Book Review: Tactics: A Game Plan For Discussing Your Christian Convictions
Introduction
I was introduced to the apologetic work of Greg Koukl almost ten years ago. I remember when his book "Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions" (softcover, Kindle, Quotes) was released I could not wait to get my copy. I was still trying to get my footing on how to defend the Christian worldview, and this book provided a foundation for my approach that has lasted since then. Because it was so important and vital to my confidence in sharing the reasons for the hope that I have, I decided to bring it out again and do a review for those who are not yet aware of the value of this book for, not just apologists but, every Christian. This review will be a chapter-by-chapter summary of the contents of the book. I have deliberately left out many details but given enough to hopefully pique your curiosity enough to get your own copy to read and be blessed by.Podcast Highlight: Why Are Believers Mad at God?
As a defender of the Christian worldview I come across numerous intellectual challenges. When these are addressed logically, though in many cases, it is found that the skeptic has rejected God (and Christ) due to an experience that they cannot reconcile with God's being all-powerful and all-loving. This is the classic problem of evil. Its not the logical version but the emotional version. The inability to reconcile a particularly painful experience with God's claimed nature (as reveal in the Bible) causes these people to hate God and, perhaps, even doubt that He even exists. Philosopher Dr. Ravi Zacharias reminds Christian apologists:
"You must always come to the level of the questioner because more than answering a question, you are always answering a questioner. Somebody is behind that question. And if you answer the question without answering the questioner, you may come through as being very knowledgeable, but you've not been very persuasive to the one who's looking for the answer." (Link)
While it is easy to address the logical problem of evil (the question) it is often more difficult to answer the emotional problem of evil (the questioner). As the questioner goes without an answer, their confusion can grow into hatred and even skepticism (since they do not have even an answer to the logical problem).
In the latest two episodes of the Love and Respect Podcast, Dr. Emerson Eggerichs addresses the questioner in a way that I feel would be quite useful for the defender of the Christian faith. I encourage all apologists to listen to these episodes, and if you are struggling with some experience that does not seem compatible with the Christian God, I invite you, also, to listen with an open mind and open heart.
Here are the links for the podcast feeds if you wish to subscribe:
Book Review: Dinosaur Blood and the Age of the Earth
Introduction
"Dinosaur Blood and the Age of the Earth" by biochemist Fazale Rana (softcover, Kindle, video) is a book that I have been anticipating for over a year now. It addresses a challenge regarding the debate within the Christian church about the age of the earth (check here for my reasons for believing internal and theological debates are important for the apologist). The questions that Dr. Rana attempts to answer is if the discoveries of soft tissue in dinosaur fossils is a good argument for a young age of the earth, the historicity of the Genesis 1 account of creation, and the truth of the Christian faith. The book is a mere four chapters with three appendices contained in 88 pages. This review will provide a chapter-by-chapter summary; I avoid going into too much detail so that you, the reader, will have the incentive to get the full work to read the details of Dr. Rana's case for yourself. But first check out this video from Dr. Rana about the book:Book Review: Who Was Adam?
Introduction
Ten years ago Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. Fazale Rana of Reasons to Believe released their book "Who Was Adam?" that presented a scientific model the posited that Adam and Eve in the book of Genesis were the original pair of humans. They examined the latest discoveries and put forth predictions for the scientific community to evaluate. That book was one of my first apologetics books I read that convinced me of the historical accuracy of the Genesis account of origins. A decade later the authors have released a second edition (softcover, Kindle, promo video) that updates the reader on the latest discoveries regarding the origins of humanity. This is one that I have been anticipating for at least two years; let's see if it lives up to it.With this edition, Ross and Rana chose to keep the original edition intact in the first two parts of the book then evaluate the model in the third part. This review will provide a chapter-by-chapter summary of the book's contents to give the reader an idea of what to expect, but this review in no way should take the place of reading the book itself. I will conclude the book with my thoughts and recommendation.
Were You There?
Introduction
"Were you there?" When I was younger that is a question that I was taught to ask a naturalist when they tried to tell me that the universe was started by the big bang. Before I recognized the big bang as powerful evidence for the Creator (I vehemently rejected it as an atheistic theory), when presented with evidence for the big bang, I would respond by asking, "were you there to witness all those events you say happened...no?...I didn't think so, so how can you be so sure that God didn't create the universe like the Bible says?" I remember using this in several occasions in college and came across a couple students who turned the question around on me: "you weren't there either?...then how do you know it didn't happen as I described?" I realized that this was not a very good way to defend the idea that God created the universe (and the Christian worldview).I have not seen this question used in quite some time as an apologetic strategy; however, it did come up last year in an article from the popular young-earth creationist organization, Answers in Genesis. The author proposed that the way the question was asked (similar to how I was taught) was unwise but that there is a proper way to use the question. Please read the original article here before you continue; I want you to be sure that in my critique, I am accurately representing the author.
Pride in Discourse
Introduction
Those who have followed Faithful Thinkers for quite some time know that I not only defend the truth of the Christian worldview in general, but I also defend a specific view on creation (my reasons for defending specifics are detailed here and here). I have also entered into discussions on the relationship between God's sovereignty and man's free will and have passed by a few on various other topics that are debated within the Christian worldview. As with anyone who has watched these discussions for very long, I cannot help but observe that in every one of these debates (and on all sides of the debates) are people who lack humility in their discussions. They act as if they have infallibly interpreted the Scriptures and nature and have arguments that are completely fallacy-free (though, ironically, their fallacies are easy to spot). Many even have the tenacity to proclaim damnation on those Christians who disagree with them.Presuppositions, Circumstantial Evidence, and Free Will
Introduction
In the last month or so, I have become more of a "fly on the wall" in different scientific groups on Facebook. It has been interesting to take a break from interaction for a while and simply observe it. Something that I have noticed come up quite often is that many Christians, when debating scientific evidence with skeptics, end up telling the skeptics that they do not accept the evidence based on their presuppositions of atheism. That is bad enough, but what is disturbing is that I have also witnessed Christians say this same thing (presupposition of atheism) to Christians who take a different perspective (specifically on the age of the universe or evolution). (I have been a victim of this myself but did not think much of it until I saw it committed against several other Christians in multiple groups by multiple people.) Included in the attacks on both the skeptic and the fellow Christian is (sometimes explicit and sometimes implicit) the claim that presuppositions cannot be set aside. This leads the attacking Christian to feel justified in cutting off discussion and no longer answering questions or challenges to their view, and consigning the questioner to damnation. Today, I want to address the idea that presuppositions cannot be set aside, for if this is false, then the attacker has a false sense of logical security in their decision to be dismissive in the face of challenges they cannot (or will not) address.17 Quotes from Norman Geisler On Evidence for Special Creation
"It is true that special creation is not testable against any regularly recurring pattern of events in the present. But neither is macroevolution. Both views involve unobserved past singularities. That is, they involve rare occurrences. For example, so far as we can tell, life did not emerge from nonlife over and over. Nor were the great transitions between major forms of life repeated again and again. Hence there is no recurring patterns of events against which to test how the universe began, how life began, or how diverse life forms originated. So neither macroevolution nor creation comes within the discipline of operation science. This does not mean that there is no sense in which macroevolution and creation are scientific. Although they are not an empirical science, nevertheless they function like a forensic science. Just as a forensic scientist tries to make a plausible reconstruction of an unobserved (and unrepeatable) murder, so the evolutionist and creationist attempt to construct a plausible scenario of the unobserved past singularities of origin. So neither view is operation science. Rather both are in the domain of origin science."
Philosophy of Science, Circumstantial Evidence, and Creation
Introduction
For those who have followed me for some time, you know that I take a strong stance on the importance of defending the Christian worldview in its specific claims about reality, as opposed to only defending general claims. For those who are not familiar with my reasons for this position, please see my posts here and here. One of the theological debates that I defend specifically is a particular view on creation. I take the old-earth creation (OEC) position that holds to the literal historicity of the records of Genesis 1-11. I came from a position of young-earth creationism (YEC) but changed due to the lack of scientific evidence supporting the view and the complete compatibility of OEC with Christianity. A couple years ago, a prominent YEC leader (Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis) debated Bill Nye on the scientific status on YECism. Ham constantly drew a distinction between "observational/operational science" and "historical science" to say that what happened in the past cannot be known. I wrote a post last year critiquing this philosophy of science and provided a followup clarification on my position (here and here, respectively).
Since then I have read and reviewed one of the foundational works on the philosophical distinction (Origin Science: A Proposal for the Creation/Evolution Controversy by Norman Geisler and J. Kirby Anderson). My previous posts dealt with the distinction as presented by Ken Ham (and many other YEC proponents); however, today I want to deal with the distinction as presented by Geisler and Anderson. There is a wide chasm between the two understandings, and if Ken Ham is getting the distinction from the work of Geisler and Kirby (or someone who agree with their distinctions), then he has misunderstood the distinctions. My goal is to explain the distinctions made by Geisler and Anderson and show how they have been misunderstood by Ken Ham and other YEC proponents. I will also show that the rejection of circumstantial evidence in Ham's understanding necessarily undermines the presuppositional grounding of knowledge of all events recorded in the Bible, which is what Ken Ham promotes in place of a circumstantial, evidential approach to discovering the mechanisms, timing, and purposes of creation.
Since then I have read and reviewed one of the foundational works on the philosophical distinction (Origin Science: A Proposal for the Creation/Evolution Controversy by Norman Geisler and J. Kirby Anderson). My previous posts dealt with the distinction as presented by Ken Ham (and many other YEC proponents); however, today I want to deal with the distinction as presented by Geisler and Anderson. There is a wide chasm between the two understandings, and if Ken Ham is getting the distinction from the work of Geisler and Kirby (or someone who agree with their distinctions), then he has misunderstood the distinctions. My goal is to explain the distinctions made by Geisler and Anderson and show how they have been misunderstood by Ken Ham and other YEC proponents. I will also show that the rejection of circumstantial evidence in Ham's understanding necessarily undermines the presuppositional grounding of knowledge of all events recorded in the Bible, which is what Ken Ham promotes in place of a circumstantial, evidential approach to discovering the mechanisms, timing, and purposes of creation.
The Difference Between An Attack and A Critique
"Someone's Wrong On The Internet!"
As I have defended the Christian faith against challenges on Facebook, I have come across several posts in various discussion groups that I feel need to be addressed. I have seen these posts in Christian groups that debate different theological positions and in general debate groups that discuss worldviews. I have also seen these from those who agree with me and disagree with me on various issues. So, please do not think that this is aimed only at those with whom I disagree; there are plenty who agree with me who have posted these also.The Posts
Generally, the posts are targeted towards a specific "side" in the group. They are often written in the language of a "locker room pep talk" to the members of the team. Usually, the posts call out everyone who disagrees with them as attacking them through ridicule. These posts rarely differentiate between those who disagree with them regarding the general worldview and those who disagree in the details of the same general worldview. They encourage the teammates to "keep up the good fight" and offer some kind of existential or eternal "reward" for sticking to their belief. Some of the more rhetorical posts even go so far as to present an eternal threat to those who disagree.Book Review: Origin Science
Introduction
"Origin Science: A Proposal for the Creation-Evolution Controversy" (Amazon, GoodReads, Quotes) by Norman Geisler and J. Kerby Anderson is an older book that recently came to my attention. I have been involved in science/faith apologetics for quite some time, and it took a critique of one of my posts before I was made aware of this philosophical work. I have to admit that I was nervous to read this book, since I highly respect Dr. Geisler, and one of my critics used him against me. When I received the book, I was debating whether I would review it or not, but after reading the introduction, I was hooked and decided that this work was too important to the science/faith dialogs not to review it. This review will follow the usual chapter-by-chapter format of previous reviews, and while I do my best to communicate the content to the readers, this review is not meant to take the place of purchasing the book and reading it for yourself. I will conclude the review with my own thoughts and recommendations. The book is 183 pages, divided into seven chapters and six appendices.Should We Question God?
Introduction
Have you ever asked a theological question of a Christian and were told "who are you to question God?" This is all too common today in the Church. I remember experiencing this quite often as a child, teenager, young adult, and even just in the last couple weeks. I have written about the importance of asking questions about our worldview (here and here), but the most recent admonition included a biblical appeal that I believe needs to be addressed.My frequent readers know that I often post and converse on science/faith issues. I believe that it is important that we defend not only the correct overall worldview, but also the details of the worldview. These details often include our views of origins, and these in-house discussions can get heated. My recent discussion was with a fellow brother-in-Christ. He takes a young-earth creationist position (YEC), and I take an old-earth creationist (OEC) position. In my efforts to understand his view better (and demonstrate a possible inconsistency in his view), I posed several theological challenges (you can find the details in this post: Historical Science, Deception, and Blind Faith), in the form of questions, to his particular position.
Instead of attempting to answer the question, he told me not to question God. He appealed to the story of Job to justify his refusal to provide an answer. He explained that Job asked questions and God refused to answer because God is not responsible to man- man cannot be the judge of God. According to him asking such questions means that, like Job, we are attempting to place ourselves above God as His judge. This seems like a biblical position to hold. After all, it is true that no man stands as a judge of God. Our lack of omniscience prevents us from always knowing how God is justified in His actions. However, due to that lack of omniscience, unless we ask questions, we are not able to understand God more. If my brother is correct in his appeal to Job to deflect my questions, we have a theological contradiction: God wants to be known but then will not answer our questions of Him.
Historical Science, Observational Science, and Creation- Clarification and Critique
Introduction
Early last year I wrote a post addressing the common young-earth creationist (YEC) distinction between historical and observational science (click here). It was brought to my attention that a critique of my article was recently posted (click here). The critique was retweeted quite a few times, so it seems that it resonated with many supporters of the blogger and/or the YEC view. After I read the critique, I had mixed feelings. The post did not accurately represent my rejection of the distinction (which could be my fault for not being more specific in the original post), and the author cited scholars who support the antiquity of the earth. These two things are what prompts this short response.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)