolutism, including that he believes that it is the only system that can make sense of the Cross.

Part 2
Having established the system of ethics that he will be using, Geisler now moves on to Part 2, where he looks at specific ethical challenges. The space provided to discuss the different ethical issues is limited, so his treatment is not thorough or as technical as some may like. However, this section will introduce the reader to the complexity of the issues, address the issues, and prepare the reader for more in-depth material. In all the following chapters, Geisler distinguishes among specific positions and lays out the debate clearly. The following chapter reviews will be shorter than in Part 1.

Chapter 8: Abortion
Geisler begins his investigation of abortion by pointing out that the whole debate centers on the humanity of the fetus. From this he establishes that there are three different positions on abortion: Abortion anytime, abortion sometimes, and no abortions at all. He lays out the biblical, scientific, philosophical, and emotional arguments for each position, then offers critique for the first two options and answers objections to the third (the one he holds).

Chapter 9: Euthanasia
Geisler's treatment of euthanasia follows the same pattern as his chapter on abortion. He points out that euthanasia can fall into several categories: active or passive; voluntary or involuntary; and self-causes or caused by someone else. He provides the arguments for each and critiques the views opposed to his. He then gives a defense for his own view.

Chapter 10: Biomedical Issues
In chapter 10 Geisler attempts to cover a host of biomedical issues at the same time by looking at the foundations of the different views. He establishes what the humanistic view entails: man is responsible for human value, individuals have sovereignty over life, the duty to create a superior race, and the ends justify the means. He evaluates these foundations then provides the Christian alternatives: God is responsible for human value, God is sovereign over life, there is no duty to create a "superior" race, and the ends do not always justify the means.

Chapter 11: Capital Punishment
Chapter 11 covers three different views on the issue of capital punishment: rehabilitationism (no capital punishment at all), reconstructionism (capital punishment for all crimes originally punished this way in Scripture), and retributionism (limited capital punishment). He provides the philosophical, social, and biblical arguments for each position, then provides a critique of each one.

Chapter 12: War
Chapter 12 tackles the ethics of war. Geisler presents the two extremes: Activism and Pacifism. Activism being the view that one should engage in all wars commanded by his government. Pacifism being the view that no war should ever be engaged in. Geisler presents the biblical and philosophical arguments for each view then analyzes them. He puts forth the strengths and weaknesses of each view and show where each view is right. He then provides a balanced view: Selectivism. This view holds that some wars are just but not all. He provides the arguments for it then offers the its weaknesses.

Chapter 13: Civil Disobedience
Related to the ethical question of war is the justification of civil disobedience. Geisler begins this chapter by explaining that the ethical rightness or wrongness of the American Revolution is at stake with this question. As with the other ethical issues, he provides both sides from the secular and biblical perspectives. He provides counter-points and shows the strengths and weaknesses of each view. He takes the reader through the logical struggle and eventually gives his view on the American Revolution.

Chapter 14: Homosexuality
Along side abortion the issue of homosexuality is one of the most heated and debated ethical issues today. In Chapter 14 Geisler looks at it from both sides. He provides arguments for and against homosexuality being ethical from both a biblical and secular perspective. He offers counter-arguments for both sides (sometimes in the context of the argument for the other side; others are more direct and explicit). He takes the position that homosexuality is ethically wrong. However, he ends the chapter discussing how Christians should approach the topic and people who are homosexual. He is adamant that the debate be focused on the behavior rather than the individual.

Chapter 15: Marriage and Divorce
In this chapter Geisler looks at marriage, divorce, and remarriage. He describes the Christian view of marriage, then goes into the differing views on divorce and remarriage. The three views that he evaluates are: divorce in never permissible, divorce is permissible only in the case of adultery, and divorce is permissible for multiple reasons. He looks at the merits of each view and the arguments for each position. He offers his critique of them and provides a conclusion that takes the biblically sound portions of each and combines it into one coherent view.

Chapter 16: Ecology
In the final chapter of Christian Ethics Geisler tackles the proper treatment of the environment. Geisler describes two extreme positions: materialism and pantheism. The former sees man as dominator of nature and can exploit it however seen fit. The latter sees man as a part of and servant to nature, thus no benefit may be derived from nature at the cost of nature. Geisler points out the value of each position, although he is more critical of the materialistic position. He describes the Christian view as being between the two and having its foundation in the doctrine of creation. He concludes that Christians are to be good stewards of the environment, while using its resources. Christians must be careful to not overuse the resources because it is the home that God created for and entrusted to him.

Conclusion
Christian Ethics was quite an interesting and enjoyable read. It helps the reader to think more clearly about the different ethical systems proposed by Christians. He guides the Christian though a thoughtful evaluation of several ethical debates and provides conclusions that are soundly based on scripture. This book is recommended as an introductory book for Christian Ethics; so, those interested in particular systems or specific debates should not rely solely on this resource. Geisler wrote this book with the beginner in mind and takes care to clearly articulate difficult concepts. His inclusion of a glossary also helps with those not as familiar with the more technical terms.

The only criticisms that this reviewer wishes to offer is that a few of the arguments and counter-arguments from Part 2 seemed awfully weak and unpersuasive; however, those did not tip the scales against Geisler's overall cumulative case against or for certain conclusions. The lack of a summarizing chapter at the end also leaves the reader without the sense of a "wrap up" of the content of the book. Overall it is well-written and a recommended read.

Thanks to Brian Auten at Apologtics 315 for originally publishing this review on his site. This review is only one of many in a project by Auten to build a solid collection of reviews of books of interest to Christian apologists. His collection grows on a weekly basis; check it out here.

Martin Luther King Jr. vs. Evolution

2012-01-09T06:00:00.000-06:00

On Monday (Jan 16th), America will celebrate the life of Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.- a man dedicated to the fact that all men are created equal and should be treated that way. Americans owe humble respect to Reverend King for his dedication (that led to his assassination) to this noble ideal.

I find it extremely interesting that many naturalists promote King's idea of human equality. But is that promotion compatible with naturalism? Human equality is a Judeo-Christian concept that is foreign to any worldview that must rely upon naturalistic evolution to explain the existence of the human race. Here's what I mean:

Survival of the Fittest
One of the major pillars of naturalistic, evolution is "survival of the fittest". This simply means that the lifeforms most fit for a certain environment will propagate their offspring into the next generation; lifeforms that possess any feature that inhibits their survival, will eventually die off. Value is assigned based on this survivability.

Notice the superlative language of the pillar- "fittest". In order for a superlative to exist, there must exist another that it is superlative when compared to. If humans are the result of "survival of the fittest" and we are not the end of evolution (mutations are still taking place today, so I guess we're not), then some members of our species are superlative to others. The genes of the superlative humans will survive into the future.

Human Equality?
So what? The implication is that not all humans are equal. Equality is a concept antagonistic to the naturalistic, evolutionary paradigm. Then how does the concept of "equality" exist? It was generated and propagated by the weaker members of the human species in an effort to undermine the superlative members. "Human equality" is the deception of members of our species that should otherwise be eliminated.

Of course, that is only one way to look at the situation. Those who are propagating the idea of equality may, themselves, be the ones most fit to survive. Physical fitness is not the only factor in determining if a species survives- the ability to use the brain to utilize resources in the absence of strength or agility also improve fitness. But even if we take that position, then we are still saying that one set is superlative to another. The implication would be that those who do not promote equality should be eliminated.

"Survival of the Fittest" vs. "Human Equality"
Notice that regardless of the position that is taken, that I must use the value-rich term "should". If value is based upon survivability, and the survivability of the set that does not promote equality is inferior to the set that does, then it follows that those who promote "human equality" and hold to a naturalistic worldview, are standing in the way of nature and devaluing the truly valuable human beings by assigning the same value to where it does not belong. Nature will prove the equation of value between the two different sets to be incorrect. If the set that holds to "human equality" is, in fact, more fit, then it will survive, while the set that denies it, will die off. The naturalist who holds to human equality would then have a protruding contradiction in their worldview (regardless of which set actually does survive)- it cannot explain the fact that one set survived in nature. Which means that either naturalism or human equality is false. Both cannot be true.

...and Christianity?
"Human equality" is only possible if the source of the value of humans is independent of the humans. The Christian worldview assigns the same intrinsic value to all human beings. It is not based on survivability of the humans (or any other characteristic of the humans), but on the fact that they are created in the image of the Being who's value is the highest in virtue of His nature. The fact that humans possess the Imago Dei (Image of God)is what assigns to all humans intrinsic value, and by virtue of the fact that we all possess it, we all have equal value.

The fact that we do survive is a product of the Imago Dei. We possess a mind that is capable of simple and complex thought- both of which can be and are used for survival (as hint to above). Unfortunately, man is fallen. One of the results of this fallen nature is the fact that man is self-focused (prideful and narcissistic). This causes man to focus acutely on his survival (survival is not wrong in itself, but the desire for it causes many to make choices based on a certain level of paranoia). Man will use this mind to come up with "ways of survival" that violate the intrinsic, equal value of other human beings (typically the illogical conclusion is one that violates another human life. They "reason" that it is the only option when it really is not). Murder is an example. In Christianity, murder is a sin because it is a direct violation of God's nature.

Changing the Course of Evolution: For OUR Survival
Let's also take the entire medical enterprise. Why do we spend so much resources (time, money, and energy) to find cures for ailments? If a member of the species gets sick, they apparently have a feature that makes them susceptible to a particular microbe or virus (or anything else), which means that they are not the fittest human (or even organism) for the environment they are living in. Why not allow nature to eliminate the weaker gene pools in favor of stronger ones? We can't really say that survival is the objective value that we appeal to when searching for cures, because of the fact that we have assigned greater value to this generation and species than to the later generations and other species (the value is relative to our species and our generation). Not only have we denied the later generations a more resistant set of genes, but our efforts are causing bacteria to mutate to become immune to our treatments. We have, in essence, worked against the health of future generations on two different levels, and even ensured the survival of another species that are not "really" more "fit" for the environment (they are dependent on unfit humans to survive). When the unfit humans die off, so do the organisms dependent on them.

This all stems from our idea that human beings who are currently alive have intrinsic value, and that value is greater than that of other life forms. Naturalistic evolution cannot explain how such value exists on an objective level; however, it can explain it on a relative level. But if it can only explain human "value" on a relative level, then it is equally acceptable to allow a person to suffer and die versus treating them to the point of recovery- whether we allow a person to die or treat them must then be determined by other people who may use whatever relative value system they wish to use (keep in mind that they cannot say that any conclusion they come up with is objectively what "should" be done, because no system they use will be objective in nature). An example would be the conclusion that someone does not possess enough resources to enhance the lifestyles or survivability of the current generation, so it is okay to allow them to die- they are not worth the resources that would be spent on treating them...in fact, this could be taken to the further point of "well, they are taking up resources from those of us who would like to survive and have the capability to, so let's end the life of the person and call it a 'mercy killing' to trick our consciences into believing that our survival was worth the ending of a life." This decision will eventually come back to what I described as "murder" above.

Fallacious Appeals to Emotion
There is something that I want to point out about the appeal I have just made. Notice that it is completely emotional. As much as I would like to call the death of the individual "murder" and would like to appeal to the emotion tied to such a term, I would not be able to. Since naturalism does not have objective moral values, a naturalist cannot call any of these deaths "murder". "Murder" has an objectively moral quality to it that naturalistic moral theories do not have room for. My appeal to the "heart strings" of a naturalist to recognize a specific death as "murder" will not work. Why? Because morality is relative. The person making the decision may use any justification they wish, and it is considered "right"; the death cannot be classified as morally wrong (murder) because it is "right" by the person making the decision. Can we meaningfully say that what is portrayed in the cartoon I've chosen to accompany this post is objectively wrong? What about the assassination of Reverend King?

Psychological Tricks
Unfortunately for the naturalist, I am not completely cut off from reason by this fallacious appeal. If my conclusion is actually false (that a particular death is objectively, morally wrong), they must be able to explain why they and/or others strongly understand that such a death is morally wrong. The emotion is real. It is present, thus its evidence must be explained. Naturalism has plenty of options. The "feeling" could be ignored. It could be suppressed. It could be denied, altogether. But how many psychological defense mechanisms are we willing to utilize to convince ourselves of the truth of our morality, ensure our own individual "value" supersedes another, and justify our belief that naturalism is true? Are we willing to accept the idea that evolution has given us a strong intuition that something is true about reality, when in reality it is actually false? If so, we must question the reliability of other evolved faculties we use to determine truth- including the mind we use to logically come to this conclusion.

Conclusion
No person in their right mind would acknowledge that a person's value is reduced to being relative to their own or that one person is more valuable than another (equality does not exist). If one denies the objective value of one person, they must deny it for all people including himself. Human, intrinsic and equal, value is one of those things that man knows to be objectively true, but cannot ground the existence of it or his certainty of it unless he acknowledges the Imago Dei. Which means that man must acknowledge that the Judeo-Christian God exists if he wishes to hold that man possess intrinsic value and "all men are created equal."

Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. based his fight for the civil rights on his worldview of Christianity. His fight does not make sense within the naturalistic worldview. Consequently, even naturalists in America owe a debt of gratitude to Christianity for the benefits of civil rights.

Check out this post by Stephen McAndrew at Songs of a Semi-Free Man specifically addressing our desire to fight for human equality.

Arthur Khachatryan at Cold and Lonely Truth has posted a comparison of Reverend King with Adolph Hitler.

Who's Forcing Beliefs on Who?

2012-01-02T06:00:00.003-06:00

Religious Propaganda
The other day I heard a fellow Christian complain that atheists are constantly complaining that Christians try to "force their beliefs on people". The Christian complained that the atheist has no right to complain because he is doing the exact same thing. This caught my ear for a few reasons.

First, that critique cuts in all directions. Any person who believes that they teach the truth will automatically see a person who differs with them and teaches those differing views with just as much passion as a threat to their beliefs being accepted. People do tend to use propagandistic language when describing the teaching of beliefs that they do not agree with. Christians tend to think that public education is forcing atheist and relativist propaganda on our kids. Atheists and relativists believe that we are forcing our propaganda on their kids. Christians should not be complaining about others behaving in the same way that we do. I'm pretty sure that such hypocrisy turns people away from the Church- not because they think that Christianity is false, but because its adherents don't practice what it teaches.

Second, if atheism is the correct worldview, then what? If the atheist is right, I hope they do force the belief on us. Remember what the Apostle Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 15? "...if Christ has not be raised, then we are to be most pitied among men." Paul was committed to truth, not a particular ideal. Both sides believe that they are right and the other is wrong. Paul addressed challenges and defended why he believed that Jesus Christ was God, died, and rose again. Should we not do the same? This leads to my third problem.

The Red Herring
One of my biggest pet-peeves in discussion is the "red herring"- a statement that has no bearing on the truth of a claim whatsoever, but is offered as a "response". I've seen this tactic used by so many intellectuals in debates (both Christians and non-Christians) that I can't help but think that they simply can't offer an intelligent response to the challenge at hand.

The particular statement about forcing beliefs on someone is an emotional "red herring" offered by too many Christians. It is typically given to change the subject from a tough challenge to one that is more easy to deal with. It is also used to provide emotional and rhetorical support for the Christian when they can't provide intellectual support. If we believe that the atheist is, in fact, wrong, we need to spend more time critiquing their position than changing the subject and providing the same type of empty rhetoric that they do.

Call It What It Is
Now, having said all that, should we address this if it comes up? Of course. It is fairly easy to deal with. Many atheists DO complain about religious people forcing their beliefs on others. But it needs to be addressed when the atheist brings it up; the Christian should never be the one to offer this challenge. When an atheist complains about Christians propogandizing the next generation, we simply need to point out that they are living inconsistently with what they are saying, and if it was offered in response to a challenge, we need to point out the fact that the complaint is merely a diversion and an intelligent response has yet to be offered. If a Christian offers this as a response to an atheist challenge, it is the atheist's academic duty and responsibility to the listeners to point out the logical errors.

Stay on Track
It is true that both sides desire to teach children what they believe to be true. As Christians, we do not really need to discourage the atheists from doing it either. We have answers to their challenges, and if we prepare ourselves, we can address them. Anyone who believes that they hold the true worldview needs to not be afraid of or attempt to dodge a challenge. If our worldview is true, then there will be an answer to the challenge; we just need to do the leg-work to discover it. Offering "red-herrings" is much more convenient than actually addressing a challenge, but it is intellectually lazy and academically dishonest. It disrespects the challenge offered and insults the intelligence of those listening.

Most atheists believe that science has cornered the market on truth. They believe that science has the answer to everything. If this is true, then there is no logical reason for them to avoid a challenge. The Christian believes that all truth is grounded in God and an honest, reasoned search for the truth will result in the discovery of the Christian worldview. They have no logical reason to avoid a challenge either. Unfortunately, a reasoned search for truth is not always the sole goal of a challenger. It can be emotional vindication, approval of their peers, and/or persuasion at any cost. If any of these is the goal of the challenger, offering such a complaint is quite appropriate for the task. If not, then both the Christian and the atheist needs to avoid the easy way out and either address the challenge or humbly state that they do not know but will research an answer for those who are honestly seeking an answer to the challenge.

Conclusion
Do to the nature of truth being exclusive, to the person who disagrees, it will appear that anyone who believes that they hold truth and teaches it is pushing that belief on someone else. Complaining about it is beside most points, and frankly, if we're not doing it in front of a mirror, we shouldn't be complaining in the first place.

Cartoons, Animal Death, and Theology

2011-12-26T06:00:00.000-06:00

Ever since I can remember I have been an avid fan of the old Looney Tunes cartoons (Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, et al). Since I have grown up and am now a more critical thinker, I have an all new appreciation for these cartoons (they are funny for even more reasons now). The other day I was watching through some of them and came across one that I think provides quite an interesting critique of the challenge of so much animal death in God's creation.

The Challenge:

If God is all loving and all powerful, then he would not have created a world in which there was so much animal death and suffering.
There is a lot of animal death and suffering.
Therefore, God is either (or both) not all-loving and (or) all-powerful...and may not even exist.

This is a form of the problem of evil. It is also frequently used by young earth creationists against old earth positions- since the old-earth views tend to recognize that the fossil record provides solid evidence of death prior to man's introduction into creation (thus death existed prior to The Fall). Anyway here's the cartoon (for those with limited time or attention span, you can skip to 5:05 for the main part I want you to see):

The junior cat basically challenges his father's choice to catch and eat birds. Jr. appeals to his father's "humanity". His father counters it by pointing out the obvious thing: he's not a human; he's a cat, and cats catch birds. He stated it in quite a matter-of-fact way, and Jr. had nothing to come back with.

Grounds of the Challenge
It seems that the foundation for this challenge is the anthropormorphization of (projection of human qualities onto) animals. The naturalist does it via the idea of common ancestry (man and animal are really no different). Young earth creationists make the assumption (in their challenge) that animals are moral beings just as humans are, thus their suffering is necessarily just as evil as human suffering (also assuming that all human suffering IS evil).

The Grounds of the Challenge Challenged
Let me first address the naturalist. The anthropomorphimization of animals is consistent in the naturalist's worldview (see my post "Human Equality and Evolution"). So this is not where the argument fails. Where it does fail is when they decide to call it "evil". "Evil" is only a relative term (and likely merely a subjective term) in naturalism. Since there is no objective standard to determine what is "good" or "evil", it is up to the culture or the individual to offer their opinion about the "goodness" or "evilness" of something. Since evil does not have an objective meaning, the challenge makes no sense within the naturalist's worldview.

Of course, the naturalist is not always posing the challenge from within his or her own worldview. Instead, they are posing it as an inconsistency in the Christian worldview. They typically appeal to God declaring his creation "very good". They say that the evil that is the pain and suffering of animals is not "very good". Starting from this point, the young earth creationist and the naturalist are posing the same challenge to the old earth Christian view, so I will address both of them simultaneously.

The Argument
As mentioned before, this challenge (from either camp) rests on the assumption that man and animal are both moral agents. However, scripture never attributes anything to animals that would allow us to believe that they are moral agents. But man is given an attribute that allows him (and him alone) to be a moral agent- the Image of God. Since this attribute was not ascribed to the members of the animal kingdom, they are not moral agents.

Evil is a term relative to the morality of God's nature. Since animals are not moral creatures then we can't use "evil" to describe anything about them. "Evil" is a term that we use to describe things that happen to humans (moral agents), and since animals are not moral agents, "evil" cannot be used to describe things that happen to them. Here is the formulation:

Morality is a necessary attribute of a being that has the possibility to sin or possess a sin nature.
Scripture does not ascribe moral or spiritual attributes to animals, but does explicitly ascribe the Image of God to humans
Therefore, animals are amoral and aspiritual. (1 and 2)
"Evil" is a term of morality.
Therefore "evil" is a term that cannot be used of animals (3 and 4)
Things that happen to moral agents can be described as "good" or "evil"
Therefore, things that happen to animals cannot be described as "good" or "evil" (5 and 6)

A Parallel Argument- A Challenge Addressed
Some may wish to challenge the idea that something "evil" cannot happen to an amoral creature. However to respond to that challenge, I will appeal to and argue from scripture (since I am now arguing from within the Christian worldview, and the Bible is a proper authority in the Christan worldview, it is appropriate to appeal to it). First, God cannot contradict himself (2 Timothy 2:13). Morality is part of God's nature, so he cannot act immorally. Second, God took skins to clothe Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:21). The skins had to come from some dead animal. We have a couple options:

The animal was already dead. If it was dead prior to the Fall, then there is no need to go further. If it died just moments after The Fall, it would have had to be orchestrated by God because nature does not work that quickly
God killed the animal

Regardless of the option, to continue to the argument, God must be involved in the animal's death. If God is involved in the animal's death and God cannot contradict his nature, then what he did was not evil. What God did was to kill the animal, therefore the death of an animal cannot be necessarily described as "evil".

Here is the formulation:

God cannot contradict himself
Morality is part of God's nature
Therefore, God cannot do anything immoral (evil) (1 and 2)
God is involved in the death of an animal to clothe Adam and Eve
Therefore, the death of animals is not necessarily evil (3 and 4)

Implications
I want it to be clear that what I have presented here does not, in any way, serve as a defeater to the worldviews or models of the challengers. The purpose of these arguments is to defeat the specific challenge that the view is internally inconsistent. This is a defensive presentation not an offensive one.

Since it does provide a way for the Christian worldview (and specifically the old-age version) to be internally consistent, the challenge provided by both naturalists (against Christianity) and young-earth creationists (against the old-age view) is not able to stand logically.

Bad Designs and the Pharmaceutical Industry

2011-12-19T06:00:00.001-06:00

Irony Found In Drugs
Over the last decade or so, it seems to me that the commercials for pharmaceutical drugs are getting longer and more entertaining. One of the things that I find ironic is that the narrator spends the majority of the commercial explaining the possible side effects of the drug rather than what it is designed to accomplish for the patient. The confusion really begins when they describe the trade-offs: do you want sleep? You must sacrifice breathing. If you want to not be constipated, urination may be uncontrollable. If you wish to escape allergies, you may become suicidal. If you desire to not be so depressed, you might experience a heart condition that may cause death.

Change the Subject- To Intelligent Design
One of the challenges to the theory of intelligent design is that there are imperfect designs in nature. The argument goes like this:

If an all-powerful and all-loving God is the intelligent designer of the universe, there would be no imperfect designs in His creation.
There are imperfect designs in nature.
Therefore, if there is an intelligent designer, he is either not all-powerful, not all-loving, or neither.

The logic of this argument is valid. If one wishes to show that this argument is not sound (the conclusion [#3] does not follow), then they must show one of the premises (#1 or #2) to be false. Both of the premises are up for debate among ID theorists, but I want to focus on the first for right now.

They're Related

Purpose in Engineering
In order for us to know if a design is imperfect, we must know what it is "perfect" or "imperfect" to accomplish- in other words, we must know the purpose. In the pharmaceutical industry, in order to accomplish the successful treatment of an ailment, there are implications that are the result of the natural systems in which they are working.

One way to show the first premise to be false is to posit that an imperfection in a design is the result of a balance of multiple purposes in the given system (our natural laws). Engineering requires sacrifices to accomplish certain purposes. Multiple opposing purposes (such as sturdiness and cost) require that no single attribute be maximized. These balances are necessary. Same with creation.

Multiple Purposes In Chemical Engineering
With the chemical engineering of the drugs, at least, two opposing purposes exist: eliminate the ailment and eliminate the negative risks. The ailment may be completely eliminated, but the risks may be maximized; the risks may be eliminated, but the ailment may not even be alleviated a little bit. When the engineers comes to an acceptable balance between the level of treatment and the possible risks, the drug is presented to the FDA, and it goes through the rest of the process to reach the public.

Multiple Purposes In Creation
Creation and the Intelligent Designer are not different. Many theologians recognize the Designer (God) as an engineer, who has purposes for his creation and must balance certain features to accomplish multiple purposes. Some do not accept this, though, because they believe that that makes the Creator not all-powerful (he should be able to maximize all attributes regardless of limits of nature). But this challenge does not take into account that the creator of the creatures in the natural realm is also the Creator of the natural realm and its laws- the Designer designed the limits in which He must work. By implication, the Designer had a purpose for choosing the specific natural laws that He did. Since He chose them, he knows the implications of all designs, so even the side-effects or implications of a specific design also have a purpose.

Conclusion
The only way that someone may claim that a design is imperfect is if they know the purpose that is not accomplished by the design. Just because someone cannot imagine a purpose that is accomplished by all the implications of a specific design, they are not justified in concluding that one such purpose does not exist. Thus they are not justified in concluding that premise #1 is true. Since premise #1 does not have justification for its truth, the argument is not sound, and the conclusion does not follow.

For more specific information on this specific response (including possible purposes of God derived from scripture) to the "imperfect design" challenge to intelligent design, I highly recommend the book by astrophysicist Hugh Ross "Why The Universe Is The Way It Is". Dr. Ross was also interviewed in a series of podcasts regarding the content of each chapter of the book.

Santa Claus and Our Children's Trust

2011-12-12T06:00:00.001-06:00

My all-time favorite comic strip has to be Calvin and Hobbes. As a kid I would spend hours reading it and laughing until my tummy and cheeks hurt. I still do that today, but I am much more equipped to appreciate the philosophy that Watterson communicated through his witty characters too. This one gave me pause the other day:

...not because of the questions that Calvin found to be common between Santa Claus and God, or even the fact that he has questions about God. What troubled me is the fact that he has questions about Santa Claus. If someone had not told Calvin that Santa Claus existed, he would not even have such questions about Santa Claus. I want to talk this week about two important things that Watterson has illustrated (...unintended pun left for your enjoyment) for Christian parents.

Kids inherently trust what their parents tell them
The primary reason for Calvin's confusion is because he has been told by his parents (and probably the media) that Santa Claus exists, yet there is much mystery (his own words) about this figure. To most kids, their parents are authorities regarding reality. If the parents say that Santa Claus exists, it must be true. But when someone else, who they also trust as an authority on reality, tells them otherwise, they have a conflict that they need to resolve.

Regardless of what "evidence" either side provides for their case, if the child chooses to trust the authority that is not the Christian parent, that child's trust in their parents' judgment just began to dwindle. As magical as Santa Claus may be for a child, if we (as Christian parents) tell our kids that he exists, we (not just they) are in for a big surprise when they discover that their parents had been knowingly telling them something untrue (lying). Why should they believe us about the existence of another character that the world tells them is fictional also (God)?

Don't break that trust
If we wish to be good ambassadors for our children, we need to keep their trust in us as solid as we can. Anytime a parent lies to their children, they surrender the right to be trusted by their kids in the future*. The formative years is not a good time to be playing with their concepts of reality- it will set them up for a life of being skeptical of authorities (including God) if we do.

Kids are going to question things- get used to it
Of course, Calvin may not be being influenced by other authorities in his life, but he may just be a deep thinker (as Watterson has designed his character- more on that in a second)- he's unwilling to accept something on blind faith. He wants to think through things. He wants to investigate implications of ideas and determine if those implications are present in reality. Inherent in Calvin's questions is, "how?". I've been around my nieces and nephews long enough to know that "Why?" is their favorite question when their young. For those who curiosity runs deep, that question continues into their teenage years and also becomes more clearly articulated as "Why and how?"

We don't get freaked out when a small child asks us why we cook dinner or why rocks are here. We don't mind if a teenager asks, how a computer works or how we can expect them to do well in school. Likewise, when the deeper questions come- about God, philosophy, and Christmas- we can't freak out. When our kids ask us about the more mundane things of life, we do our best to provide them with a correct answer. We need to do the same when they ask the questions with eternal consequences.

Designed to Think
It is clear that Watterson designed Calvin's character to be a deep thinker. If we truly believe that God is the designer of the universe and of our children, we must recognize that their desire to thinking things through comes directly from God.

When I was a kid, many simple things filled me with wonder: the design of a leaf, the sounds of a stream, the jack-in-the-box (that might have just been adrenaline). Unfortunately, in my older age, I have lost a lot of sense of wonder of those things. However, that it so that I can focus on the wonder of other things. Specifically, a youngster's ability to think (or not think).

For the ones who do, I recognize that they are using the mind that God gave them; I engage them and encourage them to think even more deeply about the everlasting things of reality. For those who don't think (after I've gotten over the wonder of their not using their mind), I look for ways to make them think. It is an exercise for my mind, and when they do engage me, the thrill is magnificent.

Be prepared to answer the questions
As parents (and aunts, uncles and grandparents), we need to be prepared to use the minds that God gave to us, and we need to be an example to our kids on how to use theirs. We need to give them room to explore, to know God on their own, to choose for themselves if they wish to follow their Creator or not. This is not a choice we can make for them, and our inability to answer tough questions (or to refer them to someone who can) or unwillingness to give them room for doubt will cause them to doubt our own willingness to investigate and search for what is actually true. If we don't wish for our kids to have a blind faith, we can't exhibit it to them.

Knowing the character of Calvin, he would be absolutely ecstatic if his parents engaged him more often with the deeper issues of life. He is frequently challenged by the other characters in the strip regarding mundane things but never on the more important issues such as God and eternity. If the child in your life is a thinker, you have the ability to connect with them in a way that few your age are willing to. It will establish a relationship of trust.

Part of being an ambassador for Christ, involves our character. When kids look to us for guidance, they are telling us that they trust our character. As parents let's not undermine that trust by starting them out believing in Santa Claus; and as friends and family members, we can't jeopardize our future relationship of trust by perpetuating the same falsehood.

Christians Who Practice the Santa Claus Tradition
Now, there are many Christians who do not have a problem with the Santa Claus tradition and many of them even use it in their own families. I want to make a few distinctions in what I am saying and recognize some merits in the Santa Claus tradition to avoid any possible confusion.

First, I'm not saying that Christians cannot use Santa in their traditions at all. I have no problem with it as long as there is the understanding with the kids that Santa is a fictional character. Its very similar to my stance on the Easter Bunny. When I was young, I love going on Easter egg hunts, and today love putting them on for my nieces and nephews. The tradition is carried on with the kids understanding that bunnies cannot lay eggs, and that the "Easter" bunny is not real anyway. It does not take away from the enjoyment.

Naughty or Nice?

The primary difference I see between the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus is that the tradition behind the Easter Bunny does not have the ability to influence the behavior of kids. The Santa Claus tradition only has that effect if the kid believes that Santa is real, though. So, the tradition can still be used, but it will not have the influence that it is intended to in the secular world.

For the Christian family, this is not big sacrifice. We have the love of Christ that should influence our behavior, not the anticipation of getting something we want. Santa cannot take into consideration intention of the heart (which could very well be the "candy machine" mentality). Santa cannot know if the child is just trying to manipulate him or if he actually is "good". Calvin makes this point very clear...but Hobbes sees right through it and highlights Santa's limitation. Christians can still get the implications that the Santa Claus tradition is supposed to have, while still understanding Santa Claus as a fictional character. Christianity has an advantage, though. The true heart of the child is on display. When the parent knows the heart of their child, they know them more intimately and can guide them in more influential ways.

An Analogy to Christ
Second, many Christians use the tradition of Santa Claus as a cultural illustration of Christ's love. They make the connection between Santa Claus selflessly giving gifts to everyone. This points to how we should be more selfless and put others before ourselves. Some take it another step: Santa gives regardless of the condition of your heart. And still others build upon that theme by pointing to the ultimate selfless act that Christ did on the Cross- He gave His own life that we might live. The thought-provoking question posed after that is this: if Santa is selfless to give material things, how much more selfless is Christ to give his life?

Everyone of those connections are very powerful and may go a long way to help explain Christ's love to a child. The beautiful thing is that <b>none</b> of them depend upon the child believing that Santa is real. For the more thoughtful kids, the fact that Santa does not exist may weaken the connection, but then the real person whom the Santa Claus tradition is based upon (St. Nicholas) can be appealed to.

Christians have nothing to lose by being up front about Santa Claus to their kids. In fact, my second point demonstrates a potentially powerful way to make the love of Christ very personal to them. Yet, if we are telling them that Santa Claus is real at the same time, and they discover he's not (apart from us), they may project that revelation onto Christ also. This important distinction needs to be made. The longer that we allow them to believe that Santa is real, the less control we have over when they discover the truth and how they will react to it. Their trust in us is in jeopardy, and more importantly their trust in God is in jeopardy.

Enough About the Parents- what about the kids and their friends?
Of course, our kids live in a world populated with other kids who believe the lie. If we are to tell our kids that Santa is not real, we have to follow it up with some caution when talking with their friends.

This puts forth an interesting moral dilemma: telling the truth vs. perpetuating a lie. At first glance, the choice seems obvious. Unfortunately, as we consider consequences, the choice becomes less obvious. Let me explain. Things get a little more hairy when the parents are Christian- are we to show another child that their Christian parents are not to be trusted? What if the parents are not Christian- are we justified in potentially damaging their authority with their kids? Also, many parents want to use Santa as a tradition for the Christmas season and may or may not expect their kids to find out, or they may tell them on their own in their own time. If our kids tell these kids the truth, it is likely to cause unintended consequences that may neutralize our good intentions or even back-fire completely. It appears as though some compromise and risk may be involved in doing what appears to be obvious.

In many cases the extra information that is needed to guarantee no compromise and no risk is not going to be known (when it is, and you are in control of the divulging, you can decide). How can we promote the truth while minimizing adverse effects when we don't have all the info? What should we tell our kids about communicating this information? Here are two things that I suggest:

We must instruct our kids to not go trumpeting the news- this may cause unnecessary confusion, distrust, and skepticism before its proper time. They need to only give it out if asked directly. This seems like a good beginning point- exceptions may be made depending upon circumstances that allow for more vocal approaches.
Greg Koukl promotes, in his book Tactics (link below), asking questions to draw out logical conclusions. Our kids are already good at asking us questions, why not have them redirect those questions towards other kids? Our kids are never too young to learn to ask each other thought-provoking questions. Even if asked directly about Santa's reality, a child could direct their friend to discover the truth on their own by asking questions.

The truth must be given in a manner that the person is likely to accept it. But we must provide it in a manner that will not damage appropriate relationships with other authoritative figures. It is unwise to compromise the content of what we say, but we it is imperative that we change our delivery of the truth based on the circumstances. This is yet another opportunity to teach our kids to be ambassadors for Christ. If we, as parents, exhibit careful thinking and action in our communication of the truth to our children, the they will follow in our footsteps and do the same for others.

Other Posts Regarding Santa Claus and Christmas:
Should Christians Invite Santa Claus to Christmas?

Books I Recommend For The Beginning Christian Thinker:
The Case For Christ
Without A Doubt
A World of Difference
Tactics: A Game Plan For Discussing Your Christian Convictions

Sites I Recommend If You're Just Starting Out:
Stand to Reason
Please Convince Me
Apologetics 315
The Poached Egg

*Thanks to my pastor, Craig Price, for that little nugget of truth.

Paperclips and Design

2011-12-05T06:00:00.000-06:00

Quite often intelligent design (ID) gets the accusation of being a "God-of-the-gaps" argument. The charge is that people cannot find a natural explanation for what they see in nature, so they immediately attribute it to God. Since nature may be able to explain a phenomenon, such quick conclusions are obviously intellectually lazy and should be recognized as such. A while back I wrote a post addressing the charge of being too quick to come to that conclusion. But this time, I want to focus on the idea that support for intelligent design comes primarily in the form of a process-of-elimination argument.

Even though such an argument does hold value, the conclusion is more reliable when another, more "positive", argument is presented. This argument takes the form of an analogy. It examines what we already accept as being designed by an intelligent agent (humans), and concludes that something of equal or more specified complexity is also designed by an intelligent agent. Allow me to provide an example.

Take The Simple Office Paperclip
Anytime that we look at something, even as simple as a paper clip, we can recognize that it was designed. How? We recognize that the probability of nature producing the paper clip we are looking at is extremely remote. Examine one with me. First you have the metal that provides a specific malleability (resistance to bending). Second, you have the specific shape- three specific curves and four straight sides that are positioned in such a way. Third, think of the precision of the movements and the precision of the strength required to obtain the specific shape. (If you can't, unbend a paper clip until it is as straight as you can get it, then try to get it back to its same precise shape it was before you straighten it- compare it to a second one from the box if you think you were successful.) The only way that a person, who had never seen a paper clip before, could ascribe random processes to its design, is in complete ignorance of the natural laws and basic engineering. We would say that the person is not learned in the ways of science and cast that conclusion away as not accurately reflecting reality. If we are to believe that complex processes and systems are the product of natural processes and the absence of a mind, why can't we say the same of a paperclip? If we did not already know that the paperclip was designed, then all reason would point us toward its not being designed.

Arguing From Assumption to Conclusion Using The Analogy
In order for an argument from analogy to take place, we must begin with an assumption and work our way toward our conclusion. I want to look at the assumptions of design and non-design starting with both the paperclip and nature.

From an Assumption About Nature to a Conclusion About a Paperclip
Assuming No Design
If we wish to conclude that nature is not designed, then we have no reason to believe that anything less complex is designed (remember, we are starting with the belief that all things have no designer). If we are to hold that a paperclip is actually designed, we need to determine what are the hallmarks of design present in a paperclip that are absent in nature. Without such characteristics, the theory that a paperclip is the product of design is not even plausible.

Assuming Design
If we were to start with the conclusion that nature is designed, then design of a paperclip makes perfect sense. If a more complex object is designed, there is no reason why a less complex object cannot be result of design also (it doesn't guarantee it, but makes it plausible).

From an Assumption About a Paperclip to a Conclusion About Nature
Assuming No Design
Now, let us go the other direction. Let's begin believing that the paperclip is not designed. If the paperclip is not designed, then it is reasonable to believe that anything more complex is not designed either (it doesn't guarantee it, but makes it plausible).

Assuming Design
Now, let's begin with the idea that the paperclip is designed. If the paperclip is designed and is simpler than something in nature, then it would stand to reason that the more complex things in nature are designed also.

The Implications

If we know that something simple has been designed, then it is reasonable to conclude that something complex is also designed. The reverse of the analogy also works. If something complex is not designed, then it is reasonable to conclude that something less complex (or simple) is also not designed. The implications beginning with the assumption of non-design in the nature are far-reaching. Since naturalists want to begin without the belief of a designer, let's look at all things that way and see where reason takes us.

If we look at things that are more complex and more efficient in nature than anything that man has ever created, are we to conclude that man's products are NOT designed? Engineers and architects are not really "designing" anything; they just think that they are. The less complex and less efficient human "designs" are even more the product of randomness and chance than nature itself. Many naturalists recognize that nature "appears" to be designed. Are we to conclude that humans' efforts are cheap imitations of appearances of design?

This is perfectly compatible with the naturalistic view that all is matter and energy acting and reacting- there is no authentic thought that can escape the action/reaction sequence. If everything began with a single domino being knocked down (forget who or what knocked it over for a moment), then "designs" are merely the reactions of actions that are merely the reactions of other actions, all the way back to the Big Bang (really further, but we won't go there right now).

This is not a palatable implication. Not only because it is emotionally unsavory, but because it goes against common experience of those who engineer designs. The common experience is that the engineer is coming up with designs in their own minds apart from actions and reactions of matter and energy. Some may say that this can be explained by the illusion of the mind, but that does not escape the reality of the absence of the mind, thus it neither escapes the conclusion that there really is no such thing as "design".

Ironically, the "design" of the paperclip is not really a design at all- the paperclip is not designed. Assuming that the paperclip is designed is not an option for the naturalist- if they wish to remain consistent. The only analogy that a naturalist may make is from non-design to non-design, while the ID advocate may start with either (since both are possible in his worldview).

The Analogy In Reality?
At this point I'm tempted to ask the reader, "Which beginning assumption makes sense in light of our experience?". The answer would be that since we know that paperclips are designed, we should start there and end with a designer of nature. However, before that step can be taken, questions must be answered:

Is a paperclip really more complex than processes or objects in nature?
Does complexity (relative to simplicity) require design?
Does simplicity (relative to complexity) require design?

The answer to the first question seems to be obviously "No"; however, there may be those who wish to challenge that. The implications may be escaped if it can be demonstrated that a paperclip is more complex than everything in nature.

A lot of people would answer the second question "No" by appealing to nature. Unfortunately, that cannot be done, because the very debate is whether nature (more complex than a paperclip) is designed. They would need to appeal to something else.

I had to toss in the third because of the fact that even establishing "No" as the answer to the first two does not necessitate the absence of a designer. Many engineers and architects will attest to the idea that simplicity is quite elegant and requires design to accomplish. The same way that the second question cannot be answered by appealing to nature, so this third one cannot either.

Simplicity and Complexity
Since the very presence of all the specific disciplines in the fields of engineering and architecture establish that both simplicity and complexity are the products of designers, it seems the burden of proof is on the naturalists to show that both simplicity and complexity can be the products of non-design. As mentioned above, nature cannot be appealed to, but neither can products that involve a human (since humans are designers). If you notice, though, the naturalist has nothing physical that may be appealed to in their worldview: designed things are removed from the realm of evidence because only humans can authentically design things; and nature has been removed because it is what the debate is about. Since neither designed nor "undesigned" evidence may be presented against the theist's view, it seems that this argument may be on quite solid ground.

However, the naturalist may be able to use a philosophical argument without appealing to actual objects or processes in our world to show that non-design can produce both simplicity and complexity. Other plans would be to attack the very existence of "design" and/or the distinction between "complexity" and "simplicity". Both can be accomplished by way of denying the existence of "minds" and free-will- making the need to provide an argument for either complexity or simplicity requiring design unneeded. But can the denial of minds or free-will be done without assuming, first, what naturalists are attempting to prove via their argument (that a transcendent designer of the universe does not exist)?

Are ID Advocates Really Intellectually Lazy?
Since this argument of intelligent design advocates is not simply an appeal to ignorance, the charge of intellectual laziness does not stand. Both sides of the analogy are based on observations of the natural realm, and the philosophical argumentation is sound. The way to successfully undermine intelligent design is not to address an argument that is not being presented; it is to address the argument that is being presented. My simple request is that critics of ID stop addressing this strawman/red herring and actually begin to show us what they believe is the failure of the analogy. If they do this, ID advocates make their arguments more robust where they may be weak, thus providing the critic with a more powerful and intellectual challenge than they already have- which is what most ID critics keep "demanding".

Are You Addressing A Worldview or Its Adherents?

2011-11-28T06:00:00.002-06:00

The other day I posted a challenge to the atheistic worldview. I basically proposed that a few things were inconsistent within the worldview. In the comments, a person challenged me about how I was approaching the issue- saying that no atheist he knew held the beliefs that I was proposing. This brings up an important distinction that I think needs to be brought to the forefront: a worldview vs. an adherent.

A worldview is basically a series of propositions that may accurately reflect reality. An adherent is one who holds those beliefs. In conversations about reality, a worldview may be addressed; the adherent to a worldview may be addressed, or both may be addressed. When addressing a worldview, one takes its propositions and tests them against reality. There are multiple levels of worldviews that get more specific. Within the theistic worldview, you have Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and others. Within the Christian worldview, there exists Calvinists, Arminians, Compatiblists, etc. And there are more divisions at the same level of that with other distinctions. The general worldview or the specific worldviews may be tested. I expand on this more in my post "Can Religion Be Tested For Truth?".

However, here we are only addressing the worldview, not the adherent or person who claims it. Addressing a person tends to be more on the difficult side. A person may not be completely committed to a single worldview in profession or in practice. Some try to take propositions and practices from multiple worldviews. A worldview, itself, can be addressed dispassionately- you demonstrate an inconsistency either internally or externally (with reality), and its done. However, those who hold the worldview that was just shown inconsistent, may not abide by the conditions of the inconsistency. Ultimately, a person is not required to maintain consistent beliefs and practices. They may hold inconsistent beliefs and act inconsistently with their worldview.

This is where getting to know a person and understand their particular views will come in handy. If we are to address a person, we cannot just assume that they hold a specific worldview. We may be using concepts to show an inconsistency that they don't even accept as true. Unless the concepts (premises in an argument) are accepted by both parties, then both parties are not going to accept the inconsistency (conclusion in the argument). I discuss this more in my post "Misengaged in Battle".

We also cannot forget that people are not dispassionate robots. Just because we input a few premises, we cannot always expect them to output the right conclusion. People have emotions that cause them to hold passionately to certain beliefs. Even in the face of a sound argument, they may still deny the conclusion. Emotions also speak quite loudly in the middle of adverse circumstances, and arguments may be the last thing they need (Carson Weitnauer at Reasons for God posted on this: Arguments That Hurt).

Finally, just because someone believes that a worldview is true, it does not mean that they will dedicate their life to it, or just because they believe that a personal God exists, that they want a relationship with Him, or that if they believe that Jesus Christ offers a gift of salvation that they will accept it. I go into more detail about this last issue in my post "Can You Argue Someone Into The Kingdom?".

There is a distinction between a worldview and the one who holds it. Both are different and must be addressed differently. Many times it is difficult to separate the two, whether on the giving or receiving end. It is the responsibility of the giver to distinguish, and the responsibility of the receiver to discern the distinction. We cannot rely on the other to always do their part, so we should make sure that we are doing our part.

Thanksgiving, Evolution, and Design

2011-11-19T06:00:00.003-06:00

Thanksgiving In America
Thanksgiving is a holiday that I see has lost a lot of its meaning in American society. I remember being taught that Thanksgiving was a time to stop and thank God for everything that he has bestowed upon us (be it material goods, health, understanding or anything- even suffering).

It seems quite difficult to do such a thing when America has abandoned belief in a personal God who affects our lives or has abandoned belief in God completely. I would hope that I would be able to see people at least showing gratitude to each other for something, but I don't even see that anymore. Instead, I see people calling it "Turkey Day", almost in an effort to remove the idea of being thankful to anyone for anything- which is a direct logical conclusion of America's narcissistic materialism ("its all about me").

I think that Americans have been trained to be unsatisfied with what they have and to always want more. This desire for more is so strong that it minimizes the recognition that the person has many reasons to be thankful to God and other people. Instead, their focus is on what they don't have, thus they don't see a reason to be thankful.

But moving beyond my cultural annoyances with the holiday, I find that the whole idea of "giving thanks" may be difficult (if not impossible) for naturalistic theories of human behavior to explain. If impossible, then it provides a powerful challenge to naturalism. However, whether difficult or impossible for naturalism, it provides evidence for an intelligent designer.

Requirements of Thankfulness
"Thanking" requires two people: one to do the thanking and the other to recognize it. The person doing the thanking needs to have the desire to thank someone, while the person who is being thanked has to have the ability to recognize that the gratitude is present and that it is a good thing (instead of a threatening or neutral thing).

The First Problem for Naturalism
The first challenge comes from the evolution of the abilities. Most naturalists hold that natural selection (the guide behind the evolutionary process) responds only to the present environment. There is no forethought and no specific goal other than simply survival. In order for "thankfulness" as a behavior or posture of the emotions to survive natural selection's lack of forethought, both the person offering the thanks and the one receiving the thanks must have developed (evolved) those complementary abilities simultaneously. The ability for "thanking someone" to improve survival of a person or society relies on a "chicken and egg" system to be in place before it works.

The Second Problem for Naturalism
The second challenge comes from the environment in which the first challenge must take place. The primary goal of any organism is to survive. This goal would be active both before and after the introduction of thankfulness. The problem comes in the reciprocating behavior of one organism if another showed gratitude to the first. Gratitude may be shown in many ways. It can be shown by verbal communication, the gifting of some valuable item, the offering of a useful service, or any other number of ways.

The main attribute that these each hold in common is that they require the thankful member to focus on the other. The change of focus may directly or indirectly affect the first's survival, though. Energy, time, items, or other resources in one organism's possession that are used for another organism's advantage, reduces the advantage of the first and increases the advantage of the second. This vulnerable position of the first makes it quite easy for the second to act further to reduce (or eliminate) the advantage of the first.

It Sounds Orchestrated
Since random mutation would only allow this new behavior to evolve in one person (or a minute number of people), the first would be greatly outnumbered by those who don't have the mutation that allows for complementary reaction to the thankful behavior. One could argue that the others may have mutated genes that provided the emotion of sympathy- but that, again, would only be a single person (or minute number of people). It could also be argued that maybe both sets of people evolved these abilities (respectively, altruism and sympathy) earlier and passed it on to many offspring and the offspring recognized that it would be to their disadvantage to exhibit those traits- which would require the prior evolution of a mind that could make such a determination. But this whole idea is starting to sound orchestrated (not random)- which would require an orchestrator.

Complementary behaviors in humans provide quite the powerful evidence for planned design. Does this provide evidence for a God? Unless you want to say that this orchestration came from super-intelligent aliens, I would say so. Of course, you can always deny that any orchestration happened at all, and continue to believe that random processes produced something that looks like an elegant system.

Conclusion
As much as I hate the way people are treating the holiday, I love Thanksgiving. Not only do I have many blessings to be thankful to God for, but I have many reasons to show gratitude to my friends and family. Even though many just celebrate Thanksgiving as another reason to eat more food this time of year, it may also be celebrated as providing more evidence for the existence of the Creator of the food.

Check out this article from Carson Weitnauer: Faith at Thanksgiving

Happy Thanksgiving!

Stephen Law's "Evil God" Argument

2011-11-14T06:00:00.004-06:00

In a recent debate with William Lane Craig, Stephen Law proposed an interesting argument in defense of atheism. He provided many examples of "good" in the world and from those concluded that an evil God does not exist. He then challenged Craig to show how one can believe that a good God can exist when one believes that an evil God does not exist. In a very simple form, the argument looks like this:

1. An evil God does not exist.
2. An evil God and a good God are the same
3. Therefore, a good God does not exist
4. Craig's God is a good God
5. Therefore, Craig's God does not exist

At this time, I'm not going to focus on the first premise (although it will play a part). I think that Craig handled it adequately in the debate (Randy Everest at Possible Worlds addresses the concerns with the premise and Craig's responses in his analysis of the argument). However, premise 2 is the one that did not receive much attention from Craig and where I think that he could have also shown the argument's weakness. I want to quickly go over a few observations about the second premise.

Defend the Premise
Stephen Law did not state the second premise explicitly. He only implied it. Since he did not clearly articulate it in the debate, he did not really provide a defense for it. Its truth was assumed by Law to be accepted by the audience. He indicated this by challenging William Lane Craig to show that his conclusion did not logically follow. He was demanding an argument from Craig for its falsehood before Law presented an argument for its truth. Even though I don't have a case from Law for the truth of the premise to critique, I can offer a case against its truth.

Same or Indistinguishable
Since Law did not explicitly state the premise, those who discern its presence in the argument are left with a bit of ambiguity about whether Law is speaking ontologically (an evil God and a good God are the same) or if he's merely speaking epistemologically (an evil God and a good God are indistinguishable).

This distinction is quite important. Stephen Law's conclusion that a good god does not exist, is dependent upon the two being the same. If the two are not the same (merely indistinguishable), then if one is shown to not exist, the other may still exist. This distinction is good in theory, but what affect does it have in practice against Law's case?

Good and Evil
Since Stephen Law wishes to conclude that a good God does not exist, let's assume that his second premise is speaking ontologically (that the evil God and the good God are the same). The truth of the premise is dependent upon "good" and "evil" being the same. Ironically, his first premise undermines the second by denying this truth in defense of its own truth.

Law defends the first premise by pointing out the differences between "good" and "evil" in the world. He then asks why an evil God would allow so much "good". For this question to even make sense, "good" and "evil" must be different. If they are different, then a good God and and evil God must also be different. If they are different, then his second premise is not true, the argument is not sound and the conclusions do not follow.

But what if "good" and "evil" are merely indistinguishable from each other? As mentioned above, indistinguishability allows for one to exist while the other does not. Based upon indistinguishability of the two, we could agree that an evil God does not exist, but Law would have to at least be open to the existence of the good God. The closest to atheism this argument has the possibility of taking Stephen Law or any other person is to a type of agnosticism.

Agnosticism?
But it does not end there. What was quite surprising in the debate is that it seems that Law conceded that he merely means that the two gods are indistinguishable from one another near the end of the debate. If he concedes that, then he has just admitted to the falsehood both of his premises presented above. Law cannot distinguish between "good" and "evil" to know that one God would not permit certain actions and conclude from the existence of those actions that that one God does not exist. Since he has no way to establish that one of the Gods do not exist, he cannot even make the comparison (same or indistinguishable) to another God to say that it doesn't exist either. Which means that neither of his conclusions follow. This argument fails to even get the atheist to agnosticism regarding God's existence. Rather it leaves the person with the existence of SOME god.

Now, one could claim agnosticism about whether or not to worship the god based on not knowing if the god is good or evil. But to get this far, we are dependent upon "good" and "evil" being indistinguishable (if not the same). The question of whether we "should" worship this god, is a moral question that assumes that it would be "evil" to worship an "evil" god or not worship a "good" god and "good" to worship a "good" god or not worship an "evil" god. But if the "good" and "evil" are indistinguishable, whether we worship the god or not is not good or evil. It is a matter of opinion and not an idea that we can really be "agnostic" regarding.

If one wishes to hold that the choice to worship a god is not merely a matter of opinion but rather something that they can be wrong about, then they are also holding that such a decision has an actual truth- and moral- value that is determined by being able to distinguish between "good" and "evil", which defeats the reason one is even at this point.

Conclusion
The "evil god" argument is an interesting twist on the problem of evil. Many times it is characterized as "the problem of good". However, the argument has too many issues to be logically salvaged. Of course, this does not mean that it won't be or is not persuasive to many who are looking to dismiss God's existence. On the surface, it is quite persuasive, but it loses its power when further investigation is completed.

Other Resources:

Full audio from the debate between William Lane Craig and Stephen Law from Apologetics 315: Does God Exist?
Transcript of debate (registration required)
Analysis of Stephen Law's first premise that an evil God does not exist from Randy Everest: Craig, Law, and Evil God: Oh My!
Analysis of the entire debate between William Lane Craig and Stephen Law from J.W. Wartick: William Lane Craig vs. Stephen Law: Thoughts and Links
How the implications of Law's argument affects his response to the missing ontological argument in Craig's presentation by philosopher Doug Geivett

The Scientific Method, Proof, and Skepticism

2011-11-07T06:00:00.001-06:00

About a year ago I was having a conversation with a friend who told me that science had proven that God was not necessary for the universe to come into being. He concluded from that that God is not required to explain the existence of the universe, and he is justified in his belief that God does not exist. He claims that an honest look at the evidence will lead to this conclusion (implying that other conclusions are not honest evaluations of the scientific data, and that they stifle scientific progress).

On the other hand, about a month ago I was in a conversation with a person who hold me that science can't prove anything, and he must be skeptical of everything that scientists say. He believes that he is justified in rejecting many of the commonly accepted-as-true theories in the scientific world in favor of one that the scientific community, as a whole, has rejected. He claims that this is a humble and honest approach to science (implying that all other approaches to science are dishonest, and only skepticism promotes scientific progress).

Both of my friends illustrate extremes of the boundaries of the scientific method. It is true that the scientific method can give us knowledge (the boundary taken to the extreme by my first friend); however, it is also true that that knowledge is open to be challenged at any point that contrary evidence comes around (the boundary taken to the extreme by my second friend).

As many are aware, the scientific method deals with observation and evidence; proof requires 100% certainty (knowledge of all observables and all evidence), and no person knows everything. Since no human or the entire human race can possess all knowledge (even via the scientific method), it cannot be said that the scientific method can actually "prove" anything (where my first friend went wrong). The best we can do is get to a level of certainty that may approach 100%, but will never reach it.

But does this limitation warrant the level of skepticism of my second friend? The answer is, no. Because the scientific method offers evidence, the more evidence that we have that supports a specific theory, the more likely it is to be true- meaning that our certainty level of its truth rises with every confirming discovery. If the majority of the evidence points toward the truth of one theory, then that theory is to be preferred as being true. If the evidence points against one theory being true, then that theory is to be rejected as being false. Both of these situations can be over-turned; however, more evidence for the truth or falsity of a theory that we find indicates that its truth or falsity is unlikely to be over-turned.

Since the scientific method does not have the capability to give us 100% certainty, my first friend is not justified in saying that God's involvement has been scientifically proven unnecessary. Likewise, my second friend is not justified in being skeptical of theories that the vast majority of evidence supports or being confident of the truth of his theory that the majority of evidence is against.

Many scientists hold to a specific belief that they know the evidence is against. The lack of certainty that what they believe to be false is true is what gives them room to continue investigating; while the possibility that evidence of the truth of what they don't want to believe can still be over-turned drives them to continue investigating. Any claim to certainty here has the possibility to stifle investigation- both theists and atheists have stifled research and promoted research. It just happens to be in-step with what they do and do not believe to be true. (Of course, scientific progress is not only continued based on the drive to over-turn evidence for personal vindication. Finding evidence that supports one's view is quite exciting, but every piece of evidence tends to ask more questions that need to be investigated).

Both extreme approaches described come with a lack of humility and honesty. The first is a claim to complete knowledge when it is not possible- a dishonest claim that leads to unwarranted pride. The second is claiming to know something for certain that is against the majority of the evidence. It is prideful because of the unstated claim to certainty and dishonest because it ignores evidence.

By avoiding both extremes we avoid both pride and dishonesty. We neither directly nor indirectly claim to have all knowledge (thus preserving humility and honesty), and we can allow the evidence to guide our investigations and conclusions (thus preserving honesty).

Both sides need to look honestly at the other. If we automatically assume that the other side is trying to "hide" something, then there is no way that constructive dialog can take place. We also need to justify others' thinking this of us. We need to not be hiding something. If our view is correct, then it will withstand scrutiny and the majority of the evidence will point toward its truth. If the majority of evidence points against our belief, why are we even holding it? What good is it going to do us?

I have often seen friends like #1 point to friends like #2 as justification for rejecting Christianity. I have also seen friends like #2 point to friends like #1 as justification for rejecting science. Both cite "dishonesty" and "pride" in the other's approach for their disdain for it. Christianity and the scientific method are not mutually exclusive; there is no need for the Church nor unbelievers to enforce the idea that it is.

Here is a great conversation on the scientific method from Apologetics.com: God and the Scientific Method

Here are some links to other posts that help bring more clarity to this post:

Nature Vs. Scripture
Do You Rely On Authorities?

The Power of the Cumulative Case
The Danger of Overstating Conclusions

Book Review: Hidden Treasures In The Book of Job

2011-10-31T06:00:00.002-05:00

Introduction
Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job: How The Oldest Book in the Bible Answers Today's Scientific Questions by Hugh Ross is a book that I have been looking forward to for quite some time. In the interest of "full disclosure", this is a review copy provided by Reasons to Believe.

Prologue & Chapter 1: Answers For Today's Issues
Dr. Ross begins the book telling of his experiences throughout the writing process of this book. He explains that his friends warned him that suffering in his life might increase and the current suffering would be highlighted by the study of Job. He shows how their warnings proved true, and how such a study helped him through those times. He states that even though his study started out as a study of strictly the scientific aspects of Job, he was forced to focus also on the questions of suffering. Because of all this, Dr. Ross decided to combine the two in this book. His focus is on exploring the many other aspects of Job in the context of modern scientific discoveries. He states:

At no other time in history have such spectacular and widespread increases in affluence, technology, education, and communication occurred. These advances have yielded a wealth of new knowledge. All this knowledge, however, has done little to satisfy people's deepest longings and to answer their most pressing questions...God's wisdom embedded in Job seems to have anticipated not only knowledge advances but also the anxiety and insecurity future generations would face as their knowledge and technology progressed. (pg 16)

He lays out the different topics he wishes to cover in the book and challenges the reader to see the book of Job as speaking on more than just man's dealings with suffering, but that those dealings with suffering highlight the awesomeness of God's creation, God's power, God's love, God's justice, God's mercy, and God's sovereignty.

Chapter 2: Gathering the Greatest Minds
Chapter 2 sets the historical context for the book of Job. Dr. Ross identifies the location of the happenings, the people involved, and the culture of the time. He establishes that he believes the discussion/debate among Job and his friends to be an historical event. He shows the dating of the writing to be prior to the accounts in the Pentateuch, and states that the content in Job was likely on Moses' mind as he wrote both Genesis and Deuteronomy. Dr. Ross contends that Genesis should be interpreted in light of the fact that the book of Job provides fillers for holes in the Genesis narrative and the discussion in Deuteronomy of God's plan to redeem humanity.

Chapter 3: Answers to Timeless Questions
Chapter 3 is a transition chapter. Dr. Ross covers many questions that have plagued mankind for millennia. He looks at the paradox of God being transcendent yet immanent. He explains how Job answers the questions of why both good and bad people experience good and bad events; why some of God's actions seem "evil" to us; why man complains about short or long life spans (and the reasons for both), which all lead to a discussion of death and its purpose. Each of the answers provided cover philosophical and theological grounds. He covers natural grounds by showing that God created the universe in certain ways to accomplish His purposes related to each of those ultimate questions.

Chapter 4: Answers to New Questions
In Chapter 4, Dr. Ross begins looking at questions that the book of Job seemed to anticipate of later generations. He investigates some of the latest questions that have only recently arisen by the latest in scientific research: global warming, "bad" designs in nature, the Big Bang, and finding a "theory of everything". At the end of the chapter, Dr. Ross emphasizes the importance of predictability of scientific models for testing (he covers this in depth in his book "More Than a Theory"), and how the book of Job provides answers to questions that were not even being asked at the time the debate between Job and his friends was being recorded. Dr. Ross does not consider these answers to future generations' questions to be a coincidence. He claims each of these answers to be a powerful indicator of the divine inspiration of the book of Job.

Chapter 5: Answers to Creation-Day Controversies
Chapter 5 focuses on the debate about the age of the universe and the proper interpretation of Genesis 1-2. Dr. Ross shows how looking at the creation passages in the book of Job can settle the controversies. He looks at several of the reasons that people ridicule the Genesis account of creation, then he explains how appealing to the book of Job allows for the proper interpretation of Genesis that just happens to be in line with the latest scientific findings. He also answers a few of the questions raised against the old-universe perspective by the young-universe crowd. Dr. Ross explains that it is important that all creation passages be taken into account when interpreting what claims the Bible makes regarding creation and how God accomplished it.

Chapter 6: Answers to More Genesis Controversies
In Chapter 6 Dr. Ross picks up in Genesis where he left off in Chapter 5. In this chapter he looks at controversies regarding God's day of rest from creation, the extent of Noah's Flood, rain prior to Noah's Flood, the eternality of the universe into the future, and animal death before the Fall of Adam. He shows how the book of Job can be used to help determine the correct interpretation of other passages of Scripture that allow for multiple interpretations. The positions that he defends via Job are that God's day of rest was not analogous to physical rest; that the extent of Noah's Flood was universal to all humanity but not global in physical extent; that rain did take place prior to Noah's Flood; that the universe is not future-eternal; and that animal death before the Fall of Adam did take place. He demonstrates how these positions not only take into account all of Scripture that speaks about the issues, but that none of his positions undermine any essential doctrine of orthodox Christianity.

Chapter 7: Unique Attributes of Humans
In Chapter 7 Dr. Ross moves from the more controversial topics to discussing what the book of Job can tell us about what it means to be human (vs. just an animal). He focuses on the fact that Scripture states that man is made in the Image of God, which make them distinct from the other living creatures. Dr. Ross looks at studies that demonstrate that some social behaviors, the awareness of God, the compulsion to worship something, and the concern with ultimate judgment separates human beings from animals. He shows how these discoveries confirm what Scripture states. He also places special emphasis on the distinctions that are described in Job.

Chapter 8: Origin of Soulish and Spiritual Qualities
In Chapter 8 Dr. Ross looks at the differences between just the "soulish" animals and humans, although he does begin the chapter with a quick look at the issue with the origin of physical life. In this chapter, Dr. Ross discusses several studies that indicate a great difference between soulish animals and humanity. He looks at the intelligence of many of the soulish animals and shows how predictions based on common decent fail by these tests. He covers studies that attempt to figure out if soulish animals can actually plan for the future (not being based on past experience) and if they are capable of symbolic thought. Dr. Ross shows that the differences discovered between the soulish animals and man are not expected from a naturalistic worldview, but make perfect sense in light of the content of the book of Job and the rest of Scripture.

Chapter 9: To Serve and Please
In Chapter 9 Dr. Ross moves to investigating the soulish animals specifically. He contends that these animals were endowed with abilities and physical attributes that are specifically designed for the launch of human civilization, the enjoyment of humanity, help with past problems we have faced, and assist with future issues the human race will discover. He looks at the soulish animals in general and their seeming desires to please their caretakers. He has a section on Snowball the dancing cockatoo, that he shows is powerful evidence for soulish animals being designed with the future in mind. Then he shifts to discussing the three different kinds of soulish animals and their specific contributions to the human race through history and into the future. He ends the chapter by proposing that Adam's time spent with the animals (naming them) had not only the purpose of realizing that none of them were suitable for him as a mate, but that they would still be useful and enjoyable to him and his offspring in their life on earth.

Chapter 10: Top Ten Nephesh
In Chapter 10 Dr. Ross looks at specific species of animals that were designed to "serve and please" humanity. He goes down the list in Job 38 and 39. He shows how each have been designed for serving humanity, developing relationships with humanity, or for other ways of pleasing humanity. Dr. Ross offers a powerful challenge to any naturalistic explanation for the creation of life on earth: since all these animals came prior to humanity, he asks how these animals seem so perfectly created for humanity if they were put on this earth without any "end goal" or idea of the future species in mind. He contends that the likelihood of any animals being suited perfectly for so many different aspects of a species that had not yet arrived on the scene, is so small that it had to have come from a Designer who, knowing what He would later create, created these animals with the later-to-come humanity in mind.

Chapter 11: Lessons from the Animals
In Chapter 11 Dr. Ross switches back to looking at the animals in general. He shows how the book of Job tells us to examine the animals for lessons about how we are to interact with each other (and the animals), how we need to be more humble in character, how we are to interaction with God, and what character man has presently (pride). He uses this as a spring board into the next chapter.

Chapter 12: Answers to Dinosaur Questions
In Chapter 12 Dr. Ross tackles the idea that Job speaks of dinosaurs existing with humanity. This is commonly used as evidence that Scripture supports only a young universe interpretation. Dr. Ross begins by showing that the context of the passages that mention the "leviathan" and "behemoth" are talking about the nephesh (or "soulish") creatures. Dr. Ross explains that the choice of the "leviathan" and the "behemoth", specifically, was to show just how difficult it is for human pride to be tamed. He then looks at the claims for each animal in detail. He goes back to the original Hebrew to see what are the ranges of interpretations of the words. He provides a compelling case for the idea that "leviathan" refers to a crocodile or alligator, and the "behemoth" refers to the hippopotamus. He address the claim that neither the crocodile nor alligator have been traditionally considered "soulish". He ends the chapter by explaining a few facts about dinosaurs that help show how they fit into his creation model.

Chapter 13: Answers to the Problem of Suffering
After spending the majority of the book demonstrating all that the book of Job tells us about creation and its Creator, In Chapter 13 Dr. Ross addresses the problem of suffering. He begins by providing the objection to the existence of an all-knowing, all-loving, and all-power God. Dr. Ross shows how Job recognized the reality of pain and suffering, but acknowledged God's sovereignty regarding it. He points out that Job believed that there would be a day that he would see God and that God was preparing him for that day through Job's sufferings. Dr. Ross explains that God's purposes for creating the universe the way that He did is to prepare the character of every person who will spend eternity with Him.

Chapter 14: Answer to Our Greatest Need
With all the evidence that Dr. Ross has shown for the reliability and divine inspiration of the book of Job, one would ask, "so what?" In Chapter 14, Dr. Ross shows how God revealed His plan of salvation through Job. Dr. Ross addresses the claim of Job's friends that his suffering was due to some sin in his life. Job rejected that idea (discussed in Chapter 13). Job explained to his friends God's plan for providing salvation. Dr. Ross shows how every aspect of God's plan was laid out, not only by Job, but by Elihu in the book of Job. Dr. Ross concludes that the book of Job is evidence that God's plan for salvation can be seen through God's creation.

Chapter 15: Help with the Hard Part
In the final chapter Dr. Ross explains to his readers that we must emulate Job. In our search for answers we must never give up on God or malign His character, and we must be patient. Having all the answers at our fingertips would likely cause us boredom and a lack of concern with theological matters. God has hidden just enough about His character for us to truly appreciate and value it when we discover it. Dr. Ross urges people to continue to search for truth about God in the revelations He has given us. For the one who is truly seeking the truth, he will find it.

Conclusion
Hidden Treasure In The Book of Job was quite the enjoyable and exciting book to read. It provides many challenges to the reader: both Believer and unbeliever. He provides much powerful, scriptural evidence for his specific position on how God created the universe, and much evidence from nature to demonstrate the symmetry between Scripture and what man has discovered in nature. Dr. Ross offers compelling reasons to take the book of Job and its content seriously in one's life. He shows how Job spoke to questions that people have asked for millennia and ones that people have only recently began to ask. He shows how Job recognized his own fallenness and need for a Savior. He offers how Job can be a great example for those who suffer, are searching for truth, or both.

This book is highly recommended for everyone to read. It is written on a lay level, yet the concepts will challenge even the most educated mind. For both supporters and skeptics (regardless of which kind) of his creation model, it provides much scientific and scriptural evidence for his position. This book is a great addition to any scientific, theological, or philosophical collection.

Also, check out this review of the book by Arthur Khachatryan at Cold and Lonely Truth.

If you enjoyed this book review, please check out more on my Book Reviews page.

Thanks to Brian Auten at Apologtics 315 for publishing this review on his site. This review is only one of many in a project by Auten to build a solid collection of reviews of books of interest to Christian apologists. His collection grows on a weekly basis; check it out here.

Changes Coming to Faithful Thinkers

2011-10-29T06:00:00.001-05:00

Hey Everyone!
I wanted to take a few minutes to thank you all for taking the time to read the Faithful Thinkers blog on a weekly (and sometimes more often) basis. I believe that God is using this ministry to strengthen His Church and reach those who are lost. Thanks to my wonderful wife, my pastor, and all my friends at the Christian Apologetics Alliance and my local church for all your support and prayers.

In an effort make a more efficient use of my time and specialize this blog, I will be making a couple changes (one small, one larger). The first change is that posts will now show up on Mondays. I've come across some stats that state that a Monday or Tuesday release increases the traffic, and ultimately, the more people I can reach with the Good News of Christ, the better.

The second change will be that I am streamlining the content. I am discontinuing the weekly featured articles, audio, and video. Creating posts for all the great content I find is time-consuming, so all these bonus links will be redirected to the Faithful Thinkers Twitter account and Facebook page. If you prefer articles, audio, and video in blog form, I just happen to know of two great ministries that are doing a fantastic job of compiling apologetic material from all over the web into extremely accessible systems- I highly recommend that you check out Apologetics 315 and The Poached Egg.

These changes will begin this coming Monday. So, there will be an actual apologetics-related post for those disappointed by this one. :)

Thank you all again, and I'll see you on Monday!
In Christ,
Luke

As A Christian, Should I Celebrate Halloween?

2011-10-28T06:00:00.011-05:00

Today is the day that kids dress up as their favorite heroes and go from door to door asking the same question: "Trick or treat?" Some people gladly dispense candy to add to the kids' collections. Some people see it as an opportunity to provide tracts explaining the occult origins of this holiday, and encourage the reader to come to Christ. Others completely shun the day and explain that those who participate in the festivities are enabling Satan to corrupt yet another generation of young people.

Should I or Shouldn't I?

Even though Halloween is not what it used to be (celebrated by the majority as an occultic holiday), I find myself still trying to figure out whether to recognize it or not. My family never participated in Halloween celebrations when I was a kid, so participation is foreign to me. Generally, I'm not a fan of the holiday because it uses way too many dark images and figures that are meant to instill fear in people.

Fear

Fear is an emotion that stimulates the pain center of the brain. Any time that the pain center is stimulated, it is because something is happening that needs to stop before further damage is done to the person. When something scares us, that is why we tend to run or discover the source quickly- the sooner the fear subsides, the sooner our pain center is no longer being stimulated. Disturbing or fearful images and experiences effect some people more than others, but it is not always easy to determine who will be affected or how (not everyone who is affected will admit it, or if they do, to what extent). That is what repels me from the holiday.

Of course, many people do like the adrenaline rush that comes from the experience of fear. Most people go to haunted houses not for the sole purpose of being scared, but to feel the rush and excitement they get when they are frightened. There are other ways to get the high- like skydiving. But I know people to want the high but would rather walk through a dark, cold, and creeky mansion than jump out of a perfectly solid airplane. My point is that fear is not bad in itself, but is rather an indicator to possible further damage.

Dressing Up

I have no problems with kids dressing up in cute costumes to get candy (heck, we make them dress up in stupid costumes for school plays and family photos- without getting candy!). Adults show their creativity in the original costumes that they wear (I don't like that the creativity is used in dark fashions most of the time, but it is still creativity nevertheless, also the fact that I don't like it doesn't make it wrong). I love seeing the costumes that make me laugh (check out the "illegal alien" costume). (The pumpkin carving contests that come around this time of year are becoming quite entertaining too.)

The Occult Connection and Parties
I recognize that many people still do celebrate Halloween as being tied to the occult. These people do practice witchcraft, divination, and devil worship. But they do this stuff year around, Halloween is just the time for them to get attention for it.

If a Halloween party has people who are explicitly practicing occult rituals, then it is not a good idea to go there. It is your responsibility to know what is going on at a party. If you are aware of occult practices, and still choose to remain, you are inviting trouble. If you find that a party is nothing but costumes and carnival games, there is no reason to be scared of it (there is nothing unbiblical or anti-biblical about wearing costumes or playing games- unless they are explicit in their anti-biblical or anti-Christian message).

Are Pagan Connections Relevant?

Yes?
Some Christians argue that the fact that some people still practice occult rituals is why Halloween should not be even recognized by Christians. I don't agree with that. Every religious holiday has a pagan attachment or origin (Halloween just maintained its roots longer than the others). If one is to disassociate with a holiday because of pagan connections, then to remain consistent, they would need to disassociate with practically every religious holiday.

No?

On the other hand, other Christians argue that since Halloween has fallen so far from its roots, it may be recognized by Christians without any concession to the occult. Halloween is all about the costumes and the candy, these days. In like manner, Thanksgiving and Christmas have turned from their roots to being all about food and family getting together (though, very few know for what reason). If someone is to use this argument for celebrating Halloween, they certainly cannot complain that Christmas, Easter, or Thanksgiving have lost their original meaning in the collective consciousness of America.

Maybe

People can use the pagan connections (or lack thereof) as an argument for whichever side they wish to take. They just need to recognize the implications if they desire to take a specific position based on such an argument.

Compromise?
I've heard a lot of Christians argue that by allowing our kids to go trick-'r-treating or by opening our doors to these kids, we are giving into the devil and will eventually be led into Satan worship and other occult practices. If trick-'r-treating necessarily leads to occultic obsession, there should be many more who claim the practice. Even though Christians may feel like they are giving in, there is little evidence to support the idea that the "giving in" has the claimed negative effect.

A Devious Strategy
In my mind, I see this whole "AAHHHH! Its Satan in the flesh!" attitude as actually working against Christianity. When Christians turn up their noses at cute kids in innocent costumes, it sends a message to our neighbors that we are "holier than thou"- not exactly an invitation to hear the Gospel. I mean, have you ever been attracted to or wanted to listen to someone who obnoxiously told you that they were "better" than you? When people see this attitude in Christians, they are turned off and don't even want to be around us, much less, hear what we have to offer them. Jesus did not tell the tax collectors or the prostitutes to change their ways before he would speak with them; he allowed them to come to Him as they were, but commanded them to change after. The more that Christians act in the opposite direction of what Jesus did, the more people will distance themselves from the Gospel. Christians will be used as a weapon against what they know to be true until they wake up and realize that they are being used. Ironically, for those who think they are avoiding demonic influence, they may very well be already under the influence in such a sophisticated way that it would be next to impossible to detect (that's the strategy of a devious- and successful- war general).

Christians need to carefully use their minds when approaching this subject from a Biblical perspective. We need to make sure that when or if we decide to stop or start participating in Halloween celebrations, it is for sound reasons. If the reasons are not sound, then we need to consider the rejection may be accomplishing the opposite of what we desire. We are not called to avoid culture, yet we are not called to be indistinguishable from it. We are called to live in the culture, while confronting it with the truth of Jesus Christ.

Check out these other great articles and sites:

Hallelujah, Harvest, and Halloween Alternatives

What Is Halloween?
Halloween and the Fascination with Fear
Halloween and our Fascination with the Spiritual
Christian Answers For The New Age

Video: Adam's Sin On Us Is Not Fair

2011-10-28T06:00:00.009-05:00

In this week's featured video, Dr. Norm Geisler is interviewed by Dr. John Ankerberg (Ankerberg Theological Research Institute). Ankerberg asks Geisler why Adam's sin being on us is not unfair.

More videos from Dr. John Ankerberg can be found at his YouTube channel.

Books by Dr. Geisler

Audio: Getting Past Phobias

2011-10-24T06:00:00.000-05:00

This week's featured audio is the final episode of More Than a Theory. Astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe discusses the testable scientific model for creation that has been developed by the team at Reasons to Believe. In this episode, Dr. Ross concludes the series by encouraging people to be open with their models and encouraging the testing of the models.

Download the MP3 here.

This podcast is based on the book More Than A Theory by Dr. Ross. You can find my review of the book here.

If you would like to ask Dr. Ross a question, you can send him an email (ask@reasons.org). Questions are answered on the I Didn't Know That podcast.

Other books by Dr. Ross

To download this and more episodes, here is the RSS feed and the iTunes link, or you can download the Faithful Thinkers Toolbar (More Than A Theory episodes can be played from the radio).

Herman Cain On Abortion- A Reasoned Approach

2011-10-22T06:00:00.001-05:00

It came to my attention in the last couple days that one of the US Presidential hopefuls for 2012 (Herman Cain) clarified his position on abortion. The report can be found here. Abortion has historically been a hot-button issue between the Democrat and Republican candidates for all positions within our government. Among voters, it is one of the determining factors of which candidate a person will choose- and for good reason. Both Democrats and Republicans believe that human life is valuable and worthy of government protection. Our unchallenged laws against the murder of human beings is a testament to that agreement. The issue is this: If the unborn is a human life, then it deserves government protection.

Voters have been able to determine how a candidate would handle such a situation by knowing what the candidate believed about when life began. But Herman Cain has complicated the issue by bringing in another factor that voters need to be aware of.

Herman Cain's Position On Abortion
This week Cain clarified his official position on the abortion issue. It can be summed up as follows:

He believes that life begins at conception
He believes that no one should end an innocent human life
He believes that it is not the job of the government to force that on any individual

This particular combination of beliefs mystifies me. Cain states that life begins at conception, but then says that it is not the job of the government to protect it (this is the catch), yet the government has laws against murder- which is an active protection of life. Now, to be fair, Cain did state that his intention is to appoint judges to the Supreme Court who are "pro-life". But the question arises: does he mean "pro-life" as in HIS definition (including the third statement above) or the traditional definition (that holds that it IS government's role to protect ALL human life). This is an area that needs further clarification. But even if he appoints judges that hold to the traditional pro-life position, that will only take him so far with voters concerned with protecting the lives of the unborn.

Two Different Laws
What if a bill comes across his desk that offers protection for the life of the unborn? This law could take one of two forms: the first would be establishing that the US government officially recognizes life as beginning at conception- this would offer protection under the same laws that protect human life against murder. The second form would be independent from the existing laws against murder and would only apply to the abortion of the unborn.

Would he sign either into law? If not, what is the distinguishing factor between the born and the unborn that makes the life of the born worthy of government protection and the life of the unborn not worthy of government protection? Cain could certainly choose to sign one into law, but not the other. On his current view, he could sign the first option into law- an official recognition of when life begins does not legislate morality, which is what Cain is trying to avoid. What it would do is clarify the boundaries of another law. However, on his current view, he could not sign the second into law, because it would be legislating morality.

A Call For Further Clarification
I believe that many voters are going to write off Cain because of his position (according to the report linked above, at least one opposing candidate is supporting that). However, Cain needs to further clarify what his intentions are regarding the issue. If he would sign into law a recognition of life beginning at conception, then the voters concerned with protecting the life of the unborn have nothing to fear. However, if Cain would not, then the voters need to recognize that even though the opportunity I provided above does exist, Cain will not take it. It is up to Herman Cain to provide further clarification of his position and intentions. He has the power to completely recover from the damage that he may receive from his first clarification. However, if he does not (by either expressing the intention to veto such a bill or by remaining silent on the issue), his reputation among conservative Republicans will certainly take a hit.

Defending The Pro-Life Position
The official recognition by the government that life begins at conception would only be justified if there was adequate evidence to support the idea that the unborn, in fact, is a human life. If you are interested in knowing the scientific evidence for this position and other ways to provide a reasoned defense against abortion, I highly recommend that you check out The Life Training Institute (here's a great article and video from them) and a book by Scott Klusendorff: The Case For Life.

Video: Why Doesn't God Stop Evil?

2011-10-21T06:00:00.008-05:00

In this week's featured video, Dr. Norm Geisler is interviewed by Dr. John Ankerberg (Ankerberg Theological Research Institute). Ankerberg asks Geisler why God does not stop evil from happening now.

More videos from Dr. John Ankerberg can be found at his YouTube channel.

Books by Dr. Geisler

Article: Junk DNA: An Outdated Concept- Part 6

2011-10-19T06:00:00.007-05:00

This week's featured article is from biochemist Dr. Patricia Fanning of Reasons to Believe. In this article, Dr. Fanning discusses the claims of "junk DNA" and how the concept is slowly losing favor. Here is Part 6 of 6::

“Junk” DNA: An Outdated Concept, Part 6 (of 6)

For more articles on biochemical design from the team at Reasons to Believe, check out their Biochemical Design resource page.

If you would like to ask Dr. Fanning a question, you can send him an email (ask@reasons.org). Questions are answered on the I Didn't Know That podcast.

Audio: Model Predictions and Test Scores

2011-10-17T06:00:00.000-05:00

This week's featured audio is the sixteenth episode of More Than a Theory. Astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe discusses the testable scientific model for creation that has been developed by the team at Reasons to Believe. In this episode, Dr. Ross brings the tests together and compares them to the predictions of the different models.

Download the MP3 here.

This podcast is based on the book More Than A Theory by Dr. Ross. You can find my review of the book here.

If you would like to ask Dr. Ross a question, you can send him an email (ask@reasons.org). Questions are answered on the I Didn't Know That podcast.

Other books by Dr. Ross

To download this and more episodes, here is the RSS feed and the iTunes link, or you can download the Faithful Thinkers Toolbar (More Than A Theory episodes can be played from the radio).

The Rapture, Judgment Day, and Christ's Resurrection

2011-10-15T06:00:00.002-05:00

**IMPORTANT UPDATE**: Family Radio Founder Harold Camping Repents, Apologizes for False Teachings

This post was written prior to the news above. Please read it with that context in mind:

Harold Camping made worldwide waves last spring when he started being more vocal about his predictions that the Rapture (return of Christ) would happen on May 21, 2011. As many may already be aware, Camping has a history of making failed predictions on Christ's return and the end of the world. The most recent was May 21, 2011. He claimed that he made some calculations based on scripture and came up with this date. Since nothing of apocalyptic levels happened on that day, Camping has explained how his prediction was still accurate and that the world and all unbelievers will be annihilated on October 21, 2011. You can find Camping's official statement here. In his revised "pre"diction Camping claims that Christ returned to earth spiritually back in May.

As someone who likes to test things, this caught my attention. Camping has essentially made a claim that is untestable. If Christ came back spiritually, how would we know? If Christ did not come back spiritually, how would we know? If someone says that something will happen, but that there will be no evidence of it, how can you say that their prediction failed?

One of the popular claims made by skeptics of the Resurrection of Christ is that the Gospels were written by people who were intentionally trying to deceive the masses about Christ coming back from the dead. One of the responses to this charge is to point out that the Gospels make it clear that the Resurrection physically happened, and Jesus did things that require a physical body. The idea is that if the disciples wanted to deceive the masses into believing that Christ had resurrected (when they knew he really didn't), they could claim that the resurrection was just a spiritual resurrection, not a physical one. The claim can be falsified if it is, indeed, false. Paul said as much in 1 Corinthians 15.

Camping has changed his prediction to state that Jesus returned spiritually. Such a claim cannot be tested or falsified. This is what people expect to happen if the person making the claim knows that something physical did not happen. However, no such move was made on the part of the Disciples. Instead many of them died a martyr's death believing that Christ physically rose from the dead, when they were in the unique position to know if it was not true. The records show that they were not attempting to deceive anyone.

As for Camping, I highly doubt that he continues to make predictions because he wants to deceive people. I am more likely to believe that he continues to do so to save his reputation...all it would take is his being right once, and his life's work on the topic will seem vindicated. However, I don't expect that he will be right this time or anytime in the future.

In the meantime, no one should forget the importance of the claim of something physical taking place in history. The truth of the resurrection can be tested, has been tested, and has been found compelling.

I have come across several posts regarding Harold Camping and his predictions that you might find of interest:

End Times Predictions? (My post from this past spring)
Does Harold Camping Discredit Christianity? (From Carson Weitnauer at Reasons For God)
Is Jesus Coming Back on May 21, 2001? or October 21, 2011? (Both posts from Arthur Khachatryan at Cold And Lonely Truth)
Poetry and Judgment Day (From Holly Ordway at Hieropraxis)
An Open Letter to Harold Camping (From Christiana Szymanski at In Defense of the Christian Faith)
Harold Camping Revisited: The Actual Judgment Day (from Austin Gravely at Another Ascending Lark)
Harold Camping is Right, Judgment Day Approaches for Thousands (from Cris Putnam at Logos Apologia)

For more on the evidences for the resurrection of Jesus Christ, I recommend:

The Risen Jesus and a Future Hope by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona (see my book review here)
The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ by Gary Habermas
The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach by Michael Licona
William Lane Craig's scholarly and popular articles on the resurrection

Video: Adam's Sin and Us

2011-10-14T06:00:00.008-05:00

In this week's featured video, Dr. Norm Geisler is interviewed by Dr. John Ankerberg (Ankerberg Theological Research Institute). Ankerberg asks Geisler about the consequences of Adam's sin.

More videos from Dr. John Ankerberg can be found at his YouTube channel.

Books by Dr. Geisler

Article: Junk DNA: An Outdated Concept- Part 5

2011-10-12T06:00:00.008-05:00

This week's featured article is from biochemist Dr. Patricia Fanning of Reasons to Believe. In this article, Dr. Fanning discusses the claims of "junk DNA" and how the concept is slowly losing favor. Here is Part 5 of 6::

“Junk” DNA: An Outdated Concept, Part 5 (of 6)

For more articles on biochemical design from the team at Reasons to Believe, check out their Biochemical Design resource page.

If you would like to ask Dr. Fanning a question, you can send him an email (ask@reasons.org). Questions are answered on the I Didn't Know That podcast.

Audio: Creation in School

2011-10-10T06:00:00.000-05:00

This week's featured audio is the fifteenth episode of More Than a Theory. Astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe discusses the testable scientific model for creation that has been developed by the team at Reasons to Believe. In this episode, Dr. Ross addresses the controversial issue of teaching creation in the classroom.

Download the MP3 here.

This podcast is based on the book More Than A Theory by Dr. Ross. You can find my review of the book here.

If you would like to ask Dr. Ross a question, you can send him an email (ask@reasons.org). Questions are answered on the I Didn't Know That podcast.

Other books by Dr. Ross

To download this and more episodes, here is the RSS feed and the iTunes link, or you can download the Faithful Thinkers Toolbar (More Than A Theory episodes can be played from the radio).

Peer-Reviewed Only, Please

2011-10-08T06:00:00.000-05:00

Not too long ago I was talking with a college student about scientific theories and whether they accurately reflected reality. As is to be expected on a topic like this, we discussed evolution. Specifically the natualistic kind. He provided me some reasons why he believed that evolution explained the diversity of life that we have today. I disagreed and proposed some counter-evidence from some researchers. He became immediately defensive and asked if the works were peer-reviewed.

This question kind of irritated me. Not because the works weren't reviewed by the researcher's peers but because the question was beside the point. It seems to me that this shouldn't matter. I've been thinking about why someone may ask this question and what might be a response that keeps the conversation moving (my irritation certainly won't).

As I have mentioned in a previous post (Do You Rely On Authorities), we all rely on someone else to give us the majority of knowledge that we have. Since we must rely on other people, it is imperative that we rely on trustworthy people. If someone requests that material to be taken seriously be "peer-reviewed", they may simply be asking if the material is coming from a credible researcher. This is not a bad thing. I have heard of instances when researchers did falsify data and the peer-review process caught it before the information made it to the public. It is a way to check and balance research to ensure that good and fruitful research is made known and bad or deceptive research is not.

Another reason is that someone who does not specialize in the area being discussed may not have the ability to critically analyze the claims. This comes back to our reliance upon authorities. This is not a problem. I do get annoyed when people have the ability, but they are unwilling to. They believe that if a paper (or book) has not be peer-reviewed, they may disregard any evidence contrary to their view that is in it.

There are two concerns with the requirement of peer-reviewed material only: First the accuracy of the data and the soundness of the arguments contained within the material is independent of whether they are reviewed by a peer or not. Second, just because something is peer-reviewed does not mean that the material has accurate data or sound arguments. Of course, peer-review does indicate that it has been submitted to a certain level of critique, so some of the critical evaluation may already be done, but the peers may also not be as critical as one would hope and not look at it as critically as they should. Ironically, it is possible that one may be more suspicious of certain material that is peer-reviewed than not.

Now, I have to admit that I'm one of those who would ask if something is peer-reviewed. However, I normally ask for the purpose of getting the majority consensus of a basic idea. I don't project this result onto the truth of the claims. They must be evaluated independently of what the majority thinks. I don't have a problem with material that is not peer-reviewed (most blogs, including mine aren't). I don't have a problem with peer-reviewed materials. I just want people to be aware that both require the same level of evaluation; neither is above nor beneath the other in this regard.

So, what do I do if someone asks me? Well, first, I would NOT go into this whole spill. That could easily be interpreted as a personal attack and a diversion from the real issue (not that the request itself was not a diversion). If someone demands that what I'm presenting be from a peer-reviewed source, then I give it to them. I don't know if they will seriously consider something peer-reviewed versus not, or if they are being nefarious with the request. Sometimes, a request for peer-review material is an opportunity for me to find something more "official" on a particular subject, and be more prepared next time.I expect this of people I talk with; there is no reason they should expect less of me.

Video: Purpose For The World

2011-10-07T06:00:00.008-05:00

In this week's featured video, Dr. Norm Geisler is interviewed by Dr. John Ankerberg (Ankerberg Theological Research Institute). Ankerberg asks Geisler why God made the world the way it is- full of evil, pain and suffering.

More videos from Dr. John Ankerberg can be found at his YouTube channel.

Books by Dr. Geisler

Article: Junk DNA: An Outdated Concept- Part 4

2011-10-05T06:00:00.004-05:00

This week's featured article is from biochemist Dr. Patricia Fanning of Reasons to Believe. In this article, Dr. Fanning discusses the claims of "junk DNA" and how the concept is slowly losing favor. Here is Part 4 of 6::

“Junk” DNA: An Outdated Concept, Part 4 (of 6)

For more articles on biochemical design from the team at Reasons to Believe, check out their Biochemical Design resource page.

If you would like to ask Dr. Fanning a question, you can send him an email (ask@reasons.org). Questions are answered on the I Didn't Know That podcast.

Audio: The New Atheists

2011-10-03T06:00:00.000-05:00

This week's featured audio is the fourteenth episode of More Than a Theory. Astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe discusses the testable scientific model for creation that has been developed by the team at Reasons to Believe. In this episode, Dr. Ross addresses to the new atheists.

Download the MP3 here.

This podcast is based on the book More Than A Theory by Dr. Ross. You can find my review of the book here.

If you would like to ask Dr. Ross a question, you can send him an email (ask@reasons.org). Questions are answered on the I Didn't Know That podcast.

Other books by Dr. Ross

To download this and more episodes, here is the RSS feed and the iTunes link, or you can download the Faithful Thinkers Toolbar (More Than A Theory episodes can be played from the radio).

Evidence For vs. Proof Of

2011-10-01T06:00:00.000-05:00

In my discussions with nonbelievers when I offer an argument that supports Christianity, they will sometimes tell that "that doesn't prove anything". I also hear claims that "there is no evidence for Christianity". I could understand the first statement, but the second normally caused me to make some weird faces, as I'm trying to figure out how such a claim could be made.

Not too long ago, the distinction between proof and evidence was offered to me. Evidence being a series of arguments that, if sound, point towards the truth of Christianity. Evidence has an objective sense about it. Arguments that are sound do provide evidence of their conclusion. However, a lot of the time, the conclusion offered is not exclusive.

Proof is the more subjective cousin of evidence. Proof may consist of evidence, it may not. Proof is what convinces people of the truth of a claim. Many people are convinced of the truth of things without any evidence, while others have lots of evidence. Either way, the truth of that something has been proven to them.

When a person claims that an argument "doesn't prove anything," they are typically saying that that particular argument is not persuasive to them. Unfortunately, we tend to interpret that same statement as the person saying that there is no evidence for the conclusion. I discovered this mistake when I attempted to show the logical path to the conclusion. The person wasn't looking for evidence, they were looking for something to convince them specifically.

A while back I wrote the post "Can You Argue Someone Into the Kingdom?". My point in that article was that arguments are not what will convince someone. We are to develop relationships with people. We present arguments as opportunities arise; we live our worldview to them; and we wait for when (if) the Holy Spirit is preparing the heart of the person to enter The Kingdom.

Building a relationship with someone is important. Even though we may be able to present several arguments for the truth of Christianity, we may actually just be wasting breath. What we are doing is providing general evidence, when people are looking for something that appeals to them specifically to provide proof. Without a relationship with the person, this can be more of a challenge.

Here are a few articles that also discuss the distinction between evidence and proof:

J.W. Wartick: What Kind of Evidence?
Anthony Horvath: Demanding Extraordinary Evidence For Extraordinary Claims and Render You an Extraordinary Dupe
William Lane Craig: A Brief Post-Mortem on the Krauss Debate

Video: Tragic Losses and Trusting God

2011-09-30T06:00:00.005-05:00

In this week's featured video, Dr. Norm Geisler is interviewed by Dr. John Ankerberg (Ankerberg Theological Research Institute). Ankerberg asks Geisler if its possible to experience a tragic loss and still trust God's promises.

More videos from Dr. John Ankerberg can be found at his YouTube channel.

Books by Dr. Geisler

Article: Junk DNA: An Outdated Concept- Part 3

2011-09-28T06:00:00.007-05:00

This week's featured article is from biochemist Dr. Patricia Fanning of Reasons to Believe. In this article, Dr. Fanning discusses the claims of "junk DNA" and how the concept is slowly losing favor. Here is Part 3 of 6::

“Junk” DNA: An Outdated Concept, Part 3 (of 6)

For more articles on biochemical design from the team at Reasons to Believe, check out their Biochemical Design resource page.

If you would like to ask Dr. Fanning a question, you can send him an email (ask@reasons.org). Questions are answered on the I Didn't Know That podcast.

Featured Apologetics Ministry- Ratio Christi

2011-09-26T08:17:00.002-05:00

Today I wanted to highlight a great ministry that I have been made aware of in recent times. Ratio Christi is a ministry dedicated to educating our young people on how to defend the truth of Christianity.. They have been opening chapters at college campuses that promote critical thinking about the Christian worldview.

Ratio Christi's President's Blog is featuring a post by me this morning. In it I emphasize the importance of the audience that Ratio Christi is targeting. You can find it at the President's Blog.

Brian Auten (Apologetics 315) recently interviewed President Rick Schenker. I highly recommend that you listen to it to discover the resources they are making available to our college students.

You can also find them at their Homepage, Facebook Page, Twitter Feed, and YouTube Channel.

Evolution, Morality, and Transformers

2011-09-24T06:00:00.001-05:00

Recently I saw the movie "Transformers: The Dark Side of the Moon". I almost made it through the whole thing without a single thought about worldviews, philosophy, or apologetics. But, alas, near the end, something happened that my mind couldn't ignore (I pulled out my phone and immediately started taking notes).

For those who are unfamiliar with the Transformers' basic premise: there exists three species in the universe that are essentially battling for survival and a "leg up" on the others: humans, Autobots, and Decepticons. Typically, the Decepticons are trying to achieve something that would have the implication of destroying the humans and/or Autobots. The Autobots are the more "noble" of the two robotic species that join forces with the humans against the Decepticons. This particular installment had two characters that I will be focusing on here: Optimus Prime and Sential Prime (Primes are the leaders of the Autobots; they tend to be the wiser and more powerful individuals). SPOILER ALERT: the rest of this post contains storyline details that take place in the last minutes of the movie, so if you haven't seen it and plan to (and don't want it ruined), stop reading now.

Near the end of the movie a specific line caught my ear. Sentinal Prime and Optimus Prime were in a battle over Sential's betrayal of the Autobots to the Decepticons, that put the survival of the human species in jeopardy. Sential informed Optimus that "All I wanted was the survival of our species- that's why I had to betray you." If the survival of a specific species is the determining factor of objective morality, then we have the survival of two species in direct odds with one another, which means that we have two "objective" moralities in direct conflict with on another. On a naturalistic worldview, there is no factor to break such a tie. Which means ultimately, morality is relative to the species. Any morality that is based on a species' survival, is ultimately relative; it is not objective.

On what grounds is Optimus Prime mad at Sential Prime? There are two possibilities: Survival of a species makes right or betrayal is always wrong.

Survival of a species determines "right"
Optimus obviously does not hold that morality is determined by the survival of his own species (otherwise the betrayal to continue the survival would have been right). His morality is determined by the survival of the human species. But what makes humans superior to the Autobots? Its not consciousness nor intelligence. Its certainly not size or weight. On what foundation does Optimus rise up against the actions of Sentinal? If "might makes right", then the Prime makes right. But we have two Primes in direct conflict over an action that has ethical value.

Allow me to step outside the story for a bit to look at the writers. The only way to explain such a decision on Optimus' part (which is in direct conflict with naturalism- see below), is to appeal to the writers' assumption that humanity is more valuable than any other possible species. But then, the same question that I ask of Optimus, I now ask of the writers, since they have projected their view of morality onto the character Optimus Prime. The question also stands to any naturalist who wishes to look upon Optimus' reaction to Sentinal as "right."

Betrayal is wrong at all times
It could also be that Optimus Prime was offended by the very act of betrayal- nevermind the obvious survival advantage it would provide. This ethic comes from one in which the objective good is "love". Whatever action demonstrates the most love is the right action.

Sentinal Prime tried to provide a defense for his decision. He stated that his goal was to accomplish the survival of the Autobot species. He implied that had he not betrayed the Autobots, then the Decepticons would have eliminated them. Sentinal's decision to betray would lead to the survival of his species- certainly a greater act of love than to allow them to die off.

Optimus' perspective is that betrayal shows a lack of honesty in the betrayer. It sets up a relationship of suspicion between the two parties. Certainly not an environment where love might thrive or even exist.

The problem that we have here is that we have two perspectives. One short-term, one long-term. But which one is to be preferred as "right"? How would Sentinal know if the further survival of his species would not lead to continued oppression and suffering under the rule of the Decepticons? How would Optimus know that it would not?

In the movie, it seems that Optimus is in the "right", but not for any reason listed here. But because the survival of the Autobots could be accomplished another way. What's odd is that the alternative way was not in the sight of Sentinal when he made the decision of the betrayal (a long time ago). So now, we have time playing in as a confusing factor. Without the knowledge of the alternative way, was Sentinal right in his betrayal? Without recognizing Sentinal's lack of knowledge at the time, is Optimus right in his outrage against Sentinal?

Which One?
The movie takes place in a world where all three species (humans, Autobots, and Decpticons) evolved by naturalistic means. This is how the fictional world of the movie attempts to overlap with our own, to give the viewer kind of sense of possibility (to make them more emotionally and psychologically involved with the fictional world and characters). If the connection to our world that the movie attempts to establish is correct, how can we believe that Sential was "wrong", in either our world or the world of the Transformers?

In the movie, Sentinal Prime and Optimus Prime are battling each other during their discussion about Sentinal's betrayal. A third option to determine if it was "right" is see who wins the battle. Optimus Prime defeated Sentinal Prime, so his view is seen as "right" in the movie. But what if Sentinal had defeated Optimus? Would that make Sentinal's betrayal "right"? Does "might make right"? If it does, then morality is not just relative to the species or culture, but subjective to the individual (even if that individual attempts to ground their morality on one of the options above).

Many wish to say that objective morality can exist in a naturalistic universe. But, on which of the three grounds presented here is objective morality established? Is it even possible to establish objective morality in a world without God?

William Lane Craig debated Sam Harris on the topic of whether or not God is required for objective morality. Check the link here: William Lane Craig vs. Sam Harris Debate Audio

Video: Misuse of Free Will

2011-09-23T06:00:00.007-05:00

In this week's featured video, Dr. Norm Geisler is interviewed by Dr. John Ankerberg (Ankerberg Theological Research Institute). Ankerberg asks Geisler about the consequences of misusing our free will.

More videos from Dr. John Ankerberg can be found at his YouTube channel.

Books by Dr. Geisler

Article: Junk DNA: An Outdated Concept- Part 2

2011-09-21T06:00:00.007-05:00

This week's featured article is from biochemist Dr. Patricia Fanning of Reasons to Believe. In this article, Dr. Fanning discusses the claims of "junk DNA" and how the concept is slowly losing favor. Here is Part 2 of 6::

“Junk” DNA: An Outdated Concept, Part 2 (of 6)

For more articles on biochemical design from the team at Reasons to Believe, check out their Biochemical Design resource page.

If you would like to ask Dr. Fanning a question, you can send him an email (ask@reasons.org). Questions are answered on the I Didn't Know That podcast.

Audio: Why "Bad Designs?"

2011-09-19T06:00:00.005-05:00

This week's featured audio is the thirteenth episode of More Than a Theory. Astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe discusses the testable scientific model for creation that has been developed by the team at Reasons to Believe. In this episode, Dr. Ross answers the challenge of "bad designs" in nature.

Download the MP3 here.

This podcast is based on the book More Than A Theory by Dr. Ross. You can find my review of the book here.

If you would like to ask Dr. Ross a question, you can send him an email (ask@reasons.org). Questions are answered on the I Didn't Know That podcast.

Other books by Dr. Ross

To download this and more episodes, here is the RSS feed and the iTunes link, or you can download the Faithful Thinkers Toolbar (More Than A Theory episodes can be played from the radio).

Atheistic Evangelism

2011-09-17T06:00:00.000-05:00

Today I want to talk a bit about atheistic evangelism. Specifically, the naturalistic atheism. With the presence of the "New Atheists" and many others who follow in their footsteps, it seems that there is a lot more proselytizing of atheism than in previous years. I am quite confused at this phenomenon for three reasons: according to naturalism, first, there is nothing after a person dies; second, everything that happens is determined; third, everything is meaningless and purposeless.

No Life After Death
On the first point: if there is nothing that happens after death, the naturalist should be busy doing what brings them the most pleasure before they take the eternal, unconscious nap. Spending time telling people that there is no life after death is not going to make a slight bit of difference in the long run if there really isn't. They are not having any lasting effects on people. I would think that this reasoning would make the vocal naturalist think twice about giving up time that could be spent on carnal pleasures to tell someone that there is no God. I mean, this really should be depressing...if no lasting impression can be made, why not pleasure one's self as much as possible with the little bit of time they have of conscious life?

I would really like to leave it there, but I won't. The problem is that if naturalism is true, then there are no objective "should"'s or "should not"'s. Which means that the naturalist is free to determine what they "should" or "should not" do. If they get more pleasure out of insisting that no God exists than out of some other action they could be doing, who is anyone else to tell them they are wrong or "should" be doing anything else? By vehemently denying the existence of God, naturalist A is being just as consistent in his worldview as married naturalist B who sleeps with a new woman every night for kicks, both are just as consistent with naturalist C who devises ways to exterminate an entire race of human beings. One has no right to judge the other; one has no right to tell the other that they "should not" be acting out their chosen desire...then again, they can still judge one another if it brings them pleasure. It is their choice.

No Free Will
On the second point: by providing reasons to not believe in God, naturalists are assuming that the people they are attempting to convince have a choice in the matter. On the contrary, naturalism has no room for free choice. Free choice requires the existence of a mind, not just a brain. The brain is a mechanism that reacts to input (from the senses). The input provided by the naturalist is not guaranteed to produce more naturalists. There is no assurance that the new input will override the previous input. In fact, the brain (or person) does not make authentic choices, it only reacts to the input in ways predetermined by the DNA nature gave to it.

Because of that, every person has already been randomly, fatalistically determined to either believe in God or not. The input offered by the naturalist is ultimately disregarded. Our DNA has already committed us to a position. However, that is not all that DNA has determined. Remember the end sentence of the first point? If DNA has determined all, it has determined what brings pleasure and if (what) actions will be taken to bring pleasure. Ironically, even if I were to argue soundly to a naturalist that their actions of evangelizing naturalism is pointless, their brain is (according to naturalism) programmed to ignore my input (~~reasoning~~ audible vibrations or visual light patterns), and continue their quest. Some will ~~rationalize~~ create their own audible vibrations or visual light patterns to ~~justify their continued behavior~~ restore the feeling of lost pleasure; others won't ~~care~~ react.

No Meaning, No Purpose
Thirdly, the naturalist believes that what they are saying/writing/doing has meaning...including the idea that life is meaningless. The naturalist believes that all life is purposeless. This would include their own lives, which are spent telling others that there is no God. Both of these are self-defeating. But, an a-rational brain cares nothing of logic. It is only randomly programmed to complete a random set of tasks. If all behavior has no meaning, then neither do specific behaviors. If all people have no purpose, then neither do individuals. If all behavior is determined, so are single actions.

Why not cheat on one's husband on a nightly basis? Why not pacify the anxious "boy-toy" by informing him that he will not be held responsible for his sin because there is no God? Why stop there? Tell them the whole truth of the complete package of the naturalistic worldview- that he is a tool for the naturalist's own pleasure, and he has no choice in the matter because his brain is programmed to be the means of ecstasy for the adulterous woman?

I truly don't get it. Evangelizing the naturalistic worldview has no ultimate impact, so it is meaningless and purposeless. People can't "change their minds" based on the arguments even if they are sound- making evangelizing even more meaningless and purposeless and now, a waste of time. AND its self-defeating to any strategy one might have for gaining pleasure (not to mention for others attempting the same thing)...what is the naturalist thinking when they do such a thing as actually tell people that there is no God?!...<stupid, preprogrammed, nonrational, human brain> Evolution sucks...or does it? The other person has a brain just as preprogrammed and nonrational as the naturalist, so is telling people there is no God really self-defeating in practice? Nope, but only if naturalism is true.

My conclusion is consistent, yet it is all self-defeating. So, why can I not "get" it? According to naturalism, the reason is because I am trying to use a tool in a way it was not "designed". I am trying to reason, and my human brain simply was not "designed" to perform that function. According to reason, it self-defeats because it is false. Interesting dilemma: reason or atheism...its your choice...if you actually have one.

Related Posts:
Multiverse and Rationality
Is Consistency Important?

Video: Free Will and Evil

2011-09-16T06:00:00.009-05:00

In this week's featured video, Dr. Norm Geisler is interviewed by Dr. John Ankerberg (Ankerberg Theological Research Institute). Ankerberg asks Geisler how free will can actually result in evil.

More videos from Dr. John Ankerberg can be found at his YouTube channel.

Books by Dr. Geisler

Article: Junk DNA: An Outdated Concept- Part 1

2011-09-14T06:00:00.014-05:00

This week's featured article is from biochemist Dr. Patricia Fanning of Reasons to Believe. In this article, Dr. Fanning discusses the claims of "junk DNA" and how the concept is slowly losing favor. Here is Part 1 of 6::

“Junk” DNA: An Outdated Concept, Part 1 (of 6)

For more articles on biochemical design from the team at Reasons to Believe, check out their Biochemical Design resource page.

If you would like to ask Dr. Fanning a question, you can send him an email (ask@reasons.org). Questions are answered on the I Didn't Know That podcast.

Audio: Human Origins Test

2011-09-12T06:00:00.007-05:00

This week's featured audio is the twelfth episode of More Than a Theory. Astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe discusses the testable scientific model for creation that has been developed by the team at Reasons to Believe. In this episode, Dr. Ross looks at the origin of humanity and uses it as a test for creation/evolution models.

Download the MP3 here.

This podcast is based on the book More Than A Theory by Dr. Ross. You can find my review of the book here.

If you would like to ask Dr. Ross a question, you can send him an email (ask@reasons.org). Questions are answered on the I Didn't Know That podcast.

Other books by Dr. Ross

To download this and more episodes, here is the RSS feed and the iTunes link, or you can download the Faithful Thinkers Toolbar (More Than A Theory episodes can be played from the radio).

Atheism, Evil and Ultimate Justice

2011-09-10T04:00:00.004-05:00

Well, tomorrow marks the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the America. This attack shook the world. It abruptly ended nearly 3000 valuable lives and destroyed countless others. It forced people to recognize evil, ask if justice could ever be served, and challenged our ability to move on.

As a Christian it pains me to see such evil in the world. It hurts worse to see atrocities committed in the name of a religion. Many atheists share my feelings and have even become militant against all forms of religion because of it. They claim that there is no way religion can possibly be true if it causes such needless pain and suffering in the world. I want to take a few moments to discuss evil, justice, and forgiveness in the context of the events from a decade ago within both the Christian and atheist worldviews.

Evil
Atheism has no place for evil or good to even exist on an ultimate level. The worst that atheism can say about the events of 9/11 is that "organisms are no longer breathing". Atheism does not support the value of human life beyond what another person places on it. If I were to say that "no person who was killed had any value, and I am indifferent to the whole thing," my opinion would be just as "right" or "good" as someone who lost a loved one and would passionately disagree. In reality, though, most sane people would recognize that my "opinion" would be atrocious, insensitive, evil, and even wrong. Even atheists would be outraged at such a callous statement.

In atheism the only ground for good or evil is in the person or society. One person or society may posit that one this is good, while another posit that it is evil. There is no way to break the tie. There is no grounds that one can actually call what happened ten years ago "evil".

Only theism offers a solid foundation for establishing what is truly "good" and "evil". Christian theism, specifically, holds that all people are created in the Image of God, thus possess intrinsic value. According to atheism, there is no difference between a common house fly and a human that gives it intrinsic value. In Christianity the events of 9/11 can be condemned as truly evil acts. In atheism the events of 9/11 can be opined as being "evil", yet they can also be opined as being "good". Only does Christianity have available what we know to be true about reality.

Justice
Atheism also holds that there is no life after death; there will be no judgment for evil acts in this life. If a person commits a crime, then commits suicide, punishment is escaped. The family of the victims of 9/11 have no hope of ever receiving justice if atheism is true. The killing of Usama bin Laden is only one death...for approximately 3000 lives? Atheism has no grounds to say that it is not. Since atheism cannot ground value or evil, it cannot justify the pursuit of justice. The fact that bin Laden was killed was just a coincidence that anyone can call whatever they wish...so can the events of 9/11 be labeled what fancies any person.

Atheism believes that mourning is simply a foundationless psychological process that humans must perform to move on with our purposeless lives. Moving on may include the search for revenge, but due to the death of those responsible, it will never be realized.

Christianity states that such evils (that it has a foundation to determine) will be punished. Justice will be served. Those who lost their loved ones may mourn the loss of a person of the highest true value, who also had purpose. They may then raise their heads in confidence that the next step (justice) is in the hands of One who is capable and will execute it regardless of the current biological status of those responsible.We need not feel compelled to seek "justice" or revenge. We can continue to fulfill our life's purpose without such a compulsion to weigh us down.

Forgiveness
Finally, many people wish to move on by offering forgiveness to the perpetrators. Many recognize that this would be the "high road" option compared to seeking revenge. Atheism is indifferent to such a distinction. Christianity not only encourages the offer of forgiveness to help us resume completing our purpose in life after such an evil tragedy, but it sets the standard for it.

Christianity holds that every person is inferior (sinful) when compared to a perfect God, and even the slightest blemish prevents us from being in His presence. The Christian God is a God of justice, but is also a God of forgiveness. His justice was satisfied by Jesus Christ's death on the cross; His mercy and forgiveness are offered by Jesus Christ's death on the cross. In order for forgiveness to take effect, it must not only be offered, but also accepted. If we wish to be in the presence of and have a personal relationship with the ultimate Essence of good, justice, and mercy, we must accept the offer of His forgiveness; otherwise we will face His justice in the absence of His forgiveness.

All those who were responsible for the events of 9/11 and did not accept God's offer of forgiveness will face His justice, for their sin, on their own. If you were hurt by the events of 9/11, I encourage you to accept Christ's sacrifice, so that you may receive forgiveness, and have a foundation and assurance that you do not have to seek revenge to satisfy justice. In Christ, we have a model of forgiveness that we may lean on to help us continue to fulfill the purpose that God has given our lives, in the face of such evil in the world.

Recommended Reading Regarding The 9/11 Attacks

Video: God is Not The Source of Evil

2011-09-09T06:00:00.007-05:00

In this week's featured video, Dr. Norm Geisler is interviewed by Dr. John Ankerberg (Ankerberg Theological Research Institute). Ankerberg asks Geisler how God is not the source of evil.

More videos from Dr. John Ankerberg can be found at his YouTube channel.

Books by Dr. Geisler

Article: Review of "The Moral Landscape"

2011-09-07T06:00:00.018-05:00

In this week's featured article, Rich Deem of Evidence for God reviews new atheist Sam Harris' attempt to ground morality in the flourishing of humanity. Here it is:

Book Review: The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris

For more book reviews from Deem, check out his Book Reviews page.

Audio: Testing The Soul

2011-09-05T06:00:00.007-05:00

This week's featured audio is the eleventh episode of More Than a Theory. Astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe discusses the testable scientific model for creation that has been developed by the team at Reasons to Believe. In this episode, Dr. Ross explains a few tests regarding the soul.

Download the MP3 here.

This podcast is based on the book More Than A Theory by Dr. Ross. You can find my review of the book here.

If you would like to ask Dr. Ross a question, you can send him an email (ask@reasons.org). Questions are answered on the I Didn't Know That podcast.

Other books by Dr. Ross

To download this and more episodes, here is the RSS feed and the iTunes link, or you can download the Faithful Thinkers Toolbar (More Than A Theory episodes can be played from the radio).

Providing Alternative Explanations

2011-09-03T06:00:00.004-05:00

There have been several times that someone provided me a phenomenon that supports a specific worldview. They implied that this support for their worldview demonstrated that my worldview was false. The most recent example that comes to mind is a debate that is inside Christianity. As many, both inside and outside the Church, know, Christians debate the age of the earth/universe, and along side that debate tends to be a lesser known debate about the geographical extent of Noah's Flood (whether the flood was worldwide or localized to a single geographical area).

I currently hold that Noah's Flood was a localized event. (I'm not going to go into a huge defense of this position here because the purpose of this post is just to make a quick point, which Noah's flood being local is not it.) A friend of mine gave me two pieces of evidence that he states can only be explained by a geographically world-wide flood. These two being the large amounts of sediment all over the land and aquatic fossils being found on top of many mountains. He told me that this was evidence that the whole world was covered by water, and further concluded that could only have been Noah's flood (worldwide).

I have to agree that a worldwide flood could explain that evidence, and a local flood can not. However, that does not mean that the local-flood hypothesis has been overturned. How? All I have to do is provide an alternative explanation for the presented evidence that is consistent with my worldview. I happen to believe that the universe and earth are billions of years old. I also subscribe to the planetary formation theory that states that all planets begin with a rocky core, and some of those rocky cores are entirely covered by water for great expanses of time.

We both agree that evidence shows that the earth was covered by water at some point in time. One side says that it was at the time of Noah's flood, the other side says that it was much earlier. Both sides have provided an explanation of the evidence. So, that evidence may not be considered to exclusively support one view, while falsifying the other.

Please notice three things here:

1. We need to always be looking for alternative explanations of evidence that we are tempted to say supports our worldview exclusively.

People tend to be able to accept this (although there are many hold-outs). This is part of being responsible in what we claim about our evidence for our worldview. We need to not only look for alternative explanations for evidence in other worldviews, but we need to be able to accept when a supporter of another worldview provides an explanation of the evidence.

2. We need to be aware that the alternative explanation in the other worldview may not be within the specific belief of the worldview that we are attacking.

As with my example above, the evidence cannot be explained by the local flood hypothesis; however, it can be explained by another part of the my worldview- planetary formation. This is probably the most difficult to individuals outside a worldview to do. Typically, our attention is on the view we are disputing- if we can't find an alternative explanation for the evidence (ala #1), we consider the belief falsified. This is where the our academic responsibility is taken to the next level: we need to look at other beliefs within the overall worldview to find an alternative explanation. We also need to allow the adherents of other worldviews to show how another belief in that worldview can explain the evidence.

3. For worldviews that have much overlap, recognize the overlap.

A. I add this third point specifically because there are many competing beliefs that are in competition within a broader worldview (such as the age of the universe/earth and Noah's flood within Christianity). Many internal debates tend to cause much division among the adherents to a worldview (this is not just limited to Christianity either).

B. However, on the bright side, this can also come in handy if we recognize overlap among worldviews we are arguing against- if they overlap with a belief that cannot explain a certain piece of evidence, then we have delivered a blow to both worldviews...at least until we have verified that each worldview does not have an alternative explanation elsewhere in the worldview or a competing belief (ala 3A) that can explain it.

C. 3A must be remembered by the adherents of a worldview when 3B is used against them. If a particular belief in a worldview has been shown to be falsified (and alternative explanations have been defeated), the victims of 3B can't be afraid to accept another belief within the worldview.

Now, I don't know if you noticed, but I was careful to include that an alternative explanation must be consistent within the overall worldview. Just because someone presents an alternative explanation does not mean that it is consistent. The alternative explanation may be inconsistent- they may ignore beliefs in the worldview that would refute the proposed explanation. In this case, a true alternative explanation has not been offered. It can be defeated by showing the internal inconsistency. But, that "inconsistency" may be resolved by another belief in the worldview; in that case, we need to go back to point 3A. We can't be dogmatic about opposing worldviews just because we are outside them; we need to grant the best points and the most points. Afterall, what do those who hold the True overall worldview have to fear from a few nuggets of truth from another worldview (they live in the same world we do- they're bound to get something right)?

Related Posts:

The Power of the Cumulative Case
Consistency Among Disciplines
The Dangers of Overstating Conclusions
Nature vs. Scripture

Video: Source of Evil

2011-09-02T06:00:00.008-05:00

In this week's featured video, Dr. Norm Geisler is interviewed by Dr. John Ankerberg (Ankerberg Theological Research Institute). Ankerberg asks Geisler where evil came from.

More videos from Dr. John Ankerberg can be found at his YouTube channel.

Books by Dr. Geisler

Article: Review of "Forged"- Part 8

2011-08-31T06:00:00.007-05:00

This week's featured article is from New Testament scholar Dr. Ben Witherington. Witherington offers a review of Bart Erhman's book "Forged". This is the eighth part. Here it is:

Forged- Chapters Seven and Eight: Collateral Damage

For more articles from Dr. Witherington, check out Bible and Culture.

Books by Dr. Witherington

Audio: Life's History and Faint Sun Paradox

2011-08-29T06:00:00.004-05:00

This week's featured audio is the tenth episode of More Than a Theory. Astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe discusses the testable scientific model for creation that has been developed by the team at Reasons to Believe. In this episode, Dr. Ross describes a couple more tests regarding the history of life.

Download the MP3 here.

This podcast is based on the book More Than A Theory by Dr. Ross. You can find my review of the book here.

If you would like to ask Dr. Ross a question, you can send him an email (ask@reasons.org). Questions are answered on the I Didn't Know That podcast.

Other books by Dr. Ross

To download this and more episodes, here is the RSS feed and the iTunes link, or you can download the Faithful Thinkers Toolbar (More Than A Theory episodes can be played from the radio).

Is Heaven Eternal?

2011-08-27T06:00:00.010-05:00

A couple months ago, I was asked to give some quick pointers on responding to a person's issues with the existence of eternal punishment in hell. The answers I provided scratch the surface, but seem good enough to post here because they might get someone thinking about the denial of eternal punishment from both a Scriptural position (for the Christian) and a philosophical position (for the non-Christian). The person who was challenging is not a Christian but is willing to accept that Scripture is the source for orthodox Christian belief. The interesting implication that I point out is what inspired the odd title of this post.

Here is the email that I sent (I've edited it a bit for clarification):

It seems that there are two very different directions that this could be taken. It depends on what is believed to happen at the conclusion of the "punishment" in hell: Annihilation or Salvation?

Is Annihilation An Option?-

Scriptural problems- Providing more than a single passage to contend with might be overwhelming, so Matt 25:31-46 (46 specifically) would be my pick for dealing with annihilation. Jesus uses the same modifier ("eternal") for "punishment" as He does for "life". If we affirm that Jesus meant to communicate that "life" does not come to an end, then we must also affirm that He meant the same for "punishment". If we affirm that He meant that "punishment" comes to an end, we must also affirm that He was telling us that "life" also comes to an end. If the person affirms Matt 25:46, then annihilation is either experienced by none or experienced by all,

Philosophical/theological problems- Two points. First, the length of time it takes to commit a crime rarely has anything to do with the time of the punishment (murder and theft are the most obvious that come to mind). In fact, the length of time for the punishment tends to extend dramatically if premeditation (extra time) was involved. Second, Hell is not where we go because we did something bad. We go there because we do not wish to be with our Creator (which just happens to require that we come on HIS terms, not ours- which is really best anyways, because we would drive ourselves nuts worrying about whether we were "making it" or not- spiritual OCD is not pretty). Since the length of the punishment is not dependent on the length of the crime, the time must be determined by some other means. One option is that the length of time in hell is equal to amount of time we would spend with our Creator for choosing Him is equal to how much time we would spend without Him if we decided to not choose Him. I would then refer to the above scriptural evidence above to determine what orthodox Christianity believes this length of time is.

Is Salvation After Punishment An Option?-

Scriptural problems-
We have to go with two passages. If a person rejected Christ in this life, John 14:6 would require the option that people are still able to accept Christ after their death (since good works can't get you salvation- no early parole from hell for "good behavior"); however, Heb 9:27 stops that option in its tracks (verse 28 completes the thought started in 27 and affirms the idea that salvation is through Christ alone). If the person affirms both John 14:6 and Heb 9:27, then there is no chance for salvation beyond the physical life- and if hell is not eternal, then he must opt for annihilation for the unsaved and the saved.

How would he interpret these scriptures if hell is not eternal?

Philosophical/theological problems-
Even if salvation after punishment is accepted, annihilation of all is the conclusion (if Hell is not eternal, neither is Heaven). This falls by the same philosophical critique as annihilation given above (both Scriptural and philosophical).

Emotional/moral problem of both positions-
Remember his appeal to morality in judgment of God sending people to eternal punishment? You can now appeal to his morality. Would he annihilate those who accepted Christ? Is it right, loving, or just for God to annihilate those who accept Jesus Christ: ultimately facing the same destiny that the unsaved do? If so, he must defend that position philosophically, morally, and emotionally (and scripturally, but only if he still wishes to say that this god he's condemning is actually the God of the Bible).

I wrote a piece about hell last year that might address any bad experiences directly related to Church members focusing on the doctrine of Hell: http://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/fear-mongering-christians.html

Here are a couple articles from PleaseConvinceMe.com about Hell:
http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/Is_There_an_Eternal_Conscious_Hell
http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/Can_The_Idea_of_Hell_Be_Defended

Video: Loved Ones in Hell

2011-08-26T06:00:00.009-05:00

In this week's featured video, Dr. Norm Geisler is interviewed by Dr. John Ankerberg (Ankerberg Theological Research Institute). Ankerberg asks Geisler if it is possible to be happy in Heaven knowing that a loved one is in Hell.

More videos from Dr. John Ankerberg can be found at his YouTube channel.

Books by Dr. Geisler

Article: Review of "Forged"- Part 7

2011-08-24T06:00:00.006-05:00

This week's featured article is from New Testament scholar Dr. Ben Witherington. Witherington offers a review of Bart Erhman's book "Forged". This is the seventh part. Here it is:

Forged- Chapter Six: Forgeries in Conflict With False Teachers

For more articles from Dr. Witherington, check out Bible and Culture.

Books by Dr. Witherington

Audio: Origin-of-Life Tests

2011-08-22T06:00:00.005-05:00

This week's featured audio is the ninth episode of More Than a Theory. Astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe discusses the testable scientific model for creation that has been developed by the team at Reasons to Believe. In this episode, Dr. Ross explains several biochemial and astronomical tests related to the origin of life itself.

Download the MP3 here.

This podcast is based on the book More Than A Theory by Dr. Ross. You can find my review of the book here.

If you would like to ask Dr. Ross a question, you can send him an email (ask@reasons.org). Questions are answered on the I Didn't Know That podcast.

Other books by Dr. Ross

To download this and more episodes, here is the RSS feed and the iTunes link, or you can download the Faithful Thinkers Toolbar (More Than A Theory episodes can be played from the radio).

Book Review: The Making of an Atheist

2011-08-20T06:00:00.161-05:00

The Making of an Atheist by James Spiegel is a short book on the non-rational reasons that people may have for rejecting the existence of God. It was of interest to me because it doesn't address intellectual reasons, but emotional reasons. The book talks about the psychology of atheists. The book is divided into five chapters and is a mere 128 pages, so it makes for a quick read.

Chapter 1: Atheistic Arguments, Errors, and Insights
In the first chapter Spiegel defines what he means when he uses the word "atheist". That being pretty much anyone who does not affirm the existence of God (this would include agnostics). He then discusses some of the reasons that atheists give for refusing to believe that God exists. He explains the moral argument against God, the hypocritical behavior of people within the Church, and answers both. He addresses other issues in the Church, such as intellectual laziness (which has lead to the charge of "god of the gaps" reasoning) and disunity over side issues. He concludes that the Church, itself, gave the atheists the ammunition against God; they just point out the problems. The Church needs to recognize the truth of what has been revealed and do something about it instead of ignoring it.

Chapter 2: The Irrationality of Atheism
In chapter 2 Spiegel looks at the evidences that convinced atheist Antony Flew that God does exist. The evidences given are: the beginning of the universe, the origin of life, and the origin of consciousness. Spiegel points out that many intellectuals are atheistic, as Flew was. Spiegel moves more towards the psychological when he points out that even though the evidence is weighted toward theism, these intellectual atheists still reject the existence of God. He points to Romans 1:18-23 as an indicator of the source of such rejection- immorality. He makes the point that emotions do have the ability to override reason in the human mind- if the person does not like the implications of a conclusion, they will dismiss it regardless of how rational it may be. He then moves back to the intellectual side to show that atheism is actually self-defeating via Alvin Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism. Spiegel concludes this chapter by stating that the only reason that someone would prefer a self-defeating worldview to one that is coherent (and explains the data) is because of the preference of immorality over truth.

Chapter 3: The Causes of Atheism
In chapter 3 Spiegel opens his exclusive conclusion up to also include other causes for atheism. It deals with Paul Vitz's research on the connection between fatherlessness and atheism (see the book "The Faith of the Fatherless"). The initial connection to Spiegel's idea being that an atheist may be harboring resentment and desires for revenge against an absent father figure. He then shows how the absence of the father figure in many intellectual atheists' lives opened the door more widely to immoral behavior in their life- this immorality being what they are committed to retaining, and an acceptance of the conclusion that God exists would mean that they would be expected to leave and shun the immoral behaviors. Spiegel then offers that in the presence of the evidence for God, the rejection cannot be believed to be due to ignorance, but a deliberate act of the will to suppress the evidence in their own mind to maintain their commitment to their behavior.

Chapter 4: The Obstinacy of Atheism
In chapter 4 Spiegel examines the ways that sin can exercise such control over the mind as to render it unable to accept logical conclusions. He discusses the idea of a paradigm. This being a set of assumptions that form the foundation for which all other thinking is conducted (including thoughts on politics, theology, history, and science). He explains that it is difficult to change paradigms because of how intricately engrained in our lives they are. If immorality has fostered an atheistic paradigm, then immorality makes it extremely difficult to change one's mind about, at least, theological issues. He states that having a specific paradigm can blind people from seeing truths that are contrary to it. Speigel then looks at the psychology of self-deception and how a person can be on a downward spiral that leads to even deeper self-deception (making it more difficult to escape).

Chapter 5: The Blessings of Theism
The final chapter is a warning to Christians and an invitation to atheists. The warning to Christians is to avoid immorality in their lives- as demonstrated in previous chapters, immorality can lead down the wrong path. For the atheists who is more committed to finding truth than to some behavior, Speigel offers that nothing is beyond the power of Christ, and if the will to believe is present, they can be rescued and begin a new life.

Conclusion
I really enjoyed this book. I have to say that it touched on one of the topics that make me very uneasy in intellectual discussions: a person's character. The majority of the time, when a person's character is brought into the discussion, it is to dismiss the validity of something they said that the other person does not want to accept. The information in this book is quite powerful, but may not accurately describe every atheist. People do not like to be psychoanalyzed because the person analyzing can discover truths about a person that were thought to be private, and if those private things are known by the possessor to be wrong, that person can (and will) be extremely defensive in the presence of their discovery (further affirming the truth of the content in this book). I would advise great caution for any Christian who wishes to read this book. It must be approached with a great deal of humility; because if not, it will go to your head, and you will, in turn, do more damage for The Kingdom than good.

If you enjoyed this book review, please check out more on my Book Reviews page.

Video: More People in Heaven or Hell?

2011-08-19T06:00:00.004-05:00

In this week's featured video, Dr. Norm Geisler is interviewed by Dr. John Ankerberg (Ankerberg Theological Research Institute). Ankerberg asks Geisler if there will be more people in Heaven or Hell.

More videos from Dr. John Ankerberg can be found at his YouTube channel.

Books by Dr. Geisler

Article: Review of "Forged"- Part 6

2011-08-17T06:00:00.007-05:00

This week's featured article is from New Testament scholar Dr. Ben Witherington. Witherington offers a review of Bart Erhman's book "Forged". This is the sixth part. Here it is:

Forged- Chapter Five: Forgeries in Conflict With Jews and Pagans

For more articles from Dr. Witherington, check out Bible and Culture.

Books by Dr. Witherington

Audio: Galactic And Solar System Tests

2011-08-15T06:00:00.002-05:00

This week's featured audio is the eighth episode of More Than a Theory. Astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe discusses the testable scientific model for creation that has been developed by the team at Reasons to Believe. In this episode, Dr. Ross describes several astronomical tests for creation models.

Download the MP3 here.

This podcast is based on the book More Than A Theory by Dr. Ross. You can find my review of the book here.

If you would like to ask Dr. Ross a question, you can send him an email (ask@reasons.org). Questions are answered on the I Didn't Know That podcast.

Other books by Dr. Ross

To download this and more episodes, here is the RSS feed and the iTunes link, or you can download the Faithful Thinkers Toolbar (More Than A Theory episodes can be played from the radio).

Book Review: The Word of God and the Mind of Man

2011-08-13T06:00:00.317-05:00

The Word of God and the Mind of Man by Ronald Nash is a book about Christian epistemology (how we can know what we know). I've been intrigued by discussions of knowledge for quite some time. I was enjoying a philosophy lecture series by Dr. Nash, and while discussing epistemology, he mentioned this book. The book is divided into two parts consisting of a total of twelve chapters. In the first part, Nash provides a case against different religious epistemic systems of the past and present, while in the second part he provides a case for the Christian God being the epistemic foundation for human knowledge.

Chapter 1: Hume's Gap- Divorcing Faith and Knowledge
In Chapter 1 Nash clarifies some misconceptions about David Hume. He explained that Hume's epistemology was not based on an atheistic worldview, but one that held to man's inability to know metaphysical things with any level of certainty. Hume's argument against miracles, was not against miracles happening, but against man having any rational reason for believing that miracles happen. Nash explains that Hume believed that faith was indirectly related to the amount of thinking put into it. In other words, Hume promoted a completely blind faith. He explains that Hume's effect on Christianity (the split between faith and reason) was not from a direct attack on the truth of the worldview, but an attack that emphasized mystery rather than rationality or a balance of the two. Since it was not a direct attack on the truth of Christianity, Christians did not feel the need to defend against Hume's arguments.

Chapter 2: Theological Agnosticism: From Kant to Ritschl
In Chapter 2 Nash describes the Kantian legacy on Christianity. Immanuel Kant proposed that there are two "worlds": the world of perception that man can know things about, and the world of reality which man cannot know anything about. He believed that God is part of the world of reality that man cannot know, so God was unknowable by man. The division between what man can know and what he cannot know is called "Kant's Wall". Kant's religion was based on actions (his ethics) rather than beliefs.

Nash moves on to Friedrich Schleiermacher. His focus being that religion has nothing to do with our knowledge or our actions, but our feelings. Religion is more of a subjective experience than something that can be known as being true or something that should really affect the rest of our daily lives. Nash then brings in Albrecht Ritschl who was not a fan of Schleiermacher's religion of feeling, but did like Kant's placing of God and other metaphysical things into a world unknowable to man. Ritschl preferred a religion of action (ethics). Nash identifies all three of these epistemic systems to the current Christian church (both liberal and conservative sides).

Chapter 3: The Assault on Propositional Revelation
Nash begin Chapter 3 by explaining that Kant's wall implies that God is so transcendent that man cannot even comprehend the divine mind. Any revelation that makes a positive affirmation about the divine mind is not valid. Which means that scripture is not "God-breathed". Those who hold this view tend to hold a different view of what "revelation" is. Its more personal and experiential. Some even hold that Jesus Christ was the revelation itself (rather than propositions about who Jesus is or did being the revelation).The Bible is not God's Word, but His Word can be found in the Bible.

Chapter 4: A Defense of Propositional Revelation
In Chapter 4 Nash provides a philosophical defense for the idea that Revelation is both propositional and personal. He demonstrates that in order to know someone personally, some propositions must be known about the person. Propositional revelation and personal revelation are not competing with one another; they complement each other.

Nash address some of the concerns about Revelation being propositional. Two of those concerns being that all Scripture must be interpreted literally (without taking into account genre) and that it under-emphasizes the human element of the writing of Scripture. He reiterates that having propositional knowledge about God is not in competition with knowing God. Finally Nash distinguishes between the propositions of a revelation and the act of revealing the propositions, but states that they are both revelation.

Chapter 5: A Brief But Necessary Interlude
Chapter 5 marks the boundary between the two parts of the book. Nash states that he has spent the first part of the book arguing against different epistemic views and views of Revelation. His next part will be focusing on developing and defending a Christian theory of epistemology that creates a solid foundations for human knowledge.

Chapter 6: The Christian Logos
Nash begins the second part of the book by reiterating that Hume's Gap and Kant's Wall created a split between ontology (what actually is) and epistemology (what we can know). His first goal is to establish that the Christian worldview provides a bridge between the two. Nash identifies this bridge being the Logos identified at the beginning of John's gospel (Jesus Christ). He goes into describing the philosophical history of the Logos doctrine and in so doing, explains it in more detail. He shows that Scripture not only identifies Jesus as the "cosmological" Logos (the Creator God) and the epistemic Logos (the bridge between what is and what can be known), but also the soteriological Logos (the One whom man can gain salvation through). Nash explains that without Jesus Christ (the second person of the Trinity), creation could not exist, knowledge could not exist, and salvation could not exist (not to mention the many combinations that those three could affect each other).

Chapter 7: Rationalism and Empiricism and
Chapter 8: The Christian Rationalism of St. Augustine
In Chapters 7 and 8 Nash gets a little more detailed about how man can know things. He brings in knowledge via the senses and via rationale alone. He goes into a discussion of both modern empiricism and rationalism. These chapters get a little heavier on the philosophy of Plato's forms. He explains the paradoxes created by rationalism and empiricism in the absence of the Divine Logos (Jesus Christ) and shows how man being created in the Image of God (the Divine Logos) eliminates such paradoxes. It seems that the implication throughout these chapters is that any worldview, that denies the deity of Jesus Christ or that man was created in (and still possesses) the image of God, has no foundation for reality (metaphysics) or knowledge (epistemology) of such a reality- they fail at the most basic philosophical levels.

Chapter 9: The Religious Revolt Against Logic
Nash devotes Chapter 9 to bringing several previous chapters together. He discusses the Church's antagonistic position regarding logic and reason. He explains that some influential theologians have promoted the idea that contradictions are part of who God is and accepting those contradictions is a noble act of faith demanded by Scripture. This idea has led many in the Church to believe that faith and reason are incompatible with one another; and since they are committed to faith, they react vehemently against logic and reason. Nash addresses this by introducing the concept of the law of noncontradiction and investigating what God knows versus what man can know. It appears to me that Nash is implying that such an idea is either a direct decedent of or a reintroduction of Kant's Wall (discussed in Chapter 2).

Chapter 10: Reason and Religion
Chapter 10 goes into much more detail about the law of noncontradiction. Nash explains the argument for its truth and how it governs language, knowledge, and reality. He also discusses God's relationship to the law (does it constrain God?) and how faith is affected by it as well. Throughout all these discussions, Nash demonstrates that the denial of the law of noncontradiction in any of these areas leads to absurdities and impossibilities- communication (including divine propositions, such as those found in Scripture), knowledge (what is being communicated), and reality (what knowledge is about and language describes), itself, are impossible without such a law.

Chapter 11: Reason, Revelation, and Language
Chapter 11 is spent discussing language. Nash starts off by stating that one's ideas about language are directly related to their worldview. He examines three contemporary theories of what language is, and he demonstrates how they are all self-defeating. He then explains how only the acceptance of the Divine Logos allows for a philosophy of language that has a solid foundation. From this the reader may continue to conclude that the other theories of language do not allow for anyone to know anything (due to their inability to communicate knowledge) about anything. The Christian worldview is the only one that contains a foundation for communication of knowledge about reality.

Chapter 12: Revelation and the Bible
In the final chapter Nash addresses a view of the Bible as being different from Revelation. It was addressed a little in a previous chapter, but it is investigated much deeper in this last chapter. Nash concludes that the deficiencies in the separation of the two require that the idea be abandoned, in favor of the idea that the Bible is God's revelation to man.

He concludes the book by stating that the theory he proposes is a complete package that addresses reality, knowledge, and communication of that knowledge about reality. He states that the ability to apprehend and understand knowledge is grounded in the fact that man has been created in the Image of God and that all three find a solid foundation only in the existence and divinity of Jesus Christ. He states that God has revealed Himself to man in both propositional and personal ways; it is up to the individual to accept that the fact that that revelation is true or not.

Conclusion
This has to be my favorite book that I have read to date. It is short, but not short on content or required brain-power. If you are unfamiliar with philosophical terms, you will want a philosophical dictionary near you, and maybe someone who can help explain some things. If you are perfectly comfortable in the realm of philosophy, I cannot recommend this book enough. If you are a Christian, this book cannot but strengthen your belief that Christianity is the true worldview; if you are not a Christian, it will challenge you to critically examine the philosophical foundations that ground your current worldview.

If you enjoyed this book review, please check out more on my Book Reviews page.

Video: Death Before Age of Accountability

2011-08-12T06:00:00.006-05:00

In this week's featured video, Dr. Norm Geisler is interviewed by Dr. John Ankerberg (Ankerberg Theological Research Institute). Ankerberg asks Geisler what happens to a person who dies before the age of accountability.

More videos from Dr. John Ankerberg can be found at his YouTube channel.

Books by Dr. Geisler

Article: Review of "Forged"- Part 5

2011-08-10T06:00:00.005-05:00

This week's featured article is from New Testament scholar Dr. Ben Witherington. Witherington offers a review of Bart Erhman's book "Forged". This is the fifth part. Here it is:

Forged- Chapter Four: Alternatives to Forgery

For more articles from Dr. Witherington, check out Bible and Culture.

Books by Dr. Witherington

Audio: Cosmic Tests

2011-08-08T06:00:00.004-05:00

This week's featured audio is the seventh episode of More Than a Theory. Astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe discusses the testable scientific model for creation that has been developed by the team at Reasons to Believe. In this episode, Dr. Ross goes through several cosmic tests used to test creation models.

Download the MP3 here.

This podcast is based on the book More Than A Theory by Dr. Ross. You can find my review of the book here.

If you would like to ask Dr. Ross a question, you can send him an email (ask@reasons.org). Questions are answered on the I Didn't Know That podcast.

Other books by Dr. Ross

To download this and more episodes, here is the RSS feed and the iTunes link, or you can download the Faithful Thinkers Toolbar (More Than A Theory episodes can be played from the radio).

Christians Consuming Questionable Media

2011-08-06T06:00:00.001-05:00

So many movies and TV shows that promote worldviews that are not inline with Christianity (some blatantly anti-Christian) are coming out these days. I'm a big special effects guy. So any movie or show that will have lots of computer generated graphics tends to lure me. I love to see how accurately the effects are portraying reality. When I see the simulation of physics (movements) and electromagnitism (light) so close to the real world that its difficult to tell the difference, I get really excited. I love to see artistic talent used to imitate reality. I also like to see fictional worlds that contain phenomena that do not exist in reality. The level of design, talent, and time that I see behind this stuff leaves me in awe. I can't help but think of how the Christian worldview is really the only one that can explain the existence of something so arbitrary to survival as creativity, and how that creativity is evidence of the Image of God in every person.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of the movies and shows that require such effects that bring that kind of enjoyment in me are those that posit some kind of reality (or worldview) that is in direct conflict with my own. I am aware that continued exposure to certain ideas will cause one to accept them. And that causes a great struggle for me when deciding if I want to watch certain movies or TV shows, and with the realization that I may soon be a father, it also makes me consider how I might allow the consumption in my family.

When I really decided to set down and struggle through this, the first thing that I thought of was a quote by Ravi Zacharias: "Anything that refreshes you without distracting from, diminishing, or destroying the final goal is a legitimate pleasure in your life."

This can also be reworded to state, "Anything that distracts from, diminishes, or destroys the final goal is an illegitimate pleasure in your life."

To apply this, we need to know what our final goal is. As Christians we are to love the Lord with all our hearts, soul, mind, and strength (Luke 10:27). Not to mention that we are to also be carrying out the Great Commission (Matt 28:16-20). We also need to know what would distract us from those goals. If consuming certain media will not distract us from those goals, then I think that we are fine in consuming them. However, if they will, then we should not.

Even though I am aware of the possible issues with continued exposure, and I have things in place to work against them, as a Christian, I also need to remember to not do things that might cause another brother to stumble (even if we don't see a problem with it). Not only do I need to be aware of what may distract me from my goal, but I need to be aware of others who are watching me. People watch what Christians do intently. People may see that I am a strong Christian, but then see me watch something like Avatar and enjoy it (with mute on, of course) and begin to question my commitment to Christ and/or my theological convictions. Avatar has graphics that made my jaw drop, but it unabashedly promotes concepts of the universe and god that are in direct conflict with Christianity and consequently, reality. Do I jeopardize someone's understanding of my Christian character and beliefs by indulging in movies such as Avatar?

I believe that those people need to exercise some graciousness in this aspect. Christians consume this kind of material, it is not necessarily because we are weak theologically or in our relationship to God. Many people consume this material in order to be in touch with the culture and be able to reach a culture that is engrossed in such entertainment. These types of people need to be reached for the Gospel too. The people who can consume this material without working against their goal (but, in fact, promoting the goal) are the ones called to reach these people. We are all part of the Body of Christ, and the member who consumes this material for this reason is no less important or valuable than the member who does not because it may cause them issues. Many Christians consume media to get a feel for what is being pushed on a culture. It is a way to be prepared to give a reason for the hope that we have versus a reason for why other worldviews (including the ones promoted in questionable media) are, in fact, hopeless.

There may be absolutely no theological reason for consuming the media. (This was the case for me before I got into defending the Christian worldview. I went to these movies just for the effects.) In that case, as long as the test above passes, there is no need to deny yourself or another some entertainment. Today, I go to these kind of movies for both reasons: for the enjoyment of the art and for the cultural understandings. (Of course, this is not limited to just movies with great special effects [mainly action, sci-fi, and fantasy], even ones with no special effects, such as dramas or comedies can all promote a worldview or just a behavior that is contradictory to Christianity.)

The real danger here comes when I think that I have to incorporate a certain worldview into reality (from continued exposure that psychologically guides the person into gradually accepting it is true). If I were to think that the worldview presented in Avatar and the one presented in The Passion of the Christ are both equally true, that is when I am allowing the movies to influence my theology. That is when it is time to take a long break. I have to keep any inclinations that I might have to think that I have to incorporate a certain worldview into reality in check. The author of the letter to the Hebrews cautions believers to "not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another..." (10:25). If I attempt to figure out theology in isolation from the rest of the Body of Christ, I have influences from every source (including Hollywood) except those who God has given me to hold me responsible on earth- His Church.

Ever since I have been back in fellowship with Christians (and especially apologists), I find that I am more likely to see the underlying worldview being portrayed, with all its logical fallacies. My wife is a huge fan of StarGate SG-1 (IMDB and Wikipedia), and somehow she got me hooked. I can't help but see how the writers of the series are basically telling the audience that the "gods" we believe in are just aliens posing as benevolent (the Tok'ra) or malevolent (the Gua'uld) beings. This same idea was picked up in the recent movie Thor (Apologetics.com review can be found here). The live-action X-Men movies from the past decade promote not just naturalistic evolution, but specifically a version that is related to punctuated equilibrium. These tend to be the more mild of movies. What about more violent movies such as Underworld or occultic movies like the Harry Potter series? The worldview of the writers and directors of movies will tend to come out in the movies either overtly or directly. This MUST be understood when we are looking to see if a movie will distract us or others from the goal.

I'm not a parent yet, but I will use all this when I determine what I allow my children to view. I will know their theological maturity level and their personalities at different times in their lives. That will tell me whether they will be distracted from their goals by certain media or not, thus guiding whether or not I allow them to watch certain movies. A person's physical age will likely have less to do with whether they (or their kids) can handle certain media than their maturity level. I know many teens who are very theologically and logically mature. They can analyze and find the theological and logical fallacies in movies without a problem. By allowing them to consume the media, they get more practice and are exposed to more worldviews that they may come in contact with as they carry out the Great Commission. Also, I know many adult Christians who are theologically and logically immature. They cannot decipher the difference between the theological positions of Avatar and orthodox Christianity, nor can they identify the logical fallacies in The DaVinci Code. These people should not consume this material because it distracts, diminishes, and destroys their goals as Christians, not to mention their beliefs themselves.

To wrap this all up, this is why struggling through proper theology and surrounding myself with Christians is so important. When we have deep convictions that are built on a foundation that can be defended and supported by one another, we are less likely to be negatively affected by questionable media. The effect will eventually be neutralized to where it is simply entertainment. At that point, we are freed to take the effect of such media the other direction- we can use it to strengthen our skills as ambassadors for Christ. Thus accomplishing both our goals of loving the Lord our God will all our hearts, souls, minds, and strength and carrying out the Great Commission simultaneously.

Apologetics.com has a radio program (podcast) that the hosts review movies all the time from the Christian worldview.

Jim Wallace at Please Convince Me and Greg Koukl at Stand to Reason comment on movies often also.

Marcia Montenegro of Christian Answers For the New Age (CANA) reviews many occultic influences in our media.

Video: Pagan Turns Toward God

2011-08-05T06:00:00.007-05:00

In this week's featured video, Dr. Norm Geisler is interviewed by Dr. John Ankerberg (Ankerberg Theological Research Institute). Ankerberg asks Geisler what happens if a pagan, who has never heard the Gospel, turns toward God.

More videos from Dr. John Ankerberg can be found at his YouTube channel.

Books by Dr. Geisler

Article: Review of "Forged"- Part 4

2011-08-03T06:00:00.007-05:00

This week's featured article is from New Testament scholar Dr. Ben Witherington. Witherington offers a review of Bart Erhman's book "Forged". This is the fourth part. Here it is:

Forged- Chapter Three: An A Appalling Number of Forgeries

For more articles from Dr. Witherington, check out Bible and Culture.

Books by Dr. Witherington

Audio: Theological Cornerstones of RTB's Model

2011-08-01T06:00:00.003-05:00

This week's featured audio is the sixth episode of More Than a Theory. Astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe discusses the testable scientific model for creation that has been developed by the team at Reasons to Believe. In this episode, Dr. Ross explains the theological foundations for the Reasons to Believe creation model.

Download the MP3 here.

This podcast is based on the book More Than A Theory by Dr. Ross. You can find my review of the book here.

If you would like to ask Dr. Ross a question, you can send him an email (ask@reasons.org). Questions are answered on the I Didn't Know That podcast.

Other books by Dr. Ross

To download this and more episodes, here is the RSS feed and the iTunes link, or you can download the Faithful Thinkers Toolbar (More Than A Theory episodes can be played from the radio).

Reasons In and Out of a Worldview

2011-07-30T06:00:00.098-05:00

"I believe that anyone sincerely seeking Truth is going to find it. The problem is, most people are not looking for Truth, they are looking for evidence to support their assumptions. It takes a lot of humility to actually pursue Truth sincerely."- Rachel Oja*

In so many of my interactions with people, I have found that they have already made a commitment one way or the other to certain worldviews and are looking for intellectual reasons to maintain that commitment, be public about the commitment or escape another commitment. I know people who are ready to accept any worldview except for X and others who are committed to accepting any form of worldview Y. Some are currently in worldview Z but are looking for intellectual reasons to either remain in or to get out.

I have found that Christianity is not immune to this observation. Some people are looking to get in but need intellectual reasons, while other are looking to get out but need intellectual reasons. I have seen people leave Christianity because someone asked them "well, who created God?". I have seen people come to Christianity for "fire insurance". Neither of those being logical reasons.

All worldviews need to be able to explain this phenomenon with regards to their own worldview while remaining consistent with all other internal beliefs. Every person has a worldview (even the agnostics), so it is impossible to be completely objective about this, and the person putting forth the explanation must accept that they are subject to the explanation (they are not above it). I want to offer a Christian perspective on this issue.

For those not familiar with the content in my psychology class series, it has been discovered that the emotional center of the brain is the filter that controls all final decisions (including basic actions). If one is emotionally committed to a certain conclusion, any logical conclusion that contradicts the emotional commitment is interpreted as wrong- the logical conclusion is therefore rejected and the process that gave that conclusion is returned for further investigation to find a possible way to reach a conclusion identical with the emotional commitment. Some people have multiple emotional commitments, and the one that is held most strongly will have final say.

For instance: a person states that they are committed to atheism and that they are also committed to finding the truth of reality. After going through the evidence (which is not completely conclusive, but highly probable), they decide that some god must exist. But another person with the same two commitments decides that a god must not exist. Which of the two emotional commitments had precedence? From the worldview of any theist, the emotional commitment to truth (of the first person) is the final, yet for the second person it takes a backseat to the commitment to atheism.

There may be present even more commitments that interact with one another to form a hierarcy of emotional commitments or "tests" that a logical conclusion must pass before the person will accept and act upon the logical conclusion. A lot of the commitments are not a priori. The vast majority of our commitments are the results of what we have experienced and thought through (they are not just assumed). But the problem is that if all of our commitments are the results of experience and careful thought, then we end up with an infinite regress of asking "where did that commitment come from; and where did that one come from; and where did that one come from..." Every person has an emotional commitment that they begin with. It could be against a specific religion, for a specific religion, or it could be to search for what is true (these tend to develop in the formative years). This commitment may appear to change with time (bad experiences with certain worldviews may poison our investigations and taint our commitments), but that is only because one of the first two options is not what we were committed to in the first place. If the search for truth is our commitment, then as we discover what is true, what we are committed to (based on our investigations) and defend will change respectively, but the ultimate commitment, itself, to finding the truth never changed.

The easiest way to determine your ultimate commitment is to look at not just what you defend but how you defend it. Obviously if one defends naturalism, then the commitment could be specifically for naturalism. If someone defends something specifically against naturalism, then the commitment could be against naturalism. However, many people would not be willing to accept the conclusion of their commitment just based on what they defend. So, let's look more closely. Let's see how the defense is conducted. The quickest way to identify if the commitment is to truth or for (or against) a specific worldview is to see if the person grants good points and acknowledges when their own arguments, though strong, are not conclusive (another dead-giveaway is sharp focus on the topic at hand [few red-herrings] and the absence personal attacks). For instance, the kalam cosmological argument does not demand that a god created the universe- it only demands that something outside the universe is responsible for the universe's creation- that "thing" could be a god, it could also be something else, like a multiverse generator (how often is that point granted?). Another example would be the idea that all life shares similar DNA- many overstate the power of their conclusion by saying that common DNA supports only common decent, when it also supports common design (how often is that point granted?). For more on avoiding overstating the power of your conclusions, click here and how to overcome the limitation of the extra options in my post "The Power of a Cumulative Case". Not only is there the test of granting points, but also altering one's worldview to accommodate new evidence. Some alterations are slight; others are huge, and still others require a complete abandonment of a worldview. This process is very similar to the process scientists use to develop and test models (see Dr. Hugh Ross' book "More Than A Theory").

Those who are ultimately committed to the truth have nothing to fear from recognizing good points from the other side. They also don't have a problem changing details in their worldview to accommodate new evidence (the Christian can refer to my page "Nature vs. Scripture" for more on this touchy topic). If a person is unwilling to grant points where logic demands that the points be granted, and they refuse to alter their worldview as new information becomes available, we have a sure sign of a commitment to (or against) a specific worldview (or even minute details of a worldview) rather than a commitment to the truth- further, if personal attacks and red herrings are offered in "defense" of their position, you may be certain that you have identified the commitment accurately. Try doing this for others and yourself (that's the most difficult).

Because experience has so much power to sway our emotional commitments, we must constantly remind ourselves that our commitment should be to finding the truth. I had to put my own experiences to the side in my search for truth. When I was younger the closest people in my life (Christians) failed me in devastating ways; a Christian ministry (apologetic in nature, believe it or not) failed me in intellectual ways. Both of those had a huge impact on my emotional commitments. For a short time, I was committed against Christianity. I could have found many "intellectual" reasons to reject the faith (as a defender of the faith now, I know of the vast cafeteria that was available). However, as soon as I realized what my commitment had become, I reaffirmed my commitment to truth. I didn't care if those who failed me were right, I would follow the evidence where it led me. I investigated, and I did follow. I found many things wrong with the specifics of the worldviews of those who did fail me, and I have resolved to not hold to those false beliefs. In fact, I have discovered more consistency between Christianity and reality by NOT holding those specific beliefs. Because of the purpose, the hope, the forgiveness and the love provided by true Christianity, I do not for a second regret my commitment to finding the worldview that reflects reality (truth). Because of my emotional commitment to the truth, I allowed an intellectual investigation for the truth, and as a result I have found intellectual, emotional and spiritual fulfillment.

For anyone who has had experiences that has caused them to turn away from Christianity, I urge you to allow those experiences to take a back seat to your commitment to truth. Look at the evidence. See that the only worldview that can take the all the observations that man has from the sciences, all the issues raised logically in philosophy, and all the experiences life produces, and can present them in a coherent and consistent manner is the Christian worldview. The reason that Christians seem to "have an answer to everything" or "can get out of any challenge" is not because they are playing "word games" or are interpreting things as those things are not, it is because Christianity properly understood is true.

I recently finished reading "Has Christianity Failed You" by Dr. Ravi Zacharias. He addresses many of the reasons that people have commitments against Christianity. If you have not read this book (Christian or not), please get a copy and read it all the way through. It frankly and soberly addresses issues in the Church and misunderstandings about who Christ is and what it means to be a follower of Christ. For the non-Christian, it will challenge you to continue to reject Christianity based on a true understanding of it and yourself. For the Christian, it will challenge you to understand where the non-Christian might be coming from. Defending the faith is not about winning an argument, being right all the time, or even converting people to get more notches in your belt. It is about loving people enough to not just demonstrate to them their problem, but lead them to the Solution. It is up to them to decide whether or not to accept the truth of that Solution.

Other Related Posts:
Positive and Negative Arguments
What is Faith?
Can A Religion Be Tested For Truth?
Nature Vs. Scripture
Consistency Among Disciplines

* Thanks to Greg West at The Poached Egg for posting this quote- Follow him on Twitter here.

Video: Those Who Haven't Heard

2011-07-29T06:00:00.009-05:00

In this week's featured video, Dr. Norm Geisler is interviewed by Dr. John Ankerberg (Ankerberg Theological Research Institute). Ankerberg asks Geisler if it is fair to send someone to Hell if they have never heard the Gospel.

More videos from Dr. John Ankerberg can be found at his YouTube channel.

Books by Dr. Geisler

Article: Review of "Forged"- Part 3

2011-07-27T06:00:00.007-05:00

This week's featured article is from New Testament scholar Dr. Ben Witherington. Witherington offers a review of Bart Erhman's book "Forged". This is the third part. Here it is:

Forged- Chapter Two: What is Truth?

For more articles from Dr. Witherington, check out Bible and Culture.

Books by Dr. Witherington

Audio: Building The RTB Creation Model

2011-07-25T06:00:00.003-05:00

This week's featured audio is the fifth episode of More Than a Theory. Astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe discusses the testable scientific model for creation that has been developed by the team at Reasons to Believe. In this episode, Dr. Ross describes the beginning parts of establishing the testable model.

Download the MP3 here.

This podcast is based on the book More Than A Theory by Dr. Ross. You can find my review of the book here.

If you would like to ask Dr. Ross a question, you can send him an email (ask@reasons.org). Questions are answered on the I Didn't Know That podcast.

Other books by Dr. Ross

To download this and more episodes, here is the RSS feed and the iTunes link, or you can download the Faithful Thinkers Toolbar (More Than A Theory episodes can be played from the radio).

Multiverse and Rationality

2011-07-23T06:00:00.002-05:00

Something that I was thinking about the other day: some people are familiar with Alvin Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism. Basically it states that because people believe false things that help survivability (such as "god", from the naturalist's perspective), evolution does not favor minds that recognize truth, but minds that recognize how to survive- if a belief just happens to be true, it is pure coincidence.

However, I was contemplating the multiverse (or multiple worlds) hypothesis, and it seems that this only compounds the problem. For those uninitiated, multiverse theory states that our universe is not the only universe there is. There are many other universes that do exist; however, our instruments cannot detect them because they are outside our universe. This theory comes in several flavors, but the one I am talking about is the one that is capable of explaining the fine-tuning and design in the universe, along with being an alternative to God as the "banger" that the cosmological argument requires. In order to account for the fine-tuning of the physical constants of the universe, some naturalists posit that there are an infinite (or near infinite) number of universes, each possessing different constants of physics. Ours just happens to be the one that is amenable to advanced life, and that is why we exist to observe the "fine-tuning".

There are philosophical problems with positing an actual infinite number of anything (see William Lane Craig's articles about infinity). So, the naturalist is left with positing a definite number of universes, which they admit has to be astonishingly high to reasonably account for the fine-tuning of our universe for advanced life. However, if that number only takes into consideration the fine-tuning of the physical constants, it is astonishingly low. Here's how:

Going back to Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism: how do we know that the way we think actually reflects reality? His answer is that we can't. Even if the universe is naturalistic (no god exists), then there is no way for us to know. In short, naturalism defeats its own foundation for making its claims of being true. Now, let's take this to the next level: the multiverse.

Since evolution could or could not produce a mind that is capable of recognizing truth, we have a need for at least two universes with the same physics (that initial number of universes just doubled). There is only one way to think rationally, but numerous (might I say "near infinite") ways to think irrationally. There is only one chance in whatever-number-that-is for evolution to produce a mind that can produce knowledge that accurately reflects reality. Because of the number of possible ways for a mind to think irrationally, the number of universes that have the same constants of physics that allow the production of life has not increased by multiples, but by orders of magnitude (exponents).

The less and less probable something is to happen, the fact that it did happen points more and more towards its happening being the product of a mind, not chance. Since we do not have evidence that necessarily demands the existence of these multiverses, the only consistent and rational explanation is still a Designer. If that conclusion is actually false, then that is a continued reason why we should still not trust our own minds to ever discover the truth of naturalism, and the multiverse provides exponentially less hope that we ever will. Ironically, if naturalism is true, God is still the best explanation for all the facts we have.

Other post that might be of interest:
Can You Trust Your Sense?

Video: Possible to Change Mind in Hell?

2011-07-22T06:00:00.005-05:00

In this week's featured video, Dr. Norm Geisler is interviewed by Dr. John Ankerberg (Ankerberg Theological Research Institute). Ankerberg asks Geisler if our world is, in fact, the best of all possible worlds.

More videos from Dr. John Ankerberg can be found at his YouTube channel.

Books by Dr. Geisler

Article: Review of "Forged"- Part 2

2011-07-20T06:00:00.007-05:00

This week's featured article is from New Testament scholar Dr. Ben Witherington. Witherington offers a review of Bart Erhman's book "Forged". This is the second part. Here it is:

Forged- Chapter One: A World of Deception and Forgeries

For more articles from Dr. Witherington, check out Bible and Culture.

Books by Dr. Witherington