Faithful Thinkers

Human Equality and Naturalism- Part 2

Last week, I explained how the naturalistic evolutionary paradigm cannot explain the existence of equal human value. This week, I will build upon last week and show why it cannot explain intrinsic value either. If you have not read last week's post, you will probably be lost.

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. 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 insult to God, Himself ("I think so little of God and so highly of myself, that I will destroy a reflection of His value and His nature to further my own existence.").

I find it extremely interesting that many naturalists promote human equality. 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:

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.

I was thinking the other day about the burden of proof. It seems that no one wants to bare it. Many atheists claim that they don't shoulder the burden of proof because "you can't prove a negative". Some theists claim that they don't hold it because you can't prove something that is metaphysical (based on the assumption that only things that can be decisively measured can be "proven").

If you believe the resurrection of Jesus Christ actually happened, share this with your friends (use the buttons below).

Dr. Michael Licona has released a new book that investigates the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It weighs in at 718 pages and is sure to be a great resource for those honestly searching for answers:

The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach

Licona was interviewed by Brian Auten of Apologetics 315 earlier this year. Here is the interview:

Download the MP3 here.

Just Another Day...

This post was originally posted last year for Halloween. I decided to post it again, but with a few updates.

Theologian Kenneth Samples wrote an article about Halloween and recorded an episode of Straight Thinking about it. Here's the episode:

Download the MP3 here.

My thoughts?

This post builds upon my short series on building a cumulative case (Parts 1, 2, 3) and on last week's post about authorities.

The other day I was speaking with someone who claimed that inductive reasoning was superior to abductive reasoning, and even went as far as to say that inductive reasoning destroyed the need for abductive reasoning. By "abductive reasoning" I am talking about a cumulative case- taking lots of evidence and developing an interpretation that explains it all consistently.

Have you noticed that when you make a claim and point out that an authority on the subject agrees, the person who disagrees with the point tends to question the authority? Have you ever noticed that you do the same when you disagree with a point? I have had several people who have said that I was using the authority of the person cited as an argument for the truth of the claim; then dismiss it. Am I wrong?