True Reason: Christian Responses to the Challenge of Atheism.

A few weeks ago I blogged about the Reason Rally that will be held later this month in Washington, DC. The primary goal of the rally is to promote how atheism is the only reasonable worldview.

The Christian Apologetics Alliance has put together a book of essays that refute this claim both philosophically and evidentially. Several essays demonstrate how reason is not possible given the truth of naturalism, while several others provide evidence that makes Christianity a reasonable worldview to believe is true. The connection between science and faith, the reliability of the Gospels, and the problem of evil are all addressed in this book. Other topics include the claim that the God of the Old Testament is evil by promoting slavery and commanding the annihilation of nations.

Check out the main page for the book at True Reason and the Amazon page here.

Reviews by:
Christiana Szymanski

Please note that it appears that those organizing the Reason Rally have little intention of having a thoughtful and reasonable discussion with Christians, as evidenced by their invitation of Westboro Baptist Church to the event yet refusal to invite Christian philosophers and scientists- the ones who could carry on a reasonable discussion.

The Courageous Movie and The Purpose of Apologetics

Have you ever wondered what the point is in Christian apologetics? Does it seem like a favorite past-time of only the "smartest" Christians, but nothing more than that? I hope to offer compelling answers to those questions in this post.

A couple weeks ago my wife and I watched the movie Courageous (the book "The Resolution for Men" is based on the movie). In short, it is a piercing and convicting story about several men who, as the result of the tragedy in one of their lives, committed to actively being godly examples for their families and teaching them the higher ways of God. The commitment was not taken lightly. The men got together with their families and had a formal ceremony in which they pledged the following before each other and God:

• I DO solemnly resolve before God to take full responsibility for myself, my wife, and my children.
  
• I WILL love them, protect them, serve them, and teach them the Word of God as the spiritual leader of my home.
  
• I WILL be faithful to my wife, to love and honor her, and be willing to lay down my life for her as Jesus Christ did for me.
  
• I WILL bless my children and teach them to love God with all of their hearts, all of their minds, and all of their strength.
  
• I WILL train them to honor authority and live responsibly.
  
• I WILL confront evil, pursue justice, and love mercy.
  
• I WILL pray for others and treat them with kindness, respect, and compassion.
  
• I WILL work diligently to provide for the needs of my family.
  
• I WILL forgive those who have wronged me and reconcile with those I have wronged.
  
• I WILL learn from my mistakes, repent of my sins, and walk with integrity as a man answerable to God.
  
• I WILL seek to honor God, be faithful to His Church, obey His Word, and do His will.
  
• I WILL courageously work with the strength God provides to fulfill this resolution for the rest of my life and for His glory.
  

The Reason Rally and True Reason

On March 24th, 2012, a large event will take place in Washington DC called the Reason Rally. The purpose of this event is to promote the naturalistic (atheistic) worldview as being not only compatible with but demanded by reason. Speakers at the rally will include Dr. Richard Dawkins and Dr. Lawrence Krauss. Both offer passionate arguments against religion and are sure to fire up the crowd.

As many Christians are aware, their worldview offers an understanding of the world that is not only reasoned through carefully but can explain much more of reality than can the naturalistic worldview. Christian apologist William Lane Craig offered a philosophical and scientific critique of Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" that can be found here. Craig also debated Krauss here.

There will be a Christian presence at the rally that will offer reasoned responses to the ideas and challenges that are proposed. They will be offering both positive arguments for the truth of Christianity and negative arguments against the truth of the naturalistic worldview (see my post on the importance of offering both positive and negative arguments here). I state this explicitly because the only arguments atheists (including Dawkins and Krauss) tend to offer are negative against religion (in general). They do not offer positive arguments for their atheism (atheism is assumed to be the default position if "religion" is argued to be inconsistent with reality or "evil"), nor do they address claims of specific religions. The web site for this coordinated Christian presence and response can be found at http://www.truereason.org/. The Christian Apologetics Alliance will also be publishing a book in response to the rally in early March.

Book Review- Can Man Live Without God?

Introduction

Can Man Live Without God (Kindle Edition) is a treatment by Ravi Zacharias of the philosophical issue of meaning and the psychological issue of despair. The book is separated into three parts and spans 179 pages. This review is intended to give a chapter-by-chapter summary of the contents of the book, but the review only scratches the surface of Zacharias' intent of the book.

Part 1: Antitheism Is Alive And Deadly

Chapter 1: Anguish in Affluence

Zacharias begins the book by setting a foundation for the reason behind the book and his philosophical method. He shows how a person's view of God influences that person's entire life- from what they believe about everything else to how they act. If they get their understanding of God incorrect, then their beliefs and actions will be antithetical to reality. He also shows that he believes philosophy takes place on three levels: through logic- and reason- based arm-chair theory, through the emotional artistic productions, and through everyday, practical, "dinner table" application. He appeals to each by using the first for raw argumentation, the second for illustration and examples, and the third for relevance to our lives. His goal is to appeal to all three levels throughout the book, so that the reader may be able to understand his argument at all the levels and be able to communicate it likewise to others at all three levels.

Job, Suffering, and a Game of Chess

The Ultimate Game of Chess
As a Christian I come across many challenges to my worldview. Some challenges come from those in other worldviews; others come from other Christians. One of the most common challenges from outside is to God's existence. One argument observes all the evil and suffering in the world and asks how a good God could allow it. Many Christians also struggle with this very issue. They know that God exists, but they see suffering in their own lives and wonder why God is allowing so much. Because of this some question whether God is even there, or if they're not willing to go that far, if God is even good. This was articulated to me very clearly not too long ago: "The story of Job is just a chess game between God and Satan, and my life is no different."

Dealing with Suffering
Before I get deep into how Christianity deals with suffering and evil in the world, I want to make one thing clear. Every worldview MUST deal with the existence of what we call "evil" or "suffering". We cannot escape its existence simply by dismissing the existence of God; neither can we ignore the fact that suffering does exist. All worldviews are faced with this challenge and must offer a coherent explanation. I believe that it is only in the Christian worldview (properly understood) that suffering and evil makes sense.

Your Challenge Does Not Apply- The Strawman

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.

Zombies of Christianity

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.