Young-Earth Creationism and The Gospel of Jesus Christ

Introduction

As I have had conversations with both atheists and fellow believers regarding the origin of the universe, our planet, life, and ultimately, humans, one issue seems to baffle those on both sides about what I defend. I am not a naturalist; I am not an evolutionist; I am not even a theistic evolutionist, but I am also not a young-earth creationist. I am an old-earth creationist. This means that I accept that the universe is ancient (roughly 13.7 billion years old), yet I deny that the diversity of life is the product of the natural selection of countless mutations over time, descended from a universal common ancestor (altogether, "evolution"). I believe that God created some things from nothing (including the universe [and its laws], life, animals, and humans), and I believe He intricately and purposefully worked within the natural laws and processes, that He created from nothing, to make other things, particularly our planet.

Many atheists and fellow Christians (usually of the young-earth creationist position) insist that such a combination of beliefs is not logically consistent. This claim of inconsistency encourages the atheist to reject the truth of Christianity and the Christian to reject the truth revealed by God's creation. Consequently, when I say that I affirm big bang cosmology, many young-earth creationist Christians hear me say "I deny the truth of Christianity," and when I say that I am a Christian, many atheists hear me say, "I affirm young-earth creationism."

These atheists and young-earth creationists make the same mistake: they conflate young-earth creationism with Christianity. This conflation amounts to the belief that young-earth creationism is Christianity and Christianity is young-earth creationism. Today, I want to take some time to address this common conflation and demonstrate that this is not a logical reason for the atheist to reject Christ nor for the Christian to reject the truth revealed by God's creation.

Why Is This Conflation Important to Recognize and Reject?

It is important to recognize this conceptual and logical conflation and reject it. If we are to continue to commit this fallacy, then severe implications arise for both the atheist and for the Christian.

Implications for Atheists- If Christianity is true, then any belief that stands between an unbeliever and accepting that Christianity is true has severe implications on the unbeliever for all eternity. If they do not accept Christ's sacrifice for their sin, then they are doomed to eternal conscious separation from their only source of life and love: God. If you take the highest level and volume of suffering that this life has, it is nothing compared to this hell that will be consciously experienced by the unbeliever. This is why it is vital for the unbeliever to investigate not only the truth of reality but to ensure that the logic used to come to different conclusions (especially the one that states that Christianity is false) is valid.

Implications for Christians- Christianity is not just a worldview of private, personal worship, it is a worldview of evangelism. As Christians we not only do not want others to experience the hell described above, but we strongly desire that others experience the love and a personal relationship with the only God, who also knows what it is like to live the human struggle and love His image bearers enough to die a torturous death so we do not have to. It is our duty to the Creator of the universe to check our defense of the Christian worldview, to ensure that the unsaved have every intellectual stumbling block removed that we have the opportunity and power to remove (the Holy Spirit must remove the others). This means that we must ensure that the claims we make are true and that the logic we use is valid; otherwise, our effectiveness in evangelizing to scientifically-minded unbelievers will be greatly reduced. Mark Whorton, in his book "Peril in Paradise" (and paraphrasing Augustine of Hippo)*, explains this quite succinctly:

Now, because the unbeliever is responsible to make the choice to follow Christ or not to follow Christ, and many unbelievers use the mounds of evidence against a young universe to justify their rejection of Christ, my goal today is to show that the argument used to justify the idea that Christianity is false via the falsehood of young-earth creationism is unsound, thus the atheist cannot logically (but they can emotionally) use young-earth creationism to reject Christ.

What the Gospel Is and Is Not

To begin with, the Gospel is not big bang cosmology, and the Gospel is not young-earth creationism. According to the source of revelation of the Gospel (the Bible), the Gospel is the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 15). If the atheist claims that young-earth creationism is the Gospel, they are guilty of the conflation and are erecting a strawman of the Christian worldview in order to easily knock it down and reject Christ. If the young-earth creationist claims that young-earth creationism is the Gospel, they deny the sufficiency of the Resurrection (1 Cor. 15) and legitimize the atheist's strawman. In biblical terms, legitimizing the atheist's strawman is the same as giving credence to an argument or presumption that "acknowledges itself against the knowledge of Christ" (2 Cor. 10:5). No Christian wants to be guilty of any such thing!

The historical events of God's creation are independent of the historical event of Jesus' Resurrection. Because they are independent events that took place at different moments in history, they can be established independently of one another. Since they can be independently established, the conclusion of one does not necessarily affect the conclusion about the other. In other words, if the universe is 13.7 billion years old, and Christ has been raised from the dead, Christianity is true, but if the universe is only 6,000-10,000 years old and Christ has not been raised from the dead, Christianity is false.

It is as simple as that. Anyone who tells you differently is not only being unbiblical (creating a strawman of the Gospel), they are telling you something false about reality, history, and salvation. Because these events are separate from one another, the conflation is invalid and unnecessary, and the evidence against the universe's youth cannot be used as a logical reason to reject Christ (whether the universe truly is young or not).

The Unsound Arguments

To go a little deeper and a little more technical, let us look at the arguments made by the respective sides and see how the conflation causes a problem with the conclusions. This conflation by both atheist and young-earth creationist leads to the false dichotomy evidenced in these two arguments:

The Atheist's argument:
1. If young-earth creationism is false, then Christianity is false.
2. Young-earth creationism is false.
3. Therefore, Christianity is false.

The Young-Earth Creationist's Argument:
1. If Christianity is true, then young-earth creationism is true.
2. Christianity is true.
3. Therefore, young-earth creationism is true.

While both arguments are valid (modus ponens), their first premises are necessarily dependent upon the strawman described above, so those premises are necessarily false. Because of the falsehood of the two first premises, they render their respective arguments unsound, and the conclusions "Christianity is false," and "Young-Earth creationism is true," respectively) do not follow. In fact, I would argue that not only does neither conclusion follow, neither conclusion is true (they cannot be established by any other sound argument), which means that I affirm the atheist's second premise (young-earth creationism is false) and the young-earth creationist's second premise (Christianity is true). These two second premises (both of which I affirm) are not in conflict because the two first premises of the arguments are false. The combination of my beliefs of the truth of Christianity and the falsehood of young-earth creationism is perfectly consistent.

Conclusion

For the Christian, the severe implication of conflating young-earth creationism with Christianity stifles their evangelistic effectiveness. Presenting the Christian worldview as "accept young-earth creationism or reject Christ" legitimizes a strawman of Christianity through the false dichotomy and "acknowledges itself against the knowledge of Christ" to the atheist. And for the atheist, the severe implication of conflating young-earth creationism with Christianity, as indicated by the Apostle Paul in 2 Cor. 10, presents an unreasonable and unnecessary barrier to forgiveness and eternal life. It is imperative that both the atheist and the young-earth creationist recognize and reject the idea that young-earth creationism and Christianity are the same thing, so that they can, respectively, be open to the truth of the Resurrection in history and effectively communicate the truth of the Gospel in history.

Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media

 

For More On This Topic, See These Posts:

• What Do Young-Earth and Old-Earth Creationists Agree Upon Regarding Origins?
• 20 Myths About Old Earth Creationism
• Does Old-Earth Creationism Compromise Scripture?
• 3 Good Reasons to Question What You Believe
• Internal Debates and Apologetics
• Is Your View Falsifiable?
• Zombies of Christianity

*A friend reminded me (after this post's original publish date), that Whorton was quoting from Augustine's "The Literal Meaning of Genesis," and I want to include it in full for the reader to appreciate its full effect: 

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

Is It Biblical To Have An Evidential Faith?

Introduction

Is biblical faith blind or reasonable? This is one of the most hotly debated questions between believers and unbelievers. While most who say that faith is blind are unbelievers, I have also heard many Christians claim this as well. The claim is that faith and reason are at odds with one another, and that the more evidence or reason that you have to believe something, the less faith that you need. 

Is Faith Blind or Evidential?

In his book "Forensic Faith: A Homicide Detective Makes The Case For A More Reasonable Evidential Faith," J. Warner Wallace emphasizes the evidential nature of Jesus' ministry on earth. Jesus never asked people to believe His claims without a good reason to: the miracles that He performed. He performed miracles to demonstrate that His claims to be God (such as is found in His claim to be able to forgive sins in Matthew 9). Based on His followers' witnessing His miracles (eyewitness evidence), He asked them to have faith in Him. This was not a request for blind faith, but an evidentially-based faith. 

In the book, Wallace not only appeals to the entire ministry of Christ on earth but also to specific passages of Scripture where Jesus explicitly identifies this specific purpose for His miracles and where other New Testament authors also encouraged their readers to test claims: 

John 10:25- "'I did tell you and you don't believe,' Jesus answered them. 'The works that I do in My Father's name testify about Me.'"

John 10:37-38- "If I am not doing My Father's works, don't believe Me. But if I am doing them and you don't believe Me, believe the works."

Acts 1:3- "After He had suffered, He also prested Himself alive to them by many convincing proofs, appearing to them during 40 days and speaking about the kingdom of God."

1 Thessalonians 5:19-21- "Don't stifle the Spirit. Don't despise prophecies, but test all things. Hold on to what is good."

1 John 4:1- "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to determine if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world." 

These passages do not ask for someone to believe just anything based simply on the word of the person making the claim ("...because I said!"- a blind faith) but based on the actions of the person making the claim. Notice, too, that in the 1 Thessalonians and 1 John passages, the authors are so confident that the claims will pass evidential tests that they openly invite testing! None of these passages ask for blind faith; in fact, they encourage the exact opposite: a faith that is not blind rather a faith that is grounded in evidence and reason.

A Biblical Faith And The Resurrection

Biblical faith, correctly understood from Scripture, is not blind; it is tested and firmly grounded. In fact, today, we can test the central claim of Christianity: that Jesus rose bodily from the dead (1 Corinthians 15). As we investigate the evidence, based on tried and true investigative methods (as outlined in J. Warner Wallace's book "Cold-Case Christianity") and historiographical methods (as outlined in Gary Habermas' books "The Historical Jesus" and "The Risen Jesus and Future Hope"), we discover that the only explanation that consistently explains all the evidence is that Jesus rose from the grave, as is claimed in the gospels.

Conclusion

Because this central claim passes the evidential test, a faith in Christ is not blind or because "the Bible tells me so;" it is firmly grounded in proven methods used for discovering the truth of claimed events of the past. There simply is no reasonable reason to reject the Resurrection. While we certainly are free to reject the conclusion of the evidence and arguments, we should not fool ourselves into believing that the rejection is anything more than an emotional leap of blind faith despite evidence to the contrary.

Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media

    

To Investigate Further, See the Links Throughout This Post And These Additional Ones:

• What Is Faith?
• Is Faith Emotional or Logical?
• Did The Historical Jesus Rise From The Dead?
• Alive: A Cold-Case Approach To The Resurrection
• Challenging Eyewitnesses of the Resurrection
• Frozen- The Eyewitness of "No Greater Love"

Do Humans Have Intrinsic Value?

Introduction

Whether humans possess intrinsic value or instrumental value is a debate that often runs parallel to discussions about the true worldview. This debate also often fuels the passion behind worldview discussions because it has implications for ethics and morality, which are directly tied to how people ought to live and how people ought to hold each other responsible to those expectations. Such accountability can take a range of forms from personal and private conversations to legal and very public repercussions. And because one's politics are an extension of their ethics, the passion associated with politics is also added to the mix.

Because all the emotions that accompany ethical and political discussions can easily cloud the issue, it is important that it is approached more objectively and philosophically, if we are to have a calm and reasonable discussion. Today, I want to take a few minutes to examine the philosophical implications and examine some scientific evidence for one side to assist with bringing calm to this important debate.

Intrinsic Value

If humans are intrinsically valuable, then there are a set of objective (and even absolute) duties that cannot be violated. This view holds that humans possess objective value regardless of their situation, condition, social or economic status, skin color, sex, location, beliefs, or any host of other characteristics that people try to judge others' value. This allows for objective condemnation and consequences of particular choices and behaviors, which many people do not appreciate, especially if they are accused of committing the atrocities. This view also makes even government and governmental officials responsible to the greater reality of this moral law, which justifies political reform- something that certain rulers and politicians do not appreciate.

Instrumental Value

On the other hand, if humans are merely instrumentally valuable, then treatment of them (regardless of the particular treatment- including murder, rape, torture, or any host of traditionally unthinkable treatments) can only be judged based on their utility towards a particular goal. This view permits the affirmation of the "goodness" of even the most egregious behaviors if a "greater" goal is in view. This view allows for anyone to be able to justify any behavior if they can make their goal sound good or acceptable. There is no objective standard by which to judge the morality of a behavior, only to judge its utility. There is also no objective standard by which to judge a particular goal. Since the goal is subjective, so is the behavior, and no moral judgement is actually permitted. This ultimately reduces to "might makes right:" whoever holds the power to punish holds the power to dictate what is "right" and what is "wrong." Political reform has not justification other than a differing opinion of someone who may be able to challenge the power of those currently in power. If one holds to this view, they often confuse legality with morality.

The Christian worldview traditionally has held that humans possess intrinsic value in virtue of being created in the Image of God. If this is true, then the first set of implications described above are features of reality that all humans are subject to. Any worldview that cannot justify intrinsic human value is left with the second set of implications described. And, by necessary logical implication, if one wishes to appeal to intrinsic human value, they must justify that appeal by grounding intrinsic human value outside the human race.

Origins Of The Image of God

If humans have intrinsic value, it had to come from somewhere (or Someone) outside of the human race. Otherwise, the value that is ascribed to humans is merely subjective and instrumental. As I have described in a previous post (Why Is The Image of God So Important), this discussion is tied to one's view of human origins. If someone wishes to appeal to intrinsic human value, they must accept some type of connection between humans and an eternally existing, absolute reality that is outside of (and is not) this universe. The only thing that fits this description is the Creator God of the Bible.

In order to argue for the intrinsic value of humans, Dr. Fazale Rana offers several lines of evidence for the sudden appearance of the Image of God in life's history (which happens to coincide with the sudden appearance of humans on the scene). He calls this sudden appearance a "cultural big bang":

These pieces of evidence include:

1. Advanced cognitive ability
2. The capacity for symbolic thought
3. A powerful imagination
4. Superior craftsmanship
5. Inventiveness and superior adaptability
6. A driving desire for artistic and musical expression

He goes into great detail about the anthropological discoveries of scientists over the years in his book "Who Was Adam." In the third section of the book, he addresses modern challenges to his conclusions and brings in the latest discoveries over the past decade. The cumulative, scientific case presented in the book for the Image of God coinciding with the appearance of the human race, by extension, is a powerful evidential case for humans possessing intrinsic value.

Conclusion

It is vital to a proper theory of ethics (and even politics) that we know whether humans possess intrinsic value or not. Ultimately, if humans are created in the Image of God, as argued by Dr. Rana, then the idea that humans possess intrinsic value accurately describes the reality of our species. If humans are intrinsically valuable, that serves as the foundation for how we ought to treat one another (ethics) and that further guides how we should govern one another. If humans are not created in the Image of God (do not possess intrinsic value), then all sorts of heinous treatment of them are permissible even by those who wield the most power (governments and politicians).

Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media

 

For more on the topic of the evidence for the Image of God and its implications, see these posts and books:

• Why Must Christians Appeal to Science In Arguing Against Abortion?
• Why Is The Image of God So Important?
• Book Review: The Magna Carta of Humanity
• Book Review: Who Was Adam
• Book Review: Christian Ethics: Issues and Options
• Book Review: Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible

4 Questions to Ask Before You Hit SEND

"My dearly loved brothers, understand this: Everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak, and slow to anger, for man’s anger does not accomplish God’s righteousness."

- James 1:19-20 (HCSB)

Introduction

As someone who loves to engage people in deep worldview conversations and steer unbelievers towards the truth of Christianity, my ability to communicate is vital. Whether I am conversing in person or commenting on a post on social media, it is important that the words I speak or write glorify God and work towards the end of bringing more people to the Truth. In 2018 I read and reviewed an important book that helps the reader to accomplish this goal. Communication expert Dr. Emerson Eggerichs (known for Love and Respect) published his book on general communication, called "Before You Hit Send: Preventing Headache and Heartache" to challenge his audience to exercise wisdom and discernment before "hitting send" on their communications to others- whether verbal or written. Because of the insight offered throughout the book, it was included in my Top 5 Recommended Books for Productive Conversations. Eggerichs encourages people to ask four questions of what they are preparing to say or write to ensure that the words will accomplish the goal of the speaker or writer. Today, I am going to highlight those four questions and their importance for the Christian apologist. 

Is It True?

Because the Christian worldview is true and people's eternal destinies depend upon their recognition of this truth, ensuring that as we defend the truth of Christianity we also speak truthfully about other matters is of utmost importance. It is natural for us to doubt someone's truthfulness when they speak something false. I have written many times about the importance of apologists' studying and defending non-essential doctrines, and in those posts, I emphasize this very concern of unbelievers.

For instance, many people have issues with origins and the Bible, and while not all aspects of origins are essential issues, it is important that the apologist be able to speak truthfully on the origins issue. If we speak falsely and the person knows that we are speaking falsely (whether we mean to or not), then we give them a good reason to doubt our trustworthiness when it comes to the more important matter of the Resurrection of Jesus.

Is It Kind?

One of the big issues that I see with Christians, especially on social media and when discussing hot-button issues such as origins, is the unkind attitude with which the Gospel is presented. While we defend the truth, we cannot defend it with contempt for the person we are presenting it to. They are created in the Image of God and are worthy of our love, respect, and kindness no matter what they have done or how frustrated they make us. If we truly wish for them to repent from their sins, accept Christ's sacrifice, and live with us for eternity, would we not want to present the truth in the most kind and loving way so as to encourage them to accept the truth we speak?

Unlike what many think about speaking kindly, it does not require that we speak untruthfully. "True" describes the content; "kind" describes the attitude with which content is presented. If we present true content unkindly, we do damage to the truth by making it appear repulsive.

Is It Necessary?

The necessity of what we speak has two sides. The first is that we must speak what is necessary, and the second is that we must refrain from speaking what is unnecessary. Many Christians refrain from speaking what is necessary because they are fearful that they are not equipped to defend what they believe. They know that the time is right and that it is necessary to say something. They want to defend the truth of the Resurrection and the Christian worldview, and they know that they need to. Doing so is necessary in many of our conversations with friends, family, and coworkers. This is why studying the defense of the Christian worldview (asking the question "Is It True"- apologetics) is important for all Christians.

The second side is that we also tend to speak unnecessarily. For instance (I have to really watch out for this one), if an unbeliever is not struggling with science/faith issues, then bringing up the whole creation/evolution debate is unnecessary and may actually introduce a stumbling block for the unbeliever. No Christian ever wants to introduce more reasons for an unbeliever to reject (or even delay accepting) Christ. We need to listen carefully to the unbeliever's concerns and address those with truth and kindness and do our best to not bring more unnecessary matters into the decision-making process. This is not to say that these issues are not important; they are; but that particular conversation may not be the time to discuss them with a particular person. If the person brings up a non-essential matter, then it is now necessary to address, and we need to be prepared to do so or to refer them to a resource that can address it (all the while reminding them that it is not an essential issue and not a reason to reject Christ).

Is It Clear?

While everything that we speak can be true, kind, and necessary, we may still fail in our communication by not communicating it clearly. Many Christian apologists are familiar with the work of Greg Koukl. In his book "Tactics: A Game Plan For Discussing Your Christian Convictions" he encourages Christians to engage in conversations by asking questions. When we ask ourselves "Is It Clear?" we are essentially taking Koukl's questions and asking them of ourselves: "What do I mean by that?" and "How did I come to that conclusion?" When we answer these questions for ourselves, we are more likely to be able to clearly communicate to others.

We must also not resist if others ask the "Columbo" questions of us. If the questions are asked, it is because we are not speaking clearly enough for a good understanding. In this situation, it should not frustrate us to have to clarify, it should excite us that the person values what we say enough to ask for clarification. When we are given the opportunity to clarify, we are given the opportunity to get the unbeliever intellectually (and many times, emotionally and spiritually) closer to accepting Christ.

Conclusion

As evangelists (Matthew 28:19) and defenders (1 Peter 3:15) of Christianity, it is vital to our purpose to be able and willing to communicate the Gospel in the most effective way possible. And in today's culture, stopping to think carefully about what we say or write is not necessarily encouraged. However, that is what is necessary to be successful ambassadors for Christ. I encourage you to pick up a copy of "Before You Hit Send" and make the decision to consciously exercise the advice provided within it pages, for the benefit of Christ's Kingdom.

Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media

 

Should Public Schools Promote "In God We Trust"?

Introduction

"In God We Trust" has increasingly become a debated motto for Americans as the country becomes more secularized. However, in recent days, the State of South Dakota passed a law stating that all public schools must prominently display that motto on their campuses. Many will challenge the constitutionality and wisdom of such a law while others will debate the practicality of it (such as money to fund the creation of the displays). Neither of those is the focus of this post, though. Today, I want to discuss the reasonableness of an educational institution recognizing God's existence and its dependence on Him.

Many things that the educational system depends upon actually requires God to find its roots in reality. It is quite common for the distinction between knowing something and justifying something to be confused. We can know that something is true without being able to justify its being true. In philosophy, this is known as the distinction between ontology (what is true) and epistemology (how we know what is true). People can know things to be true, and even act properly according to that knowledge, yet not hold a worldview that can justify its being true (this will be explained more, in the section on morality below). Many of the things that are foundational to education (e.g. knowledge, progress, intrinsic human value, diversity, design, history, and science) are often known yet cannot be justified by those who know them to be true. Of those many things, knowledge is the most foundational.

Knowledge, The Education System, and God

Knowledge is at the foundation of the entire education system. If we cannot find some way to ground our claims of knowledge to reality, we are merely communicating opinions. Because of this, if knowledge of reality is not even possible, then all knowledge disciplines (the subjects taught in school), are not rightly called "knowledge" but rather "opinion" disciplines. The connection of knowledge to God is required in two ways: first, the justification of what is true must be something that is chiefly concerned with what is true. Second, the agents who are attempting to discover what is true must possess faculties that are concerned with chiefly with what is true. 

We know from evolutionary biology that organisms and all their components are only "concerned" with survival (I place quotes around "concerned" because naturalistic evolution is neither forward-thinking nor purpose-driven). This means that our brains are not programmed by nature to believe what is true but rather to believe what will keep us alive. In a world that is "red in tooth and claw" it is better to be safe than sorry, so our brains register (believe) many false positives about dangers, for instance. This is just one example of "useful fictions" that our brains must believe, according to naturalistic evolution. Because they are chiefly concerned with believing what will keep us safe even if it is false, our brains are not reliable tools for apprehending truth. 

However, if our brains are created by a God who is concerned with our ability to believe what is true, then He would have created our brains (and sense organs, as well) with the ability to not only distinguish between what is true and what is safe, but it will also prefer the former (free will does have an effect on this, though). So, from the very foundation of the educational system, for it to even be called such, God is required. On this ground, alone, it is reasonable that an education system would recognize God's existence and its dependence upon Him for its very purpose in society (to educate).

Without proper justification, there is no objective standard by which to judge what is true or false about not just knowledge, but the things that we will continue to discuss in this post, and what is taught by the system about these things comes at the whim of whoever is currently controlling the system. The education system ultimately reduces to "might makes right," an exercise in epistemology anarchy. If the education system were to affirm any worldview that cannot justify knowledge, it is admitting its uselessness for imparting knowledge to the next generation and admitting that its only purpose is to propagandize our children into blindly believing that their purpose in life is to serve an elite class of people with money and power. 

For more on the necessity of God to justify knowledge, I highly recommend that you read the book "Where The Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism" by philosopher Alvin Plantinga. Also, see this short video explaining his argument:

Conclusion

It is only if God exists that what we believe can be justified. Without God, all claims to knowledge are merely opinions and do not actually reflect reality. If they do not actually reflect reality, then the "education" system is not imparting knowledge of what is true but rather indoctrinating opinions that are preferred by a few people in power. Since the public school system claims to impart knowledge of the world in which we live, it is only reasonable that our schools recognize the foundation and justification of knowledge: God. Students and parents are free to disagree; however, if they wish to do so, they need to defend an alternative justification.

For more on this topic and to see how several other foundations to the education system are justified only by God's existence, see the links throughout this post and these additional ones:

• Is Education Overrated? 
• The Magna Carta of Humanity
• Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible
• Would Jesus Participate In Politics?
• 6 Ways Atheism Is A Science-Stopper
• The Word of God and the Mind of Man
• Why Is The Image of God So Important?
• Agents Under Fire
• The Bible Among The Myths
• How Naturalism Defeats Science As A Knowledge Discipline
• 12 Things Your Professors Won't Tell You About God and Science
• Apple CEO Tim Cook On Ethics and Purpose In Technology
• Without God, Do We All "Bleed The Same"?

Should Christians Abandon Social Media?

Introduction

With all of the recent news of various social media platforms purposefully hiding and censoring Christian and politically conservative content in the name of "diversity" and "tolerance," many people have abandoned Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest and other popular social media outlets in protest. While I have been tempted to do the same, because of their relative popularity (compared to more traditional communication media), I do believe that if we abandon these platforms, we will not only limit our audience but encourage the behavior of limiting reasonable content to and stifling intellectual discussion among the users of these platforms. The new generation of consumers prefers social media for their news, media consumption and discussion of various issues, so it cannot be abandoned by those who hold and can defend the truth with gentleness and respect.

The Liberal View of "Tolerance" and "Diversity"

I recently heard Candace Owens interview Lauren Chen about the modern liberal view of "tolerance" and "diversity." They discuss the deliberate attempt to remove even the slightest (appearance of) disagreement from the public square. This attempted removal is targeting the internet and specifically social media. If you are considering leaving popular social media platforms (or already have), I encourage you to listen to this discussion in full and consider that removing your voice of reason from today's public squares may do more harm than good:

Christians Should Master The Media

The new culture primarily consumes image-driven messages, and social media is the primary avenue to get images before this audience. In his book "Cold Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates The Claims of the Gospels," J. Warner Wallace encourages Christians to not just embrace new media but to master them. Christians must master the content itself, the presentation of the content, and the delivery mechanisms for the content.

Conclusion

Rather than abandoning popular social media channels, we should embrace them and utilize them to their fullest potential! If a challenge arises that limits our reach, it is not to be met with surrender, but with enthusiasm to reach the goal despite the challenges. I have written several posts and reviewed several books on the importance of discussing political and moral issues in a compassionate yet intellectual manner. I encourage you to read the posts and purchase the recommended books to equip you to "always be prepared to give a reason for the hope that you have...with gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15):

Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media

    

Posts:

• 8 Tips to Discuss Politics, Race, Religion, and Other Controversial Topics
• How Should Christians Vote In Political Elections?
• Would Jesus Participate in Politics?
• What Is The Intellectual Cost Of The Pro-Choice Position?
• SCOTUS' Decision on Gay Marriage: A Philosophical Critique

Quotes:

• 25 Quotes on Tolerance
• 52 Quotes On The Crisis of Truth In Today's Culture
• Norm Geisler and Frank Turek: Legislating Tolerance
• Gentleness and Respect In Debate and Discussion

Books:

• Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible
• Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
• Before You Hit SEND
• The Beauty of Intolerance: Freeing A Generation To Know Truth and Love
• The Case for Life
• Forensic Faith: A Homicide Detective Makes A Case For A More Reasonable Evidence Christian Faith
• Top 5 Recommended Books on Ethics and Politics
• Top 5 Recommended Books on Having Productive Conversations

Norman Geisler- 10 Quotes on Logic and Christianity

Introduction

Over the years Dr. Norman Geisler has had a profound effect on the way that I think philosophically and theologically. Through his defenses of the Christian worldview (the essentials and nonessentials) in his numerous books and lectures I have been better equipped analyze views, defend the Gospel, and "worship the Father in spirit and in truth" (John 4)

One of the early books that set my path to being able to logically evaluate arguments was "Come, Let Us Reason" (click or tap the title for my full chapter-by-chapter review). In the book, he provides Christians with an introduction to logical thinking that will help them in identifying false claims (that may sound correct on the surface) and in defending true claims. I have compiled a few of my favorite quotes from that excellent book in this post. If you have not picked up a copy yet, I highly recommend that you do.

Why Do Christians Need Logic?- Logic and God

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

"From the standpoint of reality, we understand that God is the basis of all logic. As the ultimate reality, all truth is ultimately found in him. He has created the reality that we know and in which we have discovered the laws of logic. Even Jesus said, 'I am...the truth' (John 14:6). He has structured the world in such a way that these laws cannot be denied; however, we did not know God first and then learn logic from him. He exists as the basis of all logic (in reality), but we discovered logic first and came to know God through it. This is true even if we came to know God through his revelation, because we understand the revelation through logic. In the order of being. God is first; but in the order of knowing, logic leads us to all knowledge of God. God is the basis of all logic (in the order of being), but logic is the basis of all knowledge of God (in the order of knowing)."

"We use logic in the process of knowing God, but that does not mean that God came after logic in reality. without God, nothing could have existence. God is the basis of all logic in reality and he is in no way inferior to logic. Logic comes from God, not God from logic. But when it comes to how we know things, logic is the basis of all thought, and it must come before any thought about anything, including God. For example, I need a map before I can get to Washington, D.C. But Washington must exist before the map can help me get there. Even so, we use logic first to come to know God, but God exists first before we can know him."

"Unless valid inferences can be made from what is known to what is unknown, there can be no theological argumentation. Whether in a discussion between Christians on a matter of interpretation or in a debate with a non-Christian, no one could prove any point without the laws of rational inference."

How Do You Think Correctly?- Using Logic

"Using syllogisms is called deductive logic because it involves deducing particular conclusions from general statements. In inductive logic, we start with the particulars and reason to general principles. Deductive logic starts with the cause and reasons to the effect, while inductive logic starts with the effects and attempts to find the cause. That is why deductive reasoning is called a prior (prior to looking at the facts) and inductive reasoning is called a posteriori (after seeing the evidence). Syllogisms are more philosophical, and inductive arguments are more scientific. The biggest difference, though, is that deductive arguments yield necessary conclusions (that is, the conclusions are necessarily true if the premises are true and the inferences are valid), but inductive reasoning yields only probable conclusions. The conclusions might have a high degree of probability, but they are still not as certain as deductive conclusions."

"You may not know what the significance of some piece of information is, but you must note it in case it becomes important later. Even the smallest clue may change the whole direction of your understanding."

"Analogies can be used to present very strong and effective arguments, but analogies are good only when there are strong similarities and only nonessential differences between the things being compared."

How Can Thinking Go Wrong?- Fallacies In Logic

"Whenever there is controversy over an issue, the appeal to authority is weakened in direct proportion to the strength of the controversy...All appeals to authority ultimately rest on the evidence that the authority has. The only reason to quote an authority is that he knows the evidence better than we do. The letters after his name don't mean a thing without the evidence to back up his position."

"[Special pleading] is [a] way to make certain the opposing view doesn't get a fair shake. Here only the evidence that supports one view is cited, and the rest is left out...If there are ten studies that show your view to be false, ignore them and make a big point about the one that confirms your conclusion. Really, this argument counts on the listener to be ignorant of the facts. That way anything can be claimed, and no objection can be raised. However, if someone knows about the other ten studies, you're in trouble. This kind of argument can be torn apart easily if all the facts are made known."

"[No] view should be accepted on the basis of ignorance. That is no way to find truth! Let positive evidence be presented and evaluated for both sides, and the truth can be known...If a conclusion is false, it is only a matter of finding the fallacy or the untrue premises (or both)."

Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media

 

For more great quotes from Dr. Geisler on various other topics, see these posts:

• There Is Some Truth In False Views
• Legislating Tolerance
• Christians Must Build A Positive Case for Creation
• 17 Quotes From Norman Geisler On Evidence for Special Creation

Here are my chapter-by-chapter reviews of other books he (co)authored:

• Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible?
• Christian Ethics: Options and Issues
• Origin Science: A Proposal for the Creation-Evolution Controversy
• Creating God In The Image of Man: The New "Open" View of God- Neotheism's Dangerous Drift
• Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of God's Sovereignty and Free Will

📢Top 5 Books on Having Productive Conversations💬

Introduction- How To Have Productive Discussions With Those With Whom You Disagree

In today's cultural climate, discussions of great importance, such as politics, worldview, morality, and science, often get heated. All sides are trying to convince the other sides that one view is correct and all others are incorrect. Usually, the sides reject the others due to their seeing that it does not match with the world as it is and/or that it violates some universally recognized, objective moral value. Those who strongly desire to be on the side of reality and morality have a deep conviction of the falsehood of the violating views and a deep conviction of the truth of their own views (assuming that view does not also violate reality). These deep convictions often cause discussions about which view is correct to get quite emotional. Each side accuses the others of either being unwilling to deal with reality and/or of being pure evil.

Unlike what some people may believe, the reality of the world and morality are not at odds with one another, so if all sides are truly committed to truth and morality, there is nothing to fear from discovering that our views need tweaking or are completely wrong and need to be jettisoned. But how do we get from staunchly believing that our view is the only possible true view to thinking that we could be wrong, and how do we converse with others who do hold to a wrong view and need to change their view? For Christians, we are given the command to "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do so with gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15).

7 Independent Lines of Evidence for God's Existence

Introduction- Why Is God's Existence So Important?

One of the most heated debates in any setting is the existence of God. If God exists, then He is the foundation for objective morality. One's view of morality governs their thinking in everything from politics to workplace interactions, from scientific research to everyday behavior. If God exists, then there are objective behavioral boundaries which should never be crossed. If God does not exist, then no such objective boundaries exist, and anyone may behave however they wish in any situation without concern for the violation of some objective standard (that is not to say that relative/cultural/legal standards cannot be violated- but that is a topic for another time). If we do not examine this question carefully, we risk believing what is false about reality and morality, and such false beliefs will necessarily lead to behaviors that are not in keeping with reality and morality. This means that many of the political and ethic debates opposing people have come down to whether or not God exists.

How Naturalism Defeats Science As A Knowledge Discipline

Introduction

One of the core necessities of science is the constancy of the laws that govern this universe. The fact that the laws of physics have the same since the beginning of the universe and will continue until the universe is destroyed allows scientists to not only observe and know what is happening in the moment of their observation, but it allows them to discover what has happened in the past and even make accurate predictions of the behavior of objects and conditions in the future. Some scientists even use the understanding that the laws of physics are constant to make predictions of what we will observe in the past (by observing distant celestial objects), then conduct multiple observations to test their theory. But where do they come up with the idea that the laws of physics are constant in the first place?

Did The Historical Jesus Rise From The Dead?

Introduction- Why Is Jesus' Resurrection So Important?

Those who have followed this blog know that I focus a lot of my writing on defending the compatibility of science with the Christian worldview and that I spend much energy addressing philosophical and logical challenges to some of the finer details of Christian theology that skeptics offer as defeaters for the Christian worldview. However, it is important to remember that the truth of the Christian worldview rests on one, single historical event: the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If Christ has not been raised, then none of the other details of the Christian worldview matter. The Apostle Paul made this very clear in 1 Corinthians 15:

While finding answers to the finer points of the Christian worldview can be difficult, if Christ has been raised, then there are answers to every scientific, philosophical, and experiential challenge. Even if we may not know all those answers at any given point in time and even if the answers are different from what we envision or desire, if Christ has been raised, Christianity is true, and we can work out the finer scientific, philosophical, and experiential details later. So, it is important that all skeptics and Christians deal with and be made aware of the evidence for this essential historical event.

In today's post my goal is not to be comprehensive with the evidence for the Resurrection but to give the skeptic some videos and other resources to begin seriously looking at this claim and to make the Christian aware of resources that they can have to "always be prepared to give a reason for the hope that they have" (1 Peter 3:15).

🤔 25 Thoughtful Quotes On Tolerance and Diversity

Can there be true tolerance without uniformity? Challenge assumptions and ponder the necessity of diversity in these 25 tolerance quotes.

1. "Most of what passes for tolerance today is not tolerance at all but actually intellectual cowardice. Those who hide behind that word are often afraid of intelligent engagement and don't engage or even consider contrary opinions. It's easier to hurl an insult than to confront the idea and either refute it or be changed by it."
- Greg Koukl, Relativism

2. "Proponents of [this] cultural tolerance will point out that when you fail to endorse a person's beliefs and behavior, you are, in effect, rejecting the person. [For example], many claim that homosexuality is not merely a sexual act or a natural orientation; it is a state of being—an identity. Many assert that people are born gay, and when you condemn homosexuality, it's an affront to their personhood and a direct condemnation and discrimination against them as human beings."
- Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

3. "[Ironically], Some of the most vocal advocates for tolerance are completely intolerant of those who express their belief in a biblical morality, especially if they do so in the public arena."
- Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

4. "Cultural tolerance does not simply require that we give others the freedom to believe or live differently than we do. It has evolved into a demand that we accept, respect, and affirm the rightness of others' views and behavior--or be labeled intolerant, bigoted, and even hateful."
- Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

Book Review: The Beauty of Intolerance

Introduction

A few years ago, Sean McDowell gave a talk at the AMP Conference called "The Beauty of Intolerance." In the talk, he spoke of two different views on tolerance that seem to be clashing in today's society. He explained how the differences explain much of the political rhetoric of "hate" and "phobias" and "intolerance." He focused specifically on the Church's speaking truth in love and how this view is actually the most tolerant. This talk has been one of my favorites for a while. I discovered shortly after I first saw the talk that Sean and his father, Josh McDowell, coauthored a book, "The Beauty of Intolerance," that went into the topic much deeper and focused on how Christian parents can effectively communicate moral truth to a morally relativistic generation. As a parent and one who defends the objectivity of morality (and, thus, the existence of God), this book was one I dare not pass on reading, which turns out was an excellent decision. Now, before I get to my usual chapter-by-chapter summary review and the remainder of my thoughts, here is the talk by Dr. Sean McDowell that originally caught my attention.

Why Must Christians Appeal to Science In Arguing Against Abortion?

Introduction

Abortion has recently become a hot topic again in American politics. With President Trump's appointments of conservative judges to the Supreme Court and the States' legislators proposing and passing more restrictions on abortions, it is very possible that we will see the decision that legalized abortion (Roe v. Wade) challenged, if not overturned.

I was in a discussion with a fellow pro-life advocate this week, and he took issue with my use of science to make the case for the humanity of the unborn. His position was that we did not need to use science but only use the Bible to make the case. So, I was in a position of needing to defend my defense.

Sources of Truth

I want to start out by affirming my pro-life brother in his belief that the Bible is indeed sufficient to make the case, but it is sufficient to make the case to Christians- those who recognize the Bible as an authoritative (and inerrant) source of truth. But not everyone accepts the Bible as an authoritative source of truth. Not everyone in America (and especially not in American government) is a Christian, and even if people are Christians, there is no guarantee they hold the Bible to be inerrant and the final authority in their lives. For people in these two categories, making appeals to the Bible to argue for anything is not going to get very far. If we want to see a non-Christian or a more "liberal" Christian agree with us against abortion (or any other matter of truth), we need to argue to our conclusion using a source of truth that they also recognize.

What Is The Intellectual Cost of The Pro-Choice Position?

Introduction

In recent months a major political and moral shift has been underway across America. The legality and morality of both infanticide and murder are actually being debated. But not under those terms. No, euphemisms are being used to obfuscate what is truly at stake- the lives of millions of people- your children's lives, your grandchildren's lives, for generations to come.

If we continue to ignore this debate and do nothing, we do so at a severe intellectual, moral, and personal cost. This post will help you see through the intentional obfuscation of those who are actively attempting to deceive you into supporting these atrocities.

The Terms Used

The debate over infanticide and murder are logical extensions of the debate over abortion. On one side, people argue that terminating a pregnancy (up to and including while the mother is in labor) can be justified (the "pro-choice" position), while the other side argues that there exists no such justification (the "pro-life" position). The pro-choice advocate gets emotionally heated because they believe that a mother has the right to exercise autonomy over the life of her unborn child. The pro-life advocate gets emotionally heated because they believe that no human, including the mother, has the right to exercise autonomy over the life of any unborn child.

In the midst of the emotional exchanges, some advocates on both sides attempt to take a more objective approach and provide evidence for their position in an effort to bring a logical resolution the debate. If one side is successful in this goal, then their emotional responses may be justified by the evidence, but if that position is not justified by the evidence, then the emotional responses (and the position itself) is not justified and logically must be abandoned. The abandonment would include all laws and legal decisions that support the position as well. Today, I want to take some time to examine the available options and see how they square with reality and experience.

Podcast Highlight: How to Heal After An Abortion

The issue of abortion is often very personal and quite emotional. For every child aborted, there are the mother, the father, grandparents, friends, and other family members who are deeply wounded. Many people, who had no choice in the issue or felt as though they didn't, carry the scars of the loss of a family member, and they desperately search for healing from this trauma.

Today I want to highlight a podcast that I heard recently. Patti J. Smith was wounded by having an abortion twice. Since those experiences, she has become pro-life and has found healing from the horrific events. She is a regional coordinator with the Silent No More Awareness Campaign that helps those who have lost a child to abortion. Whether those victims are mothers, fathers, siblings, grandparents, or others, this ministry helps them find the healing that they seek.

In this interview on the Pro-Life Thinking podcast, Patti speaks of the blessing of the forgiveness and healing that she has experienced as a mother who aborted and encourages other mothers who have aborted to seek the same forgiveness and healing as well. I am reminded of the apostle Paul, was dedicated to the persecuting and killing Christians. But Jesus Christ forgave him and gave him the honor of penning the majority of the New Testament, the revelation that would go into all the world to offer Christ's forgiveness to those who have also sinned. Today, Patti is a wounded healer who is being honored with the privilege of helping victims of abortion find the healing they desperately seek and point them to the ultimate Wounded Healer: Jesus Christ.

If you are a victim of abortion and are seeking healing from the wounds, please listen to this podcast and get in touch with the Silent No More Awareness Campaign:

How To Heal From An Abortion- With Patti Smith

Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media

  

For more resources, please see these posts as well:

• Providing the Case Against and Solutions for Abortion
• The Wounded Healer: Finding Ultimate Purpose In Your Suffering
• Book Review: The Case for Life
• Why Is The Image of God So Important?
• Book Review: Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible
• Book Review: Christian Ethics