This was originally going to be a single-part topic, but I realized after several comments on the original post, that I needed to clarify and address a few extra things for both the unbeliever and the believer.
First, I want to define a term. Second, I will discuss the scriptures brought up as challenges. Third, I will provide scriptures that allow for "doubt" being biblical.
1. Doubt- when I use this word in the original post, I am referring only to be skeptical of the truth of a claim. I'm not talking about distrusting someone, and I am not talking about not believing that something you pray for will come true. I am speaking strictly of being unsure of the truth of something someone is claiming to be true.
2. A few scriptures were posed to me as being Biblical evidence that doubting truth claims is unbiblical. The implied conclusion seemed to be that investigating Christian truth claims is discouraged in the Bible.
Here are the scriptures posed as challenges:
James 1:5-8
Matthew 21:21 (parallel passage Mark 11:23)
Romans 14:23
Let's look at each one individually:
James 1:5-8
"If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does."
Notice that the context of this passage is a man asking God for something (wisdom, in this case). If a man asks God for wisdom, but does not believe (doubts) that God will give it to him, he is "like a wave of the sea...". This passage's specific definition for the word "doubt" is "doubting someone" or "not believing that something you pray for will come true." Neither of which is the definition or context of my original post. Since the context of the two being compared (my post and the biblical passage) is not the same, the comparison is unwarranted, and may be discarded.
Matthew 21:21
"Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done."
This one has also a different context and definition. (I have always been a fan of Greg Koukl's booklet and online article "Never Read a Bible Verse". The short version is that one should never take only a single verse (out of context) to make a point.) If you read the whole story (Matthew 21:18-21), you will notice that Jesus is not talking about doubting the truth of something that is being told to you. He's talking about being able to wilt a fig tree or move a mountain. The specific definition of "doubt" and overall context is not the same. So, that really has nothing to do with my post either.
Romans 14:23
"But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin."
Please read this one in context (Romans 14- the entire chapter). Notice that Paul is talking about trivial issues that may cause someone to stumble (food and drink in this case). He makes it clear in the verse 23 (the one you quoted) that he is still talking about food and drink. Specifically, Paul is talking about doubting (not knowing) whether or not eating or drinking something will cause a brother to stumble. Once again, this is not the definition of "doubt" nor the context that I use. So, this one is not applicable either.
3. Here are a few scriptures that promote testing truth claims, being gracious to (rather than condemning) those who have questions (doubt), and providing a defense of the Gospel.
1 Peter 3:15
1 Thessalonians 5:21
Jude 1:22-23
1 Peter 3:15
But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect
In 1 Peter 3:8-22 Peter is commanding his brothers to be compassionate and humble in everything that they do. In verse 15, he specifically mentions situations in which someone is asking questions about their beliefs.
1 Thessalonians 5:21
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
In 1 Thessalonians 5:12-28 Paul is saying pretty much the same as Peter above.
Jude 1:22-23
Be merciful to those who doubt; snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.
In context (Jude 1:17-23) Jude is speaking of people who doubt the truth-claims of Christianity.
I have published two other posts that may also help to shed more light on the subject (each has references for further investigation):
Why Apologetics?
Is "Blind Faith" Biblical?
If you think that I need to address anything else in regards to this topic, please let me know.
Consistency Among Disciplines
The entire scientific enterprise is based on one assumption: the natural realm is consistent. That means that in multiple instances when all conditions are the same, identical results will be produced. Experiments and observations are repeatable. You can be certain that if you perform the same experiment in the precise same way a second time, you will get the same results. If scientists were able to produce water from the combination of two hydrogen atoms with one oxygen atom in one experiment, then gold with the same ingredients in the second (then another substance third, and so on), they could conclude that this was not a consistent phenomena. Further, if scientists found that their experiments, when performed exactly the same way, produced different results without any consistency, they could conclude that the natural realm was not predictable, and investigation of it is futile.
Misengaged in Battle?
When engaging someone in a discussion or debate, should you focus on their understanding of their own worldview, not the "correct" or "accepted" understanding of their worldview?
Greg Koukl (in his book Tactics) says to focus on the person's understanding. His reasoning is that focusing on another understanding (whether its "correct" or not- it makes no difference) will make the person believe that you are either ignoring their concern, or trying to belittle them by telling them how to believe what they believe.
Part of me wants to disagree for the simple reason that I think one should always focus on the understanding with the strongest evidence and arguments. I say this because it helps prevent committing the "straw man" fallacy (see my previous post "This Argument Is Full of Crap!"). For those who are unfamiliar with the "straw man", it is a misunderstanding of a view that is easy to argue against and tear down. The problem with it is that even though that understanding has been destroyed, the argument doesn't touch the true issue.
But, when I think about it a little further, I realize that the person (whom I'm attempting to persuade my direction) may have a "straw man" of his own worldview in his mind. If I were to attack another view (say, the "correct"), I would be committing the "straw man" fallacy by not understanding his view and attacking that. So, by attacking the "correct" view, I would be committing the "straw man" fallacy on a "straw-man" view. (Confused yet?)
Simply put, I must agree with Koukl. Focus on the person's understanding. After you provide enough doubt to abandon the view, they may move closer to the "correct" view. As they move closer to the "correct" view, you can focus on the new understanding. Eventually, you will have placed enough doubt in them for all their understandings (including the "correct" one) that they will have no choice but to abandon it. Now, that's not to say that they will jump on board with your view. If there is another possibility, expect them to adopt it for a while (the process starts all over again).
Of course, during this whole time, don't forget to provide positive evidence for your own point of view. See my previous post "Positive vs. Negative Arguments" for more on this.
Further resources:
Podcasts
Stand to Reason
Straight Thinking
Websites
Stand to Reason
Books
Tactics by Greg Koukl
Come, Let Us Reason by Norman Geisler
Does Doubt Equal Disbelief? Part 1
This is a big issue. I see it all the time in Christian circles and in naturalist circles. If a Christian expresses doubt about God (for instance), he is shunned and accused of not believing in God. As soon as a scientist raises doubts about evolution (for instance), the same happens to him.
I have a few things to say about this. First, for both situations, the people doing the shunning are afraid to be challenged. They are scared that if their precious ideas are questioned, then they might be found to be lacking or even false. These people tend to be committed to an idea rather than the truth. This is not good for anyone. Read my post "Why Should I Challenge My Own Views?" for more information.
I would like to say that just because someone doubts something does not mean that they disbelieve it. What this comes down to is confidence and certainty. Certainty requires that you be 100% sure of whatever belief you hold. As long as challenges are around, 100% certainty is not possible. So, we have to fall back on confidence. Based on evidence, we can hold that we are, say, 90% sure and 10% unsure. If we are 90/10, then we can confidently believe something. However, if we are 40/60 (40% sure and 60% unsure) then we cannot confidently believe it. Most Christians and scientists fall into the 90/10 category for their beliefs. If they doubt a certain piece of evidence, question a detail, or challenge the existing form of the idea, they are only changing their percentages to, say, 80/20 or 70/30, they are not likely taking it to 50/50 (agnostic- don't know) or 40/60 (disbelief).
Now, I must say that the more a view goes challenged or questioned without those challenges and questions being answered, the percentages will continue to shift until they hit that "magic" 49/51. Then the person is disbelieving, but not because they challenged or questioned, but because they were not adequately responded to.
When someone asks a tough question its because they are struggling with it, not because they are ready to "jump ship". In both the Church and the scientific community, we need to stop accusing those who are challenging us of being "traitors", and help them along. If an idea is true, then all challenges and questions to and about it have an adequate response. By ignoring those people, we only show that we don't believe that last statement ourselves.
Michael Patton from Reclaiming the Mind Ministries wrote a blog post about this same issue: Can Christians Doubt. Please read the comments (19-103, specifically). A reader challenges Michael on the biblical merits of his claim (same as mine). Michael defends his position, and with the help of another reader, the offended reader realizes they are saying the same thing, just with different nuances that took focus.
Michael recently published another article "The Sufficiency of Probability in the Christian Belief". This is another great article worth reading.
Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason is asked if one can still be a Christian, yet have some doubts. Here is his answer:
Koukl is also asked "How could struggling with doubt be good".
Here are some great Christian podcasts I have found that address the deep questions and tough challenges to its worldview (pretty much every podcast on the right side of my blog):
Straight Thinking
Stand to Reason
Theology Unplugged
I Didn't Know That
Just Thinking
Apologetics.com
Without A Doubt
I have a few things to say about this. First, for both situations, the people doing the shunning are afraid to be challenged. They are scared that if their precious ideas are questioned, then they might be found to be lacking or even false. These people tend to be committed to an idea rather than the truth. This is not good for anyone. Read my post "Why Should I Challenge My Own Views?" for more information.
I would like to say that just because someone doubts something does not mean that they disbelieve it. What this comes down to is confidence and certainty. Certainty requires that you be 100% sure of whatever belief you hold. As long as challenges are around, 100% certainty is not possible. So, we have to fall back on confidence. Based on evidence, we can hold that we are, say, 90% sure and 10% unsure. If we are 90/10, then we can confidently believe something. However, if we are 40/60 (40% sure and 60% unsure) then we cannot confidently believe it. Most Christians and scientists fall into the 90/10 category for their beliefs. If they doubt a certain piece of evidence, question a detail, or challenge the existing form of the idea, they are only changing their percentages to, say, 80/20 or 70/30, they are not likely taking it to 50/50 (agnostic- don't know) or 40/60 (disbelief).
Now, I must say that the more a view goes challenged or questioned without those challenges and questions being answered, the percentages will continue to shift until they hit that "magic" 49/51. Then the person is disbelieving, but not because they challenged or questioned, but because they were not adequately responded to.
When someone asks a tough question its because they are struggling with it, not because they are ready to "jump ship". In both the Church and the scientific community, we need to stop accusing those who are challenging us of being "traitors", and help them along. If an idea is true, then all challenges and questions to and about it have an adequate response. By ignoring those people, we only show that we don't believe that last statement ourselves.
Michael Patton from Reclaiming the Mind Ministries wrote a blog post about this same issue: Can Christians Doubt. Please read the comments (19-103, specifically). A reader challenges Michael on the biblical merits of his claim (same as mine). Michael defends his position, and with the help of another reader, the offended reader realizes they are saying the same thing, just with different nuances that took focus.
Michael recently published another article "The Sufficiency of Probability in the Christian Belief". This is another great article worth reading.
Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason is asked if one can still be a Christian, yet have some doubts. Here is his answer:
Koukl is also asked "How could struggling with doubt be good".
Here are some great Christian podcasts I have found that address the deep questions and tough challenges to its worldview (pretty much every podcast on the right side of my blog):
Straight Thinking
Stand to Reason
Theology Unplugged
I Didn't Know That
Just Thinking
Apologetics.com
Without A Doubt
Trust, Confidence, and Trust in Reality
Trust and confidence are two things that childhood has a profound effect on. As I've been reading some books about psychology, it seems that if trust and confidence are not established early, then both are extremely hard to come by later in life.
From birth, a child must rely on his mother and father to protect and provide for him (or her). That child is well aware of his dependence on the parents. The child also trusts that the parents will do what is in the his best interest.
However, if these are broken early and/or often, the child becomes skeptical of his parents' ability to protect and provide for him. Since the parent is the "first impression" the child receives of someone who promises something (protection and provision), if he has bad experiences, the child will grow up to question everyone that "promises" something to that child.
In some cases the child begins to question the idea that reality is even real, or that anything is objective (these are all things that society is acting out, yet saying something opposite- but that's a different post).
My point in all this is that if the family continues to break and be as dysfunctional as it has been, our children will pay the price with their confidence in reality.
When someone questions reality itself, many doors are opened. First, as a Christian, my concern is that if someone can't trust reality, then why should they trust the God who supposedly created it? Second, if reality is not to be trusted, then any implications about reality are not to be trusted either. These implications include morality. When the child (now teen or adult) realizes this connection, they are "freed" to do whatever they wish, with no lasting consequences.
Our children are watching our every move. When we break their trust and confidence, they get closer to moral relativism. It is truly amazing the kind of eternal impact parents have on their children. The repeat-offender parents are the one's that really need to pay attention and turn around.
If we allow society to continue to destroy the family and perpetuate our children's mistrust in parents, we may lose our kids forever.
I'm not trying to be Chicken Litter, here ("the sky is falling..."), but am trying to awaken parents to the damage they may be doing to their children without even realizing it. We all need to take a look at everything we do and ask ourselves "how would I feel if my mom or dad were doing that?"
We have all heard that we are "examples" that children follow. I'm not going to argue with that. I would even say that children are not stupid enough to not notice a bad example, too. But I want to take this one step further. Even though a child may recognize that you are a bad example and decide not to follow you, they still have not realized that their trust in someone who they believed to be trustworthy (you), has now placed one more strike against anyone else who would try to gain that child's trust. If you continue, the strikes continue to build a case for mistrust of everything.
For more on this subject check out these links:
Focus on the Family
Healing the Masculine Soul by Gordon Dalbey
Faith of the Fatherless by Paul Vitz
Bringing Up Boys by James Dobson
From birth, a child must rely on his mother and father to protect and provide for him (or her). That child is well aware of his dependence on the parents. The child also trusts that the parents will do what is in the his best interest.
However, if these are broken early and/or often, the child becomes skeptical of his parents' ability to protect and provide for him. Since the parent is the "first impression" the child receives of someone who promises something (protection and provision), if he has bad experiences, the child will grow up to question everyone that "promises" something to that child.
In some cases the child begins to question the idea that reality is even real, or that anything is objective (these are all things that society is acting out, yet saying something opposite- but that's a different post).
My point in all this is that if the family continues to break and be as dysfunctional as it has been, our children will pay the price with their confidence in reality.
When someone questions reality itself, many doors are opened. First, as a Christian, my concern is that if someone can't trust reality, then why should they trust the God who supposedly created it? Second, if reality is not to be trusted, then any implications about reality are not to be trusted either. These implications include morality. When the child (now teen or adult) realizes this connection, they are "freed" to do whatever they wish, with no lasting consequences.
Our children are watching our every move. When we break their trust and confidence, they get closer to moral relativism. It is truly amazing the kind of eternal impact parents have on their children. The repeat-offender parents are the one's that really need to pay attention and turn around.
If we allow society to continue to destroy the family and perpetuate our children's mistrust in parents, we may lose our kids forever.
I'm not trying to be Chicken Litter, here ("the sky is falling..."), but am trying to awaken parents to the damage they may be doing to their children without even realizing it. We all need to take a look at everything we do and ask ourselves "how would I feel if my mom or dad were doing that?"
We have all heard that we are "examples" that children follow. I'm not going to argue with that. I would even say that children are not stupid enough to not notice a bad example, too. But I want to take this one step further. Even though a child may recognize that you are a bad example and decide not to follow you, they still have not realized that their trust in someone who they believed to be trustworthy (you), has now placed one more strike against anyone else who would try to gain that child's trust. If you continue, the strikes continue to build a case for mistrust of everything.
For more on this subject check out these links:
Focus on the Family
Healing the Masculine Soul by Gordon Dalbey
Faith of the Fatherless by Paul Vitz
Bringing Up Boys by James Dobson
Information vs Education
This post will tie a bit into my previous posts "Why Should I Challenge My Own View" and "This Argument is Full of Crap!". Please read them before you read this one.
Have you ever watched Jeopardy or played Trivial Pursuit and wondered what good all that information is? Well the answer is this: to win a game. I have always been suspicious of people who are "book" smart, but can't tell you how the conclusion was obtained. When one has only "book smarts" or knows only trivia, they can answer only so many questions. They are unable to explain how the person to discovered the answer (that they are parroting) arrived at the answer.
This is called "information". You can have all the information in the world, and not understand how it all ties together. I'm not saying that having information is bad, because it is not. But having just the information limits the usefulness of that information.
When someone is trying to convince an opponent of another point of view, just spouting off facts is not usually going to convince them. They will have questions about the validity of the facts, how the facts were concluded, and what use in the real world they are. This last question is extremely important for worldviews or political positions. If one only knows the "slogans" of a worldview or political position, they are impotent to explain their reasoning.
"Education" involves understanding the "ins" and "outs" of information. If the one who holds the view cannot explain how or why their information should be believed, they lose all ability to convince. One of the best ways to "get educated" is to investigate your information or "slogans" for authenticity. I'm not talking about searching only sources that believe the information or slogan, but also those who challenge the information or slogan.
This, of course, is important not just for your "information", but also the oppositions "information". The more you are "educated" in both, the more you will be able to reliably defend your own "information".
All this can be summed up like this: Conclusions vs. reasons for conclusions. If you stick with information only, you may misunderstand the reasons. This will lead to the building of an underlying "strawman", which is detrimental if you believe it about your own information or your opponents information.
Websites:
Apologetics.com
Stand to Reason
Podcasts:
Apologetics.com Radio Show
Stand to Reason Radio Program
Just Thinking
Books:
Tactics: by Greg Koukl
Come, Let us Reason: by Norman Geisler
Have you ever watched Jeopardy or played Trivial Pursuit and wondered what good all that information is? Well the answer is this: to win a game. I have always been suspicious of people who are "book" smart, but can't tell you how the conclusion was obtained. When one has only "book smarts" or knows only trivia, they can answer only so many questions. They are unable to explain how the person to discovered the answer (that they are parroting) arrived at the answer.
This is called "information". You can have all the information in the world, and not understand how it all ties together. I'm not saying that having information is bad, because it is not. But having just the information limits the usefulness of that information.
When someone is trying to convince an opponent of another point of view, just spouting off facts is not usually going to convince them. They will have questions about the validity of the facts, how the facts were concluded, and what use in the real world they are. This last question is extremely important for worldviews or political positions. If one only knows the "slogans" of a worldview or political position, they are impotent to explain their reasoning.
"Education" involves understanding the "ins" and "outs" of information. If the one who holds the view cannot explain how or why their information should be believed, they lose all ability to convince. One of the best ways to "get educated" is to investigate your information or "slogans" for authenticity. I'm not talking about searching only sources that believe the information or slogan, but also those who challenge the information or slogan.
This, of course, is important not just for your "information", but also the oppositions "information". The more you are "educated" in both, the more you will be able to reliably defend your own "information".
All this can be summed up like this: Conclusions vs. reasons for conclusions. If you stick with information only, you may misunderstand the reasons. This will lead to the building of an underlying "strawman", which is detrimental if you believe it about your own information or your opponents information.
Websites:
Apologetics.com
Stand to Reason
Podcasts:
Apologetics.com Radio Show
Stand to Reason Radio Program
Just Thinking
Books:
Tactics: by Greg Koukl
Come, Let us Reason: by Norman Geisler
Why Should I Challenge My Own Views?
🤔 Positive Arguments vs. Negative Arguments?
It seems like everywhere I go, people want to point out what's wrong with the opposition's arguments. It does not matter if we are talking about political views, religious views, or any other view that is tied to a deep conviction. So many people focus so tightly on the opposition that they forget about their own point of view. This is not a very good strategy. The reason I say this is for one simple reason. Let's say you have a plan to accomplish something, and one of your teammates expresses great dissatisfaction with your plan and even provides every reason in the world not to use it. It would come natural to you to ask if your teammate had a better plan. If no other plan was proposed, then the team would have to stick with the original, no matter how many flaws it had.
Positive and Negative Arguments
A Positive Argument is an argument for your particular position. A Negative Argument is an argument against an opposing position. Both are necessary if we wish to convince someone that our view is to accept at the expense of their current understanding. I must point out that I am not about to defend a reason for only using positive arguments. The fact is that the negative arguments have their important place. They are used to convince your opposition that their idea is not as solid as they might believe. Depending on the person, and depending on how many holes are poked in the opposing idea, the person may be open to an alternative idea- your's, but only if you can show why it is superior to the original and does not suffer from the same problems (or create new ones) that the opposing idea had.
Too Much Hostility
Of course, making negative arguments should never be abused. A person can only take so much negative information about their point of view before they start to believe you are not just attacking their point of view, but attacking them. Even though you may not intentionally make a personal attack, it may be perceived as one. You can recognize when they are starting to think this by their body language, before they say anything that would indicate it. If you don't notice this and continue with your negative argument, the person may "tune" you out and not "hear" anything else you have to say (this includes your positive argument). If you do notice the "offended" body language, ask them to provide a positive argument for their view. By doing that, you reinforce that you respect their view, and open doors to provide a positive argument for your point of view later in the conversation.
Establishing Common Ground
Providing a positive argument is what can ultimately convince someone to your point of view. Before you can do this, though, you need to investigate your point of view as deeply as you can. I like to start my positive argument by establishing some common ground. If there is no common ground then there will be nothing to build upon. If you decide to appeal to someone or something that you believe is an authority, make sure that the opposition recognizes your authority as you do. It makes no sense to appeal to something or someone they don't believe to be an authority. It also helps to use sources that may not be totally on your side, but do allow for your point of view as a possibility- this will let your opposition know that others with opposing points of view, at least, recognize the possibility that your point of view may be true. Defining sources is a great way to establish common ground.
Once common ground has been established, you can start making claims and backing them up with evidence. I would make sure to appeal specifically to things that the person would understand. If you are not sure what all they may understand, ask them about their interests, especially when they were in college. It does you no good to appeal to astronomy if the person is a paleontologist. It also does little good to appeal to the Bible if the person is not a Christian. Evidence based on unfamiliar disciplines can come in later, but should not be introduced immediately.
The Lack of Common Ground
The danger in introducing evidence of a foreign nature is that the person will not understand why an argument is powerful or not. They will not know what questions to ask in order to understand the argument better. This may also cause a person to think that you are trying to talk down to them (unfamiliar technical terms), or elevate yourself over them. If you are unsure how a person will react to evidence from a certain discipline, ask them if they've considered the evidence from that discipline. If not, and they don't show interest in it, don't introduce it.
Be A Listener and Provide Answers
Of course, part of giving a positive argument is listening to and answering questions. You can expect many questions for two reasons: first, the person is skeptical of your argument and second, the person is unfamiliar with the evidence you have provided. If the person bombards you with many questions at one time, ask them to select one to focus on for the moment. Assure them that when you have answered their question to their satisfaction or when you determine that you need to do more research later, you will tackle the next. Don't try to answer too many questions at the same time. If you do, you and the other person may lose focus of a specific issue. This is extremely frustrating to the person if they are unfamiliar with the evidence you are providing.
The same Q&A technique goes the same for both sides. When you are providing a negative argument, don't bombard them with too many questions. Allow them to answer one question, then ask the next.
Conclusion- It Goes Both Ways
Something very important to remember is that which ever strategy you are using will be the opposite of what the other person is using (if you provide a positive argument for your view, they will present a negative argument against your view). A conversation will typically flip back and forth many times. The key to keep the conversation constructive is to treat the other view exactly how you expect your view to be treated.
Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media
For More Please See:
- Opinions vs. Truth Claims
- Evidence For vs. Proof Of
- The Power of the Cumulative Case
- Is Consistency Important
- Consistency Among Disciplines
- Providing Alternative Explanations
- Avoid Over-Stating Your Case
- Convenient Explanations
- Reasons In And Out Of A Worldview
Book Review: "Relativity Simply Explained"
Relativity Simply Explained
By Martin Gardner
I picked up Relativity Simply Explained to help me understand Einstein's special and general theories. I was looking for something that was not too in depth, but gave me enough that I could think about it along accurate lines.
This book did just that. Martin Gardner published the book initially back in the '60s, but updated this version in '97. He started by explaining the state of physics at the time Einstein was developing his special theory of relativity. Gardner then moves to explain both theories. Next he goes into more specifics about what relativity did for the theory of gravity and the dimensionality of the universe. After that, Gardner provides the evidence that confirms the theories.
Depravity of Man
In my post "Can You Trust Your Senses Or Your Logic?" I touched a bit on the Christian doctrine of the Depravity of Man. I explained that if this doctrine is misunderstood, then it leads to Christianity undermining the ability to apprehend truth. In this post, I want to go a little deeper and build a case for an understanding of the doctrine that does not compromise our ability to apprehend truth; that incorporates the effects of Original Sin on our ability to apprehend truth; and that makes clear that without recognizing God, the amount of truth that can be apprehended is severely limited.
When God created man, He created him "In our image". This is referred to as the Image of God.
The Image of God includes many attributes of man, but today I am going to focus on morality. God created man with the ability to distinguish between right and wrong; good and evil. Even though Adam and Eve disobeyed God's command in the Garden, man still has this ability (Rom 2:14-15). In the Garden, what changed when Adam and Eve rebelled was not man's ability to recognize good and evil, but his propensity to ignore it. Adam and Eve believed that they could live outside of God's law. They were promised that they would be like God, and that they would be able to determine good and evil, if they would act against God. Even though they were not granted those things, man still believes that he can get along without God or His laws and proceeds to ignore the truths that God has revealed. Man continues to do this because he so desires to be the measure of all things.
What changed in the Garden was man's attitude toward his Creator. God told Adam and Eve what was going to happen because of their rebellion. For instance, God predicts that the ground will be "cursed" because of them. God's basically saying that He has His way of doing things that He will reveal; but man, in his rebellion, will refuse God's instructions, and the land will not cooperate because it is not being treated the way God designed it to be treated (Gen 3:17-18).
Man still has the ability to find truth, but he has to work harder at it. Rather than just accepting what God has revealed, man must test, make excuse, and test, then make another excuse (on and on) because his prideful heart does not want to accept where the facts are leading him (back to his Creator). But, if man is to return to his Creator, he must submit to Him, and his prideful heart has a very hard time with that. Man likes the idea of being lord over himself, but when God is Lord, man must sacrifice all the pleasures of the flesh that pull him further from God. Paul discusses this struggle in Romans 7:7-25. Remember, Paul is speaking under the inspiration of God's Holy Spirit- the struggle is there. God never promised that coming to Him would cause us to somehow avoid the struggle with our sin nature.
God created us with the ability to recognize truth when we see it. Sin did not remove this ability. If it did, Paul (by inspiration of the Holy Spirit) would not have penned the words "Test everything. Hold on to the good." (1 Thes 5:21) Nor would Isaiah have quoted God as saying "Come now, let us reason together," (Isa 1:18a). God would allow these things to be included in His Word if we could not trust the results of our testing and our reason.
When man recognizes where the facts are leading him, and proceeds to accept the lead, he is brought to realizing more truth. Until man recognizes that God is his Creator and he must submit to Him, man cannot recognize that God's standard of perfection is beyond what mere man can even hope to achieve. At that point, if man wants to restore his relationship with his Creator, he must be willing to accept the sacrifice that Jesus Christ offers and relinquish the control he longs to maintain over his own life.
Without recognizing God, man limits himself in the amount of truth he can find. When so much evidence points to God, and man refuses to accept it, he spends more time refuting the evidence or looking for counter-evidence than he does in finding more truth about the creation and the Creator (Rom 1:18-25). If man would just realize God's existence, he could make much more sense of the world he inhabits, and of the purpose for his existence.
In the Garden, God did not change (Mal 3:6); the laws of physics did not change (Jer 33:25), and man's ability to find truth did not change (1 Thes 5:21; Isa 1:18a). The only thing left is man's heart (Jer 17:9). If it is to be led back to its Creator, it must be guided carefully toward the Truth.
The contents of this post intertwine with my early post (Nature vs. Scripture). It goes more into man's tests and interpretation of those tests- just because you have the facts does not mean the you will interpret them correctly to find the truth.
For more information check out these articles:
The Physics of Sin by Dr. Hugh Ross
As Man Actually Is by Greg Koukl
When God created man, He created him "In our image". This is referred to as the Image of God.
The Image of God includes many attributes of man, but today I am going to focus on morality. God created man with the ability to distinguish between right and wrong; good and evil. Even though Adam and Eve disobeyed God's command in the Garden, man still has this ability (Rom 2:14-15). In the Garden, what changed when Adam and Eve rebelled was not man's ability to recognize good and evil, but his propensity to ignore it. Adam and Eve believed that they could live outside of God's law. They were promised that they would be like God, and that they would be able to determine good and evil, if they would act against God. Even though they were not granted those things, man still believes that he can get along without God or His laws and proceeds to ignore the truths that God has revealed. Man continues to do this because he so desires to be the measure of all things.
What changed in the Garden was man's attitude toward his Creator. God told Adam and Eve what was going to happen because of their rebellion. For instance, God predicts that the ground will be "cursed" because of them. God's basically saying that He has His way of doing things that He will reveal; but man, in his rebellion, will refuse God's instructions, and the land will not cooperate because it is not being treated the way God designed it to be treated (Gen 3:17-18).
Man still has the ability to find truth, but he has to work harder at it. Rather than just accepting what God has revealed, man must test, make excuse, and test, then make another excuse (on and on) because his prideful heart does not want to accept where the facts are leading him (back to his Creator). But, if man is to return to his Creator, he must submit to Him, and his prideful heart has a very hard time with that. Man likes the idea of being lord over himself, but when God is Lord, man must sacrifice all the pleasures of the flesh that pull him further from God. Paul discusses this struggle in Romans 7:7-25. Remember, Paul is speaking under the inspiration of God's Holy Spirit- the struggle is there. God never promised that coming to Him would cause us to somehow avoid the struggle with our sin nature.
God created us with the ability to recognize truth when we see it. Sin did not remove this ability. If it did, Paul (by inspiration of the Holy Spirit) would not have penned the words "Test everything. Hold on to the good." (1 Thes 5:21) Nor would Isaiah have quoted God as saying "Come now, let us reason together," (Isa 1:18a). God would allow these things to be included in His Word if we could not trust the results of our testing and our reason.
When man recognizes where the facts are leading him, and proceeds to accept the lead, he is brought to realizing more truth. Until man recognizes that God is his Creator and he must submit to Him, man cannot recognize that God's standard of perfection is beyond what mere man can even hope to achieve. At that point, if man wants to restore his relationship with his Creator, he must be willing to accept the sacrifice that Jesus Christ offers and relinquish the control he longs to maintain over his own life.
Without recognizing God, man limits himself in the amount of truth he can find. When so much evidence points to God, and man refuses to accept it, he spends more time refuting the evidence or looking for counter-evidence than he does in finding more truth about the creation and the Creator (Rom 1:18-25). If man would just realize God's existence, he could make much more sense of the world he inhabits, and of the purpose for his existence.
In the Garden, God did not change (Mal 3:6); the laws of physics did not change (Jer 33:25), and man's ability to find truth did not change (1 Thes 5:21; Isa 1:18a). The only thing left is man's heart (Jer 17:9). If it is to be led back to its Creator, it must be guided carefully toward the Truth.
The contents of this post intertwine with my early post (Nature vs. Scripture). It goes more into man's tests and interpretation of those tests- just because you have the facts does not mean the you will interpret them correctly to find the truth.
For more information check out these articles:
The Physics of Sin by Dr. Hugh Ross
As Man Actually Is by Greg Koukl
Reasons to Believe Answers A Question...
For the purposes of this post, I'm only going to give a brief, surface comparison: They both posit that the Christian God is the ultimate designer. Theistic evolution states that God guided the natural, evolutionary process. Old-earth creation states that God performed many acts of special creation.
Theistic evolution accepts the idea of common descent. While old-earth creation leans almost totally (I'll have a post on this qualifier later) on common design rather than common descent.
In my research, I have not been able to find any specific direct comparisons of the evidence of the two competing ideas in one place. So, I emailed a question to Reasons to Believe to get an answer. Here's the question I sent:
"Please discuss common ancestry vs. common design. What evidence do they hold in common, and what evidence is unique to each side?"
Both Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross tackle this question on their podcast I Didn't Know That this week. It is the first question answered on this episode(4:50 into the file), and the second question is related. You can listen to it here.
I will publish a post on this specific topic when I have some more time. Until then, I have a few basics in my post "How Did It All Begin? Part 4- Evolution? Really?".
If you have a question about science and/or the Bible, you can email Reasons to Believe at ask@reasons.org and listen for an answer on their podcasts. They also have a hotline that you can call to ask questions; it is open daily from 5:00pm-7:00pm PST.
Book Review: "The Closing of the American Mind"
The Closing of the American Mind
By Allan Bloom
The Closing of the American Mind was written back in 1989 about the state of the academy in America. Bloom has split his book into three different sections. The first covers the current youth culture from within the university. The second discusses the history of the philosophy of the academy. The third covers the history of the academy in America and pulls the other two parts together.
What's Up With Atheistic Evangelism? Part 2
In Part 1, I discussed why evangelizing the atheistic worldview is actually inconsistent with the very worldview it is promoting. I concluded it with mentioning that the challenge could be flipped back on the Christian in a heartbeat. In Part 2, I will show you how to answer that challenge and place the ball back in their court.
Let me start by reiterating the challenge by the atheist: "You claim your God is omnipresent (everywhere); He sees everything that you do; yet you sin. That must mean that you don't believe your worldview at its core either. If you don't ultimately believe your worldview, why do you expect me to?"
There are a couple ways this could be addressed. The more logical would be to make them aware that their challenge is not the subject of the conversation and they are just avoiding the real point by trying to focus on the Christian worldview.
But, most of the time, that won't work. This challenge is not a logical challenge. It is more of an emotional challenge. There is more underneath that challenge than meets the ear. Their concern is that so many Christians teach one thing, but act another. They will typically use the word "hypocrite". They believe that this is a good challenge and they believe that they have you nailed down because you pointed out an inconsistency in their worldview, and they believe they are justified in pointing out the same in your's.
Here is where they are mistaken, though. The Christian worldview does not teach that once someone accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior that they become perfect and unable to sin or make mistakes. The apostle Paul said that there were many times he would be frustrated with himself because he does things that he knows he shouldn't and doesn't do things he knows that he should as a follower of Jesus Christ (Romans 7).
When you are discussing this with the atheist, make sure that you clear up that misunderstanding about the Christian faith. When the expectation of perfection is removed, then he essentially has no argument. You will need to reassure him (her) that this is not a "cop out" or "excuse" to do bad things, but that it is an assurance that we will not be condemned to damnation by Christ because we do bad things. Also reinforce that the Bible teaches that followers of Christ to strive to follow His teachings as best as they can- but it is understood that this is impossible, and that is why we needed Christ to take the punishment for us. I would also include something along the lines that anyone who teaches that, "Because of the assurances of heaven through belief in Jesus Christ I am allowed to do whatever I want and still know that I am forgiven and will go to heaven," are in direct conflict with the teachings of Christ and the apostles.
At this time, you should ask if there are any questions that you need to answer or clarify. Once you have established that there actually is no inconsistency in the Christian worldview, you are free to challenge him to clear the inconsistency in his own worldview.
Let me start by reiterating the challenge by the atheist: "You claim your God is omnipresent (everywhere); He sees everything that you do; yet you sin. That must mean that you don't believe your worldview at its core either. If you don't ultimately believe your worldview, why do you expect me to?"
There are a couple ways this could be addressed. The more logical would be to make them aware that their challenge is not the subject of the conversation and they are just avoiding the real point by trying to focus on the Christian worldview.
But, most of the time, that won't work. This challenge is not a logical challenge. It is more of an emotional challenge. There is more underneath that challenge than meets the ear. Their concern is that so many Christians teach one thing, but act another. They will typically use the word "hypocrite". They believe that this is a good challenge and they believe that they have you nailed down because you pointed out an inconsistency in their worldview, and they believe they are justified in pointing out the same in your's.
Here is where they are mistaken, though. The Christian worldview does not teach that once someone accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior that they become perfect and unable to sin or make mistakes. The apostle Paul said that there were many times he would be frustrated with himself because he does things that he knows he shouldn't and doesn't do things he knows that he should as a follower of Jesus Christ (Romans 7).
When you are discussing this with the atheist, make sure that you clear up that misunderstanding about the Christian faith. When the expectation of perfection is removed, then he essentially has no argument. You will need to reassure him (her) that this is not a "cop out" or "excuse" to do bad things, but that it is an assurance that we will not be condemned to damnation by Christ because we do bad things. Also reinforce that the Bible teaches that followers of Christ to strive to follow His teachings as best as they can- but it is understood that this is impossible, and that is why we needed Christ to take the punishment for us. I would also include something along the lines that anyone who teaches that, "Because of the assurances of heaven through belief in Jesus Christ I am allowed to do whatever I want and still know that I am forgiven and will go to heaven," are in direct conflict with the teachings of Christ and the apostles.
At this time, you should ask if there are any questions that you need to answer or clarify. Once you have established that there actually is no inconsistency in the Christian worldview, you are free to challenge him to clear the inconsistency in his own worldview.
Book Review: "Relativism"
Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted In Mid-Air
By Gregory Koukl or Francis J. Beckwith
Relativism is a book dedicated to the opposite of moral absolutism: Moral Relativism. The authors split it into five different parts. The first two parts were written by Gregory Koukl. The first part lays the foundation of what moral relativism is exactly. Koukl describes three different types in enough detail that you know what you're getting into. The second is the critique of moral relativism. Specifically, the Koukl discusses the idea of culture defining morality, the link to "moral common sense", and several flaws in the philosophy of moral relativism.
What's Up With Atheistic Evangelism? Part 1
According to atheism life, man, and the universe have no purpose, and no meaning. "Who cares about anything!?" "Nobody should!"
Then, why do they so passionately argue with me to believe that there is no god? Why do they spend the time to convince people of this? If nothing has meaning or purpose, then what they are saying also has no meaning or purpose. Why aren't they just enjoying their short lives to the fullest without trying to "make a difference" that won't matter anyway? Are they not causing themselves needless stress, pain, and suffering by wasting their time to convince people of something that, in itself, is useless and purposeless?
This behavior is highly inconsistent with their worldview (atheism). By continuing to attempt to convince people of their position, they impugn on their position meaning. So, they must believe that some things (at least one) have meaning. But, what inherently gives their position meaning and what is that meaning?
Keep in mind that this is not an ad hominem attack on the person who holds this view. It is an attack on the core of the foundation of their worldview. I'm basically attempting to show that as soon as atheist opens his mouth and speaks about his atheism, he has proven that he doesn't believe it at the core. Because he speaks believing that his worldview (which states that nothing has meaning) is itself meaningful.
My question now becomes, "If you don't ultimately believe your worldview, why do you expect me to?" I await an answer.
This is a very powerful, yet extremely dangerous argument to use against the atheist. Because, they can turn this argument against me. "You claim your God is omnipresent (everywhere); He sees everything that you do; yet you sin. That must mean that you don't believe your worldview at its core either. If you don't ultimately believe your worldview, why do you expect me to?"
I will tackle that challenge next week.
Then, why do they so passionately argue with me to believe that there is no god? Why do they spend the time to convince people of this? If nothing has meaning or purpose, then what they are saying also has no meaning or purpose. Why aren't they just enjoying their short lives to the fullest without trying to "make a difference" that won't matter anyway? Are they not causing themselves needless stress, pain, and suffering by wasting their time to convince people of something that, in itself, is useless and purposeless?
This behavior is highly inconsistent with their worldview (atheism). By continuing to attempt to convince people of their position, they impugn on their position meaning. So, they must believe that some things (at least one) have meaning. But, what inherently gives their position meaning and what is that meaning?
Keep in mind that this is not an ad hominem attack on the person who holds this view. It is an attack on the core of the foundation of their worldview. I'm basically attempting to show that as soon as atheist opens his mouth and speaks about his atheism, he has proven that he doesn't believe it at the core. Because he speaks believing that his worldview (which states that nothing has meaning) is itself meaningful.
My question now becomes, "If you don't ultimately believe your worldview, why do you expect me to?" I await an answer.
This is a very powerful, yet extremely dangerous argument to use against the atheist. Because, they can turn this argument against me. "You claim your God is omnipresent (everywhere); He sees everything that you do; yet you sin. That must mean that you don't believe your worldview at its core either. If you don't ultimately believe your worldview, why do you expect me to?"
I will tackle that challenge next week.
The "Eastern vs. Western Thinking" C(t)rap
With Western thinking, opposite propositions are "either, or" (the lights are either on or they are off). With Eastern thinking, opposite propositions are "both, and" (the lights are both on and off).
Some people will argue that you can only use one of them. However, that insistence is depended on Western thinking- "You must choose to use either Western thinking or Eastern thinking." If you answer and say, "Western thinking", you make sense. But if you answer and say, "Eastern thinking", you are either denying Western thinking (used to make the determination) or you are accepting Eastern thinking, which accepts all paradoxes including both Eastern and Western thinking. But, the problem here is "how do you determine which way of thinking to use in reference to what?" Not only that, "which way of thinking do you use to arrive at your conclusion of which way of thinking to use in your original situation?"
In order to accept Eastern thinking you must deny that it is superior to any other way of thinking. Since that must be accepted, you must show how you know (why, not that) it is the correct way of thinking to be applied in the situation that you wish to use it in.
Keep in mind that there are many situations when using "both/and" is perfectly logical. But the trick is to look at the details of the claims. Specifically the context. If I were to say, "I am moving and not moving," I would be correct if I specify what I am talking about in each situation. In the first "I am moving" I'm talking about my hands typing this text. In the second "I am not moving" I'm talking about my body setting in my chair. Notice that my two statements "I am moving" and "I am not moving" aren't really related to each other at all.
When someone tries to use the Eastern way of thinking "both/and", press them for the details of the two things they are saying exist at the same time. You will discover that either the two are not actually opposites or they have little to nothing to do with each other.
Ravi Zacharias puts it this way, "Even in India we operate on the Western way of thinking. When we go to cross the street, it is either the bus or us!" If the Eastern way of thinking were used, "the bus AND we cross the street at the same time..." ....uh, yeah.
Eastern thinkers like to say that reality is full of paradoxes. They make a claim similar to the one I made above about my moving and not moving, and they say it is a paradox. (For definition, a paradox is a situation in which two opposites appear to be true at the same time, in the same context.) Eastern thinkers (Buddhism, Hindu, New Age, etc...) utilize this type of argument to show evidence that ultimately reality and everything in reality (including contradictions and opposites) are all true in the same context. When someone believes that this has been demonstrated, then they are free to believe any slew of ideas, even if they directly contradict each other. This removes the need for consistency between beliefs and between belief and practice.
The problem is that just because something appears to be a paradox (my example) does not mean that it is a paradox. In fact, I would go as far as to claim that there is no such thing as a true paradox. The only reason a situation can be called a paradox is because the information is limited. When one probes for more information the paradox can be resolved, and it can no longer be called a paradox.
Unfortunately, as humans our ability to gain knowledge is limited, so some paradoxes will stand. This is not to be taken as evidence of reality being a paradox (as the Eastern thinkers would have you believe), but of our limited knowledge. The limit of knowledge I am specifically referring to is our knowledge of things outside our three dimensions of space and one dimension of time.
The Christian worldview accepts the existence of something beyond the natural realm. So do the Eastern thinkers. The difference between the two is that Christianity aims to resolve the paradoxes, while the Eastern religions aim to create more paradoxes, without ever resolving any of them.
Unfortunately, with all worldviews, paradoxes do show up. Two paradoxes that currently stand in the Christian worldview are the doctrine of the Trinity and the belief that God is closer to us than even we are. In two later posts I will tackle these paradoxes, and show why they are paradoxes to us, but can be resolved with knowledge of things outside our existence.
Ravi Zacharias discusses this on the second episode of Just Thinking here (Part 1 is provided for context):
Understanding the Spirit of the Age- Part 1
Understanding the Spirit of the Age- Part 2
For more on this topic, see these podcasts:
Just Thinking
Let My People Think
Stand to Reason
Book Review: "The Universe in a Single Atom"
The Universe in a Single Atom
By The Dalai Lama
I read The Universe in a Single Atom by recommendation of a friend. Considering the fact that I'm a big fan of science, he thought that I might be a good start for me to see how science and Buddhism follow each other. I am extremely interested in finding what scientific evidence follows the different religions of the world and how the different religous adherents respond to scientific conflicts, so I was quite excited to read this book.
Did God Create Evil?
God created all things.
Evil is a thing.
Therefore, God created evil.
Love is not evil.
An all-loving God would not create evil.
Therefore, God is not all-loving (he's evil).
That is quite devastating to Christianity, isn't it? The argument is logically valid. If you agree that the premises are true, then you can't escape the conclusions.
I have heard a few people use this argument to disprove the existence of the all-loving God of Christianity. It seems that this argument is quite solid. Logically, it is sound. But, there is one flaw, not in the logic, but the truth of one of the premises. What's really neat about arguments is that if you can show one premise to be false, all conclusions that follow it (are dependent on it) may be tossed out. Any conclusions above it (not dependent on it) are safe, though.
What's great is that the problem premise in this argument is the second premise. "Evil is a thing". So, we don't have to accept either of the conclusions. Since I want to claim that "evil is a thing" is false and that "evil is not a thing", I need to make an argument. So here it goes:
I want to start by defining what the opposite of "evil" is. Good. "Good" is not a thing either. It is a description of God's nature. God has a moral nature that is good. God is not subject to "good" (otherwise "good" would be greater than God, making it God) and God does not determine "good" (if he did, then "good" would be arbitrarily determined- God could have made rape good). Instead "good" is a description of God's moral nature. God knows what His moral nature is, so He can tell us what is "good" and what is "evil". This is called the moral law.
Based on this, an absence of "good" would make something "evil". I want to clarify this, though. Just because something is "not good" does not mean that it is "evil". For instance, take the colors black and white. They are opposites. If presented with the color gray, it would be perfectly acceptable to say that it is not white, but it would not be acceptable to say that it is black. Many things are morally neutral. Such as your choice of ice cream. A choice or action does not cross over into the "evil" category unless it is "actively working or standing against" God's moral law or nature.
God created humans "in His image" (the imago dei) . One of the properties of God's image is the recognition of what is "good" and "evil". However, when sin entered into the world, that ability was clouded. I'll go more into this in a future post on the depravity of man.
Humans can discern "good" from "evil" on their own (Romans 2:14-15). Many secularists can make an argument for how (not why) they determine "good" from "evil"- they observe human behavior and nature. But that can only go so far, mainly because human culture changes and what is perceived as "bad" will one day change to "good". Some areas that seem gray may actually be black or white. Since our discernment has been clouded by our sin, we need to refer to God's revelation (the Bible) to help us determine more concretely what is "good" and what is "evil".
Once we recognize that God's standard of good cannot be met; and no matter how hard we try, our good deeds will not restore our relationship with Him, we recognize the need for a Savior. Once we recognize our need and humble ourselves to the point of accepting Jesus as our Savior, then we allow Him to reveal to us even more about His nature and what "good" is.
For more information, I recommend these:
Podcasts
Just Thinking
Defenders
Reasonable Faith
Straight Thinking
Apologetics.com Radio Show
Stand to Reason
Books
Without a Doubt by Kenneth Samples
Beyond the Cosmos by Hugh Ross
Evil is a thing.
Therefore, God created evil.
Love is not evil.
An all-loving God would not create evil.
Therefore, God is not all-loving (he's evil).
That is quite devastating to Christianity, isn't it? The argument is logically valid. If you agree that the premises are true, then you can't escape the conclusions.
I have heard a few people use this argument to disprove the existence of the all-loving God of Christianity. It seems that this argument is quite solid. Logically, it is sound. But, there is one flaw, not in the logic, but the truth of one of the premises. What's really neat about arguments is that if you can show one premise to be false, all conclusions that follow it (are dependent on it) may be tossed out. Any conclusions above it (not dependent on it) are safe, though.
What's great is that the problem premise in this argument is the second premise. "Evil is a thing". So, we don't have to accept either of the conclusions. Since I want to claim that "evil is a thing" is false and that "evil is not a thing", I need to make an argument. So here it goes:
I want to start by defining what the opposite of "evil" is. Good. "Good" is not a thing either. It is a description of God's nature. God has a moral nature that is good. God is not subject to "good" (otherwise "good" would be greater than God, making it God) and God does not determine "good" (if he did, then "good" would be arbitrarily determined- God could have made rape good). Instead "good" is a description of God's moral nature. God knows what His moral nature is, so He can tell us what is "good" and what is "evil". This is called the moral law.
Based on this, an absence of "good" would make something "evil". I want to clarify this, though. Just because something is "not good" does not mean that it is "evil". For instance, take the colors black and white. They are opposites. If presented with the color gray, it would be perfectly acceptable to say that it is not white, but it would not be acceptable to say that it is black. Many things are morally neutral. Such as your choice of ice cream. A choice or action does not cross over into the "evil" category unless it is "actively working or standing against" God's moral law or nature.
God created humans "in His image" (the imago dei) . One of the properties of God's image is the recognition of what is "good" and "evil". However, when sin entered into the world, that ability was clouded. I'll go more into this in a future post on the depravity of man.
Humans can discern "good" from "evil" on their own (Romans 2:14-15). Many secularists can make an argument for how (not why) they determine "good" from "evil"- they observe human behavior and nature. But that can only go so far, mainly because human culture changes and what is perceived as "bad" will one day change to "good". Some areas that seem gray may actually be black or white. Since our discernment has been clouded by our sin, we need to refer to God's revelation (the Bible) to help us determine more concretely what is "good" and what is "evil".
Once we recognize that God's standard of good cannot be met; and no matter how hard we try, our good deeds will not restore our relationship with Him, we recognize the need for a Savior. Once we recognize our need and humble ourselves to the point of accepting Jesus as our Savior, then we allow Him to reveal to us even more about His nature and what "good" is.
For more information, I recommend these:
Podcasts
Just Thinking
Defenders
Reasonable Faith
Straight Thinking
Apologetics.com Radio Show
Stand to Reason
Books
Without a Doubt by Kenneth Samples
Beyond the Cosmos by Hugh Ross
If God Hears Me, Why Does He Not Care?
This is a challenge that I have heard put against practicing prayer many times. It is also used to imply that God either cannot hear our prayers, or does not care about us (thus He is not all-loving).
Simply put, this claim is the result of the person claiming it "forming God in man's image". The person has a specific idea of what God is supposed to be. Many sources exist to arrive at this conclusion. Someone might have told him to believe that if he prays for healing...POOF! He's healed! A church may have taught him that God wants his people to have the very best (referring to material possessions, of course). "God, please let me win the lottery." Have you ever seen the movie Bruce Almighty? :) Watch it and you'll know what I'm talking about.
The thing about God is that He made us in His image, not the other way around. Man is impatient, greedy, and selfish. Many times, God answers your prayer, not how you think it should be answered, but how He knows it should be answered, and when. For instance, I have a friend that has been wheelchair bound for several decades. This person asked for healing from God, and she believed with all that her heart that God would do it. Years passed, but she was not healed. Later, she realized that God had other plans for her life. She has been a tremendous witness for Christ. Specifically she has the ability to testify that God will never leave nor forsake us when we are going through suffering. She can testify that God makes drastic changes in our lives to drastically change us, for the better.
Let's think about this for a minute. If God was to give us the $200 million lottery ticket like we prayed for. Would that make us feel more dependent on Him or less dependent on Him? Many times God gives us a resounding "NO!" to teach us to be more like Him and depend more on Him.
God also has perfect timing for everything. You might be in a painful situation that you have not been delivered from. God could be biding his time, waiting on you to acknowledge and change something that you haven't yet, and may not have even considered if the pain was not there. God may also be leading you down a different path in life.
Either way, while we are suffering, we can know that God is there, and we should use the situation to the best of our abilities to discover new (possibly temporary, possibly permanent) ways to serve God.
Remember that your prayers are never unheard, and they are never unanswered. God just might be doing something that you don't expect. As we strive to be more like Christ and draw nearer to Him, we will be able to see more clearly what He has planned for our lives. As this happens, we will be able to be a witness to others in the same situation.
I have posted more on the topic of suffering in my posts "Suffering Sucks...or Does It?" and "Natural Evil".
Simply put, this claim is the result of the person claiming it "forming God in man's image". The person has a specific idea of what God is supposed to be. Many sources exist to arrive at this conclusion. Someone might have told him to believe that if he prays for healing...POOF! He's healed! A church may have taught him that God wants his people to have the very best (referring to material possessions, of course). "God, please let me win the lottery." Have you ever seen the movie Bruce Almighty? :) Watch it and you'll know what I'm talking about.
The thing about God is that He made us in His image, not the other way around. Man is impatient, greedy, and selfish. Many times, God answers your prayer, not how you think it should be answered, but how He knows it should be answered, and when. For instance, I have a friend that has been wheelchair bound for several decades. This person asked for healing from God, and she believed with all that her heart that God would do it. Years passed, but she was not healed. Later, she realized that God had other plans for her life. She has been a tremendous witness for Christ. Specifically she has the ability to testify that God will never leave nor forsake us when we are going through suffering. She can testify that God makes drastic changes in our lives to drastically change us, for the better.
Let's think about this for a minute. If God was to give us the $200 million lottery ticket like we prayed for. Would that make us feel more dependent on Him or less dependent on Him? Many times God gives us a resounding "NO!" to teach us to be more like Him and depend more on Him.
God also has perfect timing for everything. You might be in a painful situation that you have not been delivered from. God could be biding his time, waiting on you to acknowledge and change something that you haven't yet, and may not have even considered if the pain was not there. God may also be leading you down a different path in life.
Either way, while we are suffering, we can know that God is there, and we should use the situation to the best of our abilities to discover new (possibly temporary, possibly permanent) ways to serve God.
Remember that your prayers are never unheard, and they are never unanswered. God just might be doing something that you don't expect. As we strive to be more like Christ and draw nearer to Him, we will be able to see more clearly what He has planned for our lives. As this happens, we will be able to be a witness to others in the same situation.
I have posted more on the topic of suffering in my posts "Suffering Sucks...or Does It?" and "Natural Evil".
Book Review: "Tactics"
Tactics: A Game Plan For Discussing Your Christian Faith
By Gregory Koukl
Greg Koukl has written a fantastic book for conversational apologetics. Koukl starts out this book by explaining that the intent of this book is not to be manipulative or make the other person look like a fool in conversation. He explains the importance of a coherent worldview and the importance of being able to identify incoherence. He provides a defense of the reasons for being able to provide a defense for the Christian faith. All of which are very important to anyone who wishes to engage someone in conversation about their faith. Koukl then starts the reader on his list of ways to progress through conversation. Before Koukl describes a tactic, how to use it, and how not to use it; he explains why each tactic is important.
What's Important About Consistency?
One of the "worldview tests" that Kenneth Samples discusses in his book on worldviews, "A World of Difference", is a test for internal consistency. Any worldview that claims to accurately reflect reality (be true) must maintain consistency among its beliefs. Truth cannot conflict with truth. So, if a worldview were to say that 2+2=4 and that 3x2=5, it would have a serious problem. The fact that the second claim is false has no bearing on the truth of the first claim, it only has bearing on the truth of the worldview as a whole. Any worldview that contains two contrary beliefs that cannot be resolved within the framework of the worldview without creating more contrary beliefs must be discarded.
Atheism and Morality
Its been quite interesting to see how many atheists there are who believe that objective morality exists. Actually, I would say that the majority believe in objective morality. However, objective morality is inconsistent with the atheist worldview; they don't have a foundation for acting in a "moral" way versus an "immoral" way. I'm not saying that atheists can't be moral; they can. I'm just saying that they can't justify it. Here's why.
Morality implies "oughtness". How something ought to behave. That implies that you understand that that thing (that ought to behave in a certain way) was designed to behave in the expected way. Example: A watch ought to keep time. It is designed to keep time; therefore, it ought to. If it were not designed to do anything, it ought (is expected) to do nothing.
Atheism posits that humans and the universe have no design or purpose, period. Therefore, it must be concluded that atheism has no room for moral (among other types of) "oughtness".
Does "oughtness" flow logically from "design" or "expectation"? The atheist might be able to get away from the conclusion above by claiming "oughtness" just implies an expectation. But I would have to question what they base their "expectation" on. If they want to base it on history (rather than design) then, they must determine which parts of history they want to base the expectation on, and I would ask them why they choose those certain parts of history and not others.
Now, some atheists have tried to explain the foundation for their belief in objective morality by pointing to examples in the world. They argue along the lines of "look at society; obviously, murder is wrong" or "obviously, stealing is wrong". They use examples to prove "why". The problem is examples don't prove "why" something is true; they only prove "that" something is true. Atheists still need to provide a reason "why" they ought to act a certain way.
Once again, I'm not saying that atheists can't be moral. I'm saying there is no objective foundation for determining why a certain behavior is moral or immoral in their worldview.
Not only does Christianity explain "why" objective morality exists (it is the very nature of God), but it explains "how" an atheist can be moral, yet believe something completely opposite.
Here's a good article on the subject from Dr. William Lane Craig:
Can We Be Good Without God?
Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air by Greg Koukl is a good book about atheism and morality.
Here's a video from Greg Koukl. He is asked if pain and suffering disprove God's existence.
Morality implies "oughtness". How something ought to behave. That implies that you understand that that thing (that ought to behave in a certain way) was designed to behave in the expected way. Example: A watch ought to keep time. It is designed to keep time; therefore, it ought to. If it were not designed to do anything, it ought (is expected) to do nothing.
Atheism posits that humans and the universe have no design or purpose, period. Therefore, it must be concluded that atheism has no room for moral (among other types of) "oughtness".
Does "oughtness" flow logically from "design" or "expectation"? The atheist might be able to get away from the conclusion above by claiming "oughtness" just implies an expectation. But I would have to question what they base their "expectation" on. If they want to base it on history (rather than design) then, they must determine which parts of history they want to base the expectation on, and I would ask them why they choose those certain parts of history and not others.
Now, some atheists have tried to explain the foundation for their belief in objective morality by pointing to examples in the world. They argue along the lines of "look at society; obviously, murder is wrong" or "obviously, stealing is wrong". They use examples to prove "why". The problem is examples don't prove "why" something is true; they only prove "that" something is true. Atheists still need to provide a reason "why" they ought to act a certain way.
Once again, I'm not saying that atheists can't be moral. I'm saying there is no objective foundation for determining why a certain behavior is moral or immoral in their worldview.
Not only does Christianity explain "why" objective morality exists (it is the very nature of God), but it explains "how" an atheist can be moral, yet believe something completely opposite.
Here's a good article on the subject from Dr. William Lane Craig:
Can We Be Good Without God?
Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air by Greg Koukl is a good book about atheism and morality.
Here's a video from Greg Koukl. He is asked if pain and suffering disprove God's existence.
Natural Evil
With all the inclimate weather Oklahoma has been having lately (tornadoes in Feb), I've been thinking about natural evil in the world. This will probably touch a bit on a couple things that I already covered in "Suffering Sucks...or Does it?". If you haven't already, check that post out before you continue with this one.
Many people have asked why an omnibenevolent (all-loving) God would allow such disasters to happen. These people tend to associate anything that causes pain with being evil. In my post about suffering I addressed why this argument does not logically follow. But on this post I would like to provide a short defense of why God would allow such things to happen at all (whether they affect people or not), and why this is actually the opposite case- these are, in fact, the works expected of an omnibenevolent God.
This argument is pretty much weighted on the impression of extreme design of our planet specifically for the existence of intelligent life.
One of the necessary factors required for a planet to support advanced life forms is "plate tectonics". In short, plate tectonics is the movement of a planet's rocky material. The way most planets form is that they start out as complete "water-worlds". Basically, they are nothing but a ball of water with a rocky center. Movement of the planet's crust allows the rocky material to come to the surface and produce landmasses.
Unfortunately, another effect of plate tectonics is that is that it interacts with the atmosphere (another just-right component) and produces natural disasters such as tornadoes and hurricanes. Plate tectonics, by itself, can also produce earthquakes and tsunamis.
All of these disasters are side effects of have a planet that can sustain our living here. We are stuck with them, if we want to live.
Some prominent Christians have said that recent natural disasters are "divine judgment" on humanity. They base this claim on the fact that God did use some natural disasters in the Bible as judgment. However, it does not follow that God used these natural disasters for this purpose.
If you take a look at the damage from natural disasters in the past, they did much more damage (in monetary terms) in the early 1900's than they do now. This is because humanity has been able to develop technologies that can keep them safe(r). Some have said that today, these same "natural evils" may be considered "moral evils" because of the fact that the more advanced nations have not implemented the same technologies in the poorer nations of the earth, and thus the loss of life may be indirectly the responsibility of the more advanced nations. So, an argument could be made for this. I don't know that I quite agree with that, but I digress.
My point in all this is that God created the universe with fixed laws of physics that have certain requirements in order to support life. God created our planet specifically so that the human race could not only live, but thrive. This is what is to be expected of an omnibenevolent God. Here's a quick video from Greg Koukl from Stand to Reason:
But this brings up another question: "Why did God not choose laws of physics that would allow for us to thrive without all the natural evils?" Here is an episode of the podcast "Why The Universe Is The Way It Is" in which Dr. Hugh Ross answers that question.
If you would like to do more research into this check out these great resources:
Web Pages
Natural Disasters- Reasons to Believe
Design Found In Earthquake Activity- Reasons to Believe
What If There Were No Hurricanes- Reasons to Believe
Problem of Evil- Reasonable Faith
Ravi Zacharias International Ministries
Books
Creator and the Cosmos by Dr. Hugh Ross
Why The Universe Is The Way It Is by Dr. Hugh Ross
A World Of Difference by Kenneth Samples
Without A Doubt- by Kenneth Samples
Podcasts
Why The Universe Is The Way It Is
I Didn't Know That
Straight Thinking
Reasonable Faith
Just Thinking
Many people have asked why an omnibenevolent (all-loving) God would allow such disasters to happen. These people tend to associate anything that causes pain with being evil. In my post about suffering I addressed why this argument does not logically follow. But on this post I would like to provide a short defense of why God would allow such things to happen at all (whether they affect people or not), and why this is actually the opposite case- these are, in fact, the works expected of an omnibenevolent God.
This argument is pretty much weighted on the impression of extreme design of our planet specifically for the existence of intelligent life.
One of the necessary factors required for a planet to support advanced life forms is "plate tectonics". In short, plate tectonics is the movement of a planet's rocky material. The way most planets form is that they start out as complete "water-worlds". Basically, they are nothing but a ball of water with a rocky center. Movement of the planet's crust allows the rocky material to come to the surface and produce landmasses.
Unfortunately, another effect of plate tectonics is that is that it interacts with the atmosphere (another just-right component) and produces natural disasters such as tornadoes and hurricanes. Plate tectonics, by itself, can also produce earthquakes and tsunamis.
All of these disasters are side effects of have a planet that can sustain our living here. We are stuck with them, if we want to live.
Some prominent Christians have said that recent natural disasters are "divine judgment" on humanity. They base this claim on the fact that God did use some natural disasters in the Bible as judgment. However, it does not follow that God used these natural disasters for this purpose.
If you take a look at the damage from natural disasters in the past, they did much more damage (in monetary terms) in the early 1900's than they do now. This is because humanity has been able to develop technologies that can keep them safe(r). Some have said that today, these same "natural evils" may be considered "moral evils" because of the fact that the more advanced nations have not implemented the same technologies in the poorer nations of the earth, and thus the loss of life may be indirectly the responsibility of the more advanced nations. So, an argument could be made for this. I don't know that I quite agree with that, but I digress.
My point in all this is that God created the universe with fixed laws of physics that have certain requirements in order to support life. God created our planet specifically so that the human race could not only live, but thrive. This is what is to be expected of an omnibenevolent God. Here's a quick video from Greg Koukl from Stand to Reason:
But this brings up another question: "Why did God not choose laws of physics that would allow for us to thrive without all the natural evils?" Here is an episode of the podcast "Why The Universe Is The Way It Is" in which Dr. Hugh Ross answers that question.
If you would like to do more research into this check out these great resources:
Web Pages
Natural Disasters- Reasons to Believe
Design Found In Earthquake Activity- Reasons to Believe
What If There Were No Hurricanes- Reasons to Believe
Problem of Evil- Reasonable Faith
Ravi Zacharias International Ministries
Books
Creator and the Cosmos by Dr. Hugh Ross
Why The Universe Is The Way It Is by Dr. Hugh Ross
A World Of Difference by Kenneth Samples
Without A Doubt- by Kenneth Samples
Podcasts
Why The Universe Is The Way It Is
I Didn't Know That
Straight Thinking
Reasonable Faith
Just Thinking
Who Created God?
I like this question. Its one that is a "show stopper" for many debates, and the level of knowledge of the debaters will determine on who's side it stops. Let's look at it.
As mentioned in my post "How It All Began- Part 2", people who hold a naturalistic worldview believe that life on earth was planted here by a superior race of aliens. These people are often challenged by pointing out that they have not eliminated the need for God; they've only moved His need back one step. "Who created the aliens?" If they hold to a naturalistic worldview, they are stuck- unless they want to posit another race of aliens created the aliens who planted life on earth. Of course, they could keep going infinitely back in time, and they would never actually explain an ultimate beginning of any life.
Many Naturalists know this, so they throw the question back to us. "Who Created God?" They believe that we are in the same predicament that they are. They anticipate our response of "God is eternal" and are prepared to laugh us down by rhetorically asking, "how can you posit attributes of something that you haven't proven even exists?"
However, the table can be turned on the Naturalist by the Theist who is armed properly. Since Naturalists don't regard the Bible as a reliable source, I won't appeal to it, and neither should the Christian in this position (if he does, the Naturalist will target the Bible as a reliable source rather than the issue- not that they would provide any good evidence, they would just laugh it away, along with the audience). I will appeal to the Bible as a source for the Christian's benefit later in the post, though.
According to the general theory of relativity space, matter, energy, and time came into existence at a single point in the finite past (The Big Bang). The key here is that time itself has a beginning. Keep in mind that "create" is a verb that requires time (creator...some time passes...creation). If time did not exist before the Big Bang, then whatever is out "there" is "time-less". Whatever is out "there" is also "beginning-less" and "end-less". If something has no beginning, it has no need for a beginner (creator).
The cause of the universe caused time, therefore is outside of time, therefore has no beginning, therefore has no beginner. The Christian faith teaches that God is the Cause of the universe; therefore God is outside of time; therefore God has no beginning; therefore God has no beginner.
Not only does the Bible teach that God created the universe, it also teaches that God existed before time existed.
John 1:1-3, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." If creation includes time, then God existed before time.
John 17:24, "Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world." God was active before time.
I Corinthians 2:7, "No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began." God was active before time.
That list of verses is certainly not comprehensive, but provides a good start for the Christian looking or the non-Christian checking that the Bible actual does teach this.
Here's a quick video from Randall Niles:
For more information:
Websites
Reasonablefaith.org
Podcasts
Defenders
Books
Beyond the Cosmos- Hugh Ross
As mentioned in my post "How It All Began- Part 2", people who hold a naturalistic worldview believe that life on earth was planted here by a superior race of aliens. These people are often challenged by pointing out that they have not eliminated the need for God; they've only moved His need back one step. "Who created the aliens?" If they hold to a naturalistic worldview, they are stuck- unless they want to posit another race of aliens created the aliens who planted life on earth. Of course, they could keep going infinitely back in time, and they would never actually explain an ultimate beginning of any life.
Many Naturalists know this, so they throw the question back to us. "Who Created God?" They believe that we are in the same predicament that they are. They anticipate our response of "God is eternal" and are prepared to laugh us down by rhetorically asking, "how can you posit attributes of something that you haven't proven even exists?"
However, the table can be turned on the Naturalist by the Theist who is armed properly. Since Naturalists don't regard the Bible as a reliable source, I won't appeal to it, and neither should the Christian in this position (if he does, the Naturalist will target the Bible as a reliable source rather than the issue- not that they would provide any good evidence, they would just laugh it away, along with the audience). I will appeal to the Bible as a source for the Christian's benefit later in the post, though.
According to the general theory of relativity space, matter, energy, and time came into existence at a single point in the finite past (The Big Bang). The key here is that time itself has a beginning. Keep in mind that "create" is a verb that requires time (creator...some time passes...creation). If time did not exist before the Big Bang, then whatever is out "there" is "time-less". Whatever is out "there" is also "beginning-less" and "end-less". If something has no beginning, it has no need for a beginner (creator).
The cause of the universe caused time, therefore is outside of time, therefore has no beginning, therefore has no beginner. The Christian faith teaches that God is the Cause of the universe; therefore God is outside of time; therefore God has no beginning; therefore God has no beginner.
Not only does the Bible teach that God created the universe, it also teaches that God existed before time existed.
John 1:1-3, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." If creation includes time, then God existed before time.
John 17:24, "Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world." God was active before time.
I Corinthians 2:7, "No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began." God was active before time.
That list of verses is certainly not comprehensive, but provides a good start for the Christian looking or the non-Christian checking that the Bible actual does teach this.
Here's a quick video from Randall Niles:
For more information:
Websites
Reasonablefaith.org
Podcasts
Defenders
Books
Beyond the Cosmos- Hugh Ross
Comments Now Open!
***Comment Policy Updated for 2021 and beyond***
Before posting a comment, please read my review of the book "Before You Hit SEND: Preventing Headache and Heartache" by Emerson Eggerichs. I highly recommend reading the full book as it is an excellent guide to gentle and respectful communication online.
Additionally, here are a few explicit rules:
1. No trolling
2. No ad hominem attacks
3. No bad language, please- some people do take offense to certain words, you know which ones not to use- use a thesaurus if you have to.
4. You are to treat everyone with gentleness and respect.
1. No trolling
2. No ad hominem attacks
3. No bad language, please- some people do take offense to certain words, you know which ones not to use- use a thesaurus if you have to.
4. You are to treat everyone with gentleness and respect.
5. Speak to and about everyone with grace. There are no exceptions.
6. Don't be too sensitive (not every challenge is disrespectful)
7. Keep the comments focused on the topic in the original post
6. Don't be too sensitive (not every challenge is disrespectful)
7. Keep the comments focused on the topic in the original post
8. No "shot gun" approach to challenging, either in a single comment or multiple comments. Pick one or two things to address and be patient so the dialog may be graceful and productive
9. Show other arguments the respect you wish yours to be shown
10. Anonymity is a privilege of the internet. Do not use it to abuse others or hide from criticism
9. Show other arguments the respect you wish yours to be shown
10. Anonymity is a privilege of the internet. Do not use it to abuse others or hide from criticism
I do moderate comments, and I will approve comments that are within the spirit of the rules. Please note that I do not have time to respond to everyone's comment and there may be a delay in my approval of comments.
This Argument Is Full of Crap!
This is something that is so easy to do when in a discussion with someone. You know, your conversation is heading one direction, then one of you say something that causes it to take a hard left. In normal conversation, this is not a problem; in fact, it makes conversations lively and lengthy. However, in a conversation that involves one or both of the parties defending a position, there are a few things to look out for from your "opponent" and yourself.
They are called logical fallacies. It is advantageous to be able to recognize when your opponent is using one. It is also to your own benefit to ensure you don't use them either. In other words, be able and willing to call "Bull Crap!" on yourself and your opponent.
I'm going to quickly discuss four of the most common pitfalls.
The Genetic Fallacy
The genetic fallacy is committed anytime the truth of a claim is based on its origin. A common example is believing something is true (such as your religion) because your parents said it is true. Though it may be true, just because your parents say that it is, does not make it so.
This fallacy is commonly committed in a debate when an opponent (confronted with solid evidence) says something along the lines of, "You just believe that because that's how you were brought up," or "people believed that hundreds of years ago." From either of these, they try to make the conclusion that what you are defending can't possibly be true. But that does not follow.
If this fallacy were to be committed by your opponent, you can neutralize the attack by applying the exact same reasoning to something that both of you would agree is ridiculous. By way of the examples above, good responses might sound something like these, "I was brought up to believe the earth is a sphere. Should I not believe that either?" and "Hundreds of years ago people believed the sun was the center of the solar system. Am I wrong to believe that also?" Then explain why their attack is useless.
The ad hominem Attack
This is a fallacious attack on the person presenting the argument. Most of the time this takes place in the shape of an attack on the character or the credibility of the person presenting the argument.
Character and credibility have nothing to do with whether or not a conclusion is correct. We would all agree that Hitler is probably one of the persons with the worst character in history; however, if he told us that adultery is wrong, we would be committing an ad hominem attack if we pointed out that he killed over 6 million people, then concluded that we couldn't trust him on moral issues. We know that adultery is wrong, but we could not defend our position based on the character of the person making the argument (Hitler). The reason for this is because someone else whom we may consider to be of a much higher character than Hitler may make the exact same argument, and our counter-argument that we used against Hitler would not work against the new opponent.
The key to preventing yourself from using this kind of attack is to ask yourself if your argument (or counter-argument) could be used no matter who you were arguing against.
If this type of attack were to be made by your opponent, you may want to question its validity by asking them to defend their claim (that your character somehow makes your argument invalid). If they are placed back on the defensive, they are placed into the uncomfortable position of defending a personal attack. They may also accuse you of trying to divert the subject by asking them to defend this position, but you may reply by pointing out that an attack on your character was the diversion first attempted by them- you are just going with the flow.
Check out the Wikipedia article about ad hominem attacks.
The Straw Man Fallacy
The Straw Man fallacy is a favorite among all people. What's tricky about this one is that it can be committed knowingly or unknowingly.
The Straw Man fallacy basically involves misrepresenting the opposing argument in such a way that it is easily destroyed by your counter-arguments. A lot of times, someone setting up a "straw man" will "forget" an important piece of or over-simplify the opposing argument.
The people who commit this fallacy unknowingly typically just haven't done their homework in respect to the position they are arguing against. If someone ever says "You are misrepresenting the facts of my position", you have committed this fallacy unknowingly; you need to admit it, and promise to do more research to adjust your argument to be fighting the "real issue" not a fake issue that is in your head.
The people who commit this fallacy knowingly typically do it without the opposition to correct them. This allows the people attending to "see" why the arguments of the opposition are useless. But, when one of the attendees confront someone of the opposing position, they will be made to be a fool, because of the original presenter's "straw man" representation of the opposing argument.
This fallacy is so easy to fall into. This is why we need to make certain that we understand the opposition's position and the arguments they use to reach their conclusions. Don't spend time fighting against something that is not the actual issue (just a bad representation of it) (the "straw man"). It is best to find the strongest arguments for the opposition and argue against those. If you can successfully argue against your opponent's strongest evidences, you will do considerable damage to their position.
Common Belief Fallacy
I have seen way too many people claim that because "many" people believe something, that makes it true or at least viable. However, this does a great disservice to the definition of "truth". If a "common belief" were to hold any amount of weight for determining "truth", then "truth" would be reduced to being relative to how whims of the people. Absolute "truth" would then never be able to be known, thus destroying any reason for even arguing about the truth of anything, because it might change in the next couple years.
I would also like to know if "many" is a reference to number or percentage. If number, the relative to what other number to define it as "many"? What is the significance of using the word "many" anyway? Why not "some" or "a few" or "tons" or no quantitative (referring to number of) adjective at all? The only conclusion that can be arrived at by a claim of this sort (regardless of the adjective) is that it is in the minds of people, thus needs attention. But nothing more.
Note to All about Fallacies
By committing any of these fallacies, we commit academic dishonesty in our arguments and lose credibility among our peers, the public, and those we wish to debate.
Note to Christians about Fallacies
As a Christian, this is extremely important because the limit of our credibility will be the limit to which people will listen to our message. Also, some people will project our limited credibility onto others who hold our same position (whether or not the others have made the same mistake we did of committing these fallacies). As Christians we should understand the eternal damage we could be causing by even flirting with one of these fallacies.
Now, I'm not trying to say that I never have or never will commit one (read as "all") of these fallacies. I will make mistakes, but when I do, I back-peddle as quickly as I possibly can to maintain my (and my peers') credibility.
Here's a good blog post about intellectual honesty and the Bible:
Integrating Argument and Virtue
For more information about these fallacies and others, Norman Geisler has a great book Come, Let Us Reason.
Here are a couple episodes of Straight Thinking by Kenneth Samples in which he discusses logic and touches a bit on these fallacies.
Need for Dispassionate Analysis
Avoiding the Straw Man
Avoiding the ad-Hominem Attack
They are called logical fallacies. It is advantageous to be able to recognize when your opponent is using one. It is also to your own benefit to ensure you don't use them either. In other words, be able and willing to call "Bull Crap!" on yourself and your opponent.
I'm going to quickly discuss four of the most common pitfalls.
The Genetic Fallacy
The genetic fallacy is committed anytime the truth of a claim is based on its origin. A common example is believing something is true (such as your religion) because your parents said it is true. Though it may be true, just because your parents say that it is, does not make it so.
This fallacy is commonly committed in a debate when an opponent (confronted with solid evidence) says something along the lines of, "You just believe that because that's how you were brought up," or "people believed that hundreds of years ago." From either of these, they try to make the conclusion that what you are defending can't possibly be true. But that does not follow.
If this fallacy were to be committed by your opponent, you can neutralize the attack by applying the exact same reasoning to something that both of you would agree is ridiculous. By way of the examples above, good responses might sound something like these, "I was brought up to believe the earth is a sphere. Should I not believe that either?" and "Hundreds of years ago people believed the sun was the center of the solar system. Am I wrong to believe that also?" Then explain why their attack is useless.
The ad hominem Attack
This is a fallacious attack on the person presenting the argument. Most of the time this takes place in the shape of an attack on the character or the credibility of the person presenting the argument.
Character and credibility have nothing to do with whether or not a conclusion is correct. We would all agree that Hitler is probably one of the persons with the worst character in history; however, if he told us that adultery is wrong, we would be committing an ad hominem attack if we pointed out that he killed over 6 million people, then concluded that we couldn't trust him on moral issues. We know that adultery is wrong, but we could not defend our position based on the character of the person making the argument (Hitler). The reason for this is because someone else whom we may consider to be of a much higher character than Hitler may make the exact same argument, and our counter-argument that we used against Hitler would not work against the new opponent.
The key to preventing yourself from using this kind of attack is to ask yourself if your argument (or counter-argument) could be used no matter who you were arguing against.
If this type of attack were to be made by your opponent, you may want to question its validity by asking them to defend their claim (that your character somehow makes your argument invalid). If they are placed back on the defensive, they are placed into the uncomfortable position of defending a personal attack. They may also accuse you of trying to divert the subject by asking them to defend this position, but you may reply by pointing out that an attack on your character was the diversion first attempted by them- you are just going with the flow.
Check out the Wikipedia article about ad hominem attacks.
The Straw Man Fallacy
The Straw Man fallacy is a favorite among all people. What's tricky about this one is that it can be committed knowingly or unknowingly.
The Straw Man fallacy basically involves misrepresenting the opposing argument in such a way that it is easily destroyed by your counter-arguments. A lot of times, someone setting up a "straw man" will "forget" an important piece of or over-simplify the opposing argument.
The people who commit this fallacy unknowingly typically just haven't done their homework in respect to the position they are arguing against. If someone ever says "You are misrepresenting the facts of my position", you have committed this fallacy unknowingly; you need to admit it, and promise to do more research to adjust your argument to be fighting the "real issue" not a fake issue that is in your head.
The people who commit this fallacy knowingly typically do it without the opposition to correct them. This allows the people attending to "see" why the arguments of the opposition are useless. But, when one of the attendees confront someone of the opposing position, they will be made to be a fool, because of the original presenter's "straw man" representation of the opposing argument.
This fallacy is so easy to fall into. This is why we need to make certain that we understand the opposition's position and the arguments they use to reach their conclusions. Don't spend time fighting against something that is not the actual issue (just a bad representation of it) (the "straw man"). It is best to find the strongest arguments for the opposition and argue against those. If you can successfully argue against your opponent's strongest evidences, you will do considerable damage to their position.
Common Belief Fallacy
I have seen way too many people claim that because "many" people believe something, that makes it true or at least viable. However, this does a great disservice to the definition of "truth". If a "common belief" were to hold any amount of weight for determining "truth", then "truth" would be reduced to being relative to how whims of the people. Absolute "truth" would then never be able to be known, thus destroying any reason for even arguing about the truth of anything, because it might change in the next couple years.
I would also like to know if "many" is a reference to number or percentage. If number, the relative to what other number to define it as "many"? What is the significance of using the word "many" anyway? Why not "some" or "a few" or "tons" or no quantitative (referring to number of) adjective at all? The only conclusion that can be arrived at by a claim of this sort (regardless of the adjective) is that it is in the minds of people, thus needs attention. But nothing more.
Note to All about Fallacies
By committing any of these fallacies, we commit academic dishonesty in our arguments and lose credibility among our peers, the public, and those we wish to debate.
Note to Christians about Fallacies
As a Christian, this is extremely important because the limit of our credibility will be the limit to which people will listen to our message. Also, some people will project our limited credibility onto others who hold our same position (whether or not the others have made the same mistake we did of committing these fallacies). As Christians we should understand the eternal damage we could be causing by even flirting with one of these fallacies.
Now, I'm not trying to say that I never have or never will commit one (read as "all") of these fallacies. I will make mistakes, but when I do, I back-peddle as quickly as I possibly can to maintain my (and my peers') credibility.
Here's a good blog post about intellectual honesty and the Bible:
Integrating Argument and Virtue
For more information about these fallacies and others, Norman Geisler has a great book Come, Let Us Reason.
Here are a couple episodes of Straight Thinking by Kenneth Samples in which he discusses logic and touches a bit on these fallacies.
Need for Dispassionate Analysis
Avoiding the Straw Man
Avoiding the ad-Hominem Attack
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)