John Oswalt: Progress Requires God

Introduction

Nobody likes to think that they are holding back progress. The idea of progress is used in many areas of political and moral debate as a weapon against those who tend to hold to "traditional" values. "Progressives" argue against the objective truth of Judeo-Christian morality in an effort to legalize their particular desires. In an effort to do so, though, "progressives' are trying to eliminate the only foundation for judging what can be rightly called "progress" and what can rightly be called "regress." In his book The Bible Among The Myths, John N. Oswalt uses philosophy of history to show the necessity of the Creator for progress to even be possible:

"The idea of progress is dependent on the idea that our Creator has a goal for us, outside of ourselves, toward which we humans were made to progress and against which our progress can be measured. Give up that truth, and 'progress' becomes a chimera."

The Foundation Removed

Without an objective goal set, there is no way to determine what truly is progressive and what is not. If an event or action moves a group closer to the realization of the goal, then progress has taken place. If an event or action moves a group away from the realization of the goal, then progress has not taken place. Without a goal, this cannot be judged. In their efforts to eliminate objective morality from public life, "progressives" must argue against God's existence in order to show that morality is relative. But in doing so, they have also forfeited the right to call themselves "progressives."

Conclusion

Interestingly enough, if a "progressive" skeptic wishes to assert and be committed to the idea that progress can objectively be made (by judging those who stand against their views as "regressive"), they implicitly assume that an objective purpose exists outside themselves and outside humanity as a whole. It is up to them to ground such an obligation without God. The reality that progress can be judged against an ideal purpose is evidence that an ideal purpose exists, and that ideal purpose must have a Purposer. If "progress" is possible, God exists.

The Bible Among The Myths contains several nuggets regarding the existence of God, like this one. If you have not taken the time to read this book, you will not be disappointed.

For further investigation into moral relativism, ethics, politics, and purpose, I highly recommend checking out these books:

• Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted In Mid-Air
• Christian Ethics: Issues and Options
• Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible
• The Grand Weaver: How God Shapes Us Through the Events of Our Lives

Norm Geisler and Frank Turek: Legislating Tolerance

Introduction

As a defender of the Christian worldview, I often defend the rightness or wrongness of certain acts, and with that, whether they should be made legal or illegal. I will usually appeal science and logic in these discussions. If the person is a Christian, then I will also appeal to the Bible, if it speaks specifically or general to the topic at hand. When it is clear that all the evidence stands against their view, in a "last-ditch" effort to undermine my arguments the challenger often resorts to appealing to "tolerance." This comes in the form of the person who wants to legalize some particular act saying that by not permitting the act (legalizing it), those in opposition to the legalization (conservatives, usually) are being intolerant and trying to force their morality on the world.

I recently finished reading the book "Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible" by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. Here is their response to such a challenge:

"When libertarians or liberals seek to give people more freedom (i.e., by passing a law that legalizes a formerly illegal activity), they do exactly what they condemn conservatives for doing. They impose their morals (and thereby the associated effects) on people who do not agree with those morals."

Who's Legislating Their Morality, Again?

The problem with any law is that it affirms that something is right and its violation is wrong. Laws often include penalties for violating the right that has been provided by the law. What is right and what is wrong is morality. If we truly want to avoid legalizing morality then no law should ever be created. So, if someone is successful in getting their particular behavior legalized, they have just legalized their morality and have successfully forced it on the masses. This means that the complaint of the person trying to get their act to be made legal has just violated their own moral standard of "tolerance."

Conclusion

The next time that someone complains that you just want to force your morality on them, remind them that they are in the same position- they are, in fact, attempting to force their morality on you. Ask them to explain how their doing so is right and your doing so is wrong. This is not something that can be logically defended without affirming the right of the other to do the same. This results in a "stale-mate" and requires that both sides go back to the evidence. This will (hopefully) keep the discussion focused on actual reasons and not go down the "rabbit hole" is emotive rhetoric.

To Investigate Further, I recommend:

• How Should Christians Vote In Political Elections?
• Book Review: Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible? 
• Book Review: Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions
• Book Review: Relativism: Feet Planted In Mid-Air

Greg Koukl: 🤔 A Challenge to Your View Could Be A Blessing

Introduction

As I have argued in many different posts it is important that we not be afraid of someone challenging our views. If we are committed to truth, then we will naturally desire to know when we have believed something false. In his book Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions, Greg Koukl explains how such challenges to our views may actually be beneficial:

"A commitment to truth -- as opposed to a commitment to an organization -- means an openness to refining one's own views. It means increasing the accuracy of one's understanding and being open to correction in thinking. A challenger might turn out to be a blessing in disguise, an ally instead of an enemy. An evangelist who is convinced of her view, then, should be willing to engage the best arguments against it."

The Blessing

When a challenge comes against our view, that is an opportunity for us to see exactly how accurately that view reflects reality. We can see how strong the arguments are for the truth of our view and how strong the arguments are against the truth of our view. If our view is actually true, then it will be able to withstand the most powerful arguments against it. These arguments will be found to be faulty in one way or another- a false premise or invalid logic. If we cannot find the logical fault in the argument against our view, then we need to consider the possibility that our view is false and needs to be altered.

As evangelists for the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it is important that we engage challenges to our particular views of reality. For if we hold to and defend a false view, then those who see the fault with our arguments will project that falsehood onto the Gospel. We must not hold to a view when the arguments against it cannot be overcome, lest we misrepresent Christ to an unbelieving world. If we find that we must change one aspect of our worldview, it does not mean that the whole worldview must be changed. However, that one aspect must be changed to provide a more accurate witness of Christ.

Conclusion

Koukl's book explains how to navigate conversations in a winsome manner that allows us to not only get the other person thinking about their worldview, but it allows us to consider the other person's points and arguments without feeling threatened. If you have not read Tactics: A Game Plan For Discussing Your Christian Convictions, I highly recommend that you pick up a copy.

Recommended Reading To Investigate Further:

• 3 Good Reasons to Question What You Believe
• Is Your View Falsifiable?
• Internal Debates and Apologetics
• Reasons In And Out of a Worldview

Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media

  

Colin Kaepernick, Cries of the Heart, and Christ

Introduction

The name "Colin Kaepernick" has flooded my Facebook feed this week. Until the last few days, I did not even know his name. From what I could tell, he is a quarterback for the National Football League (NFL)'s team The San Francisco 49r's. The fact that I do not follow any sports means that this sudden appearance in my feed is quite out of the ordinary. So I decided to investigate. It turns out that Kaepernick caused a stir and a great deal of outrage the other day, when he refused to stand for the National Anthem before a preseason game. This is a highly disrespectful decision that he has made clear that he plans to continue. This decision has sparked much outrage on the internet and much praise in the media. While I do believe that what he did was highly disrespectful and should never be encouraged, if we look past his actions to his reasons, we see profound insights (profound for our society, anyway) highlighted by the longings of his heart. These observations and desires that he has expressed provide powerful evidence for the truth of the Christian worldview and a door wide open for him to accept the call of Christ on his life.

However, before you read on, please familiarize yourself with Kaepernick's comments on his decision here.

Two things that he said immediately caught my attention. The first was that he was protesting racial inequality and mistreatment of African-American people. The second what that he said that that "is bigger than football" and even accepted the possible fate of being removed from the NFL and losing endorsements over his decision.

How Should Christians Vote in Political Elections?

Introduction

As a defender of the Christian worldview, I do not defend just a "mere Christianity" but an entire worldview that encompasses morality and ethics. Unfortunately, politics is necessarily dependent upon those two. How a person governs, legislates, judges, and even votes all comes down to their view of morality and ethics. In any political season, it is necessary for the Christian to understand the proper (true) ethical view to guide their decision in how they vote. They need to not only be grounded for their own decisions, but they need to be prepared for the times in which they can have intelligent discussions on the topic, rather than contributing to the simplistic emoting that we see on the internet today. In this post, I want to take a look at how (if) a Christian should vote when the given option is not clear (who or if we should vote). I will conclude with books that I highly recommend for everyone interested in ethics and politics to read. Please take the time to read this post carefully and the links provided at the end. I believe that they will help prepare you for making the right decision when you go to the voting booth and will help you intelligently discuss and defend your decision.

Hugh Ross: Naturalistic Origin of Life Strangled by Young Universe

Introduction

One of the teleological arguments for God's existence comes from the combination of the incredible complexity and large variation of life and the cosmologically minute amount of time that is permitted by this universe to accomplish such a feat. Astrophysicist Hugh Ross explains:

"As astronomical advances proved the universe to be some 10 to 15 billions years old a majority of both scientists and Christians mistakenly assumed that billions of years allowed ample time for a naturalistic account of life. This error has been costly. Recent scholarship increasingly reveals that time boundaries as brief as only several billions years constrict evolutionary theory so tightly, particularly concerning life's origin, as to strangle it. In other words, a 14-billion-year-old universe is too young for any conceivable natural-process scenario to yield on its own, even the simplest living organism."

Dr. Ross has spent the last few decades studying the universe and what must be in place for it to be hospitable for life's creation and thriving. It turns out that the full age of the universe is not the total amount of time available; indeed, the time is much shorter (nearer to 4 billion years). This constrains the naturalistic process even further. But even if it did have the full age of the universe, 14 billion years is several orders of magnitude too young.

Don't Force Your Beliefs on Others

Introduction

An interesting meme came across my Facebook feed the other day. It states, "It is okay for you to believe what you believe. It is not okay for you to insist that everyone else believe the same as you." I shared it with a short explanation of the fact that the claim self-destructs. This meme self-destructs because it violates its own claim. It insists that the readers believe what is included in the meme (the idea that we should not insist others believe what we believe). It was not long before my comments were challenged. The conversation included a few different challenges that I addressed. I have included those challenges and my responses below (with a few edits for clarity).

Challenge #1: This is a religion thing!

Response: This is actually a belief that someone is affirming is right and affirming that its opposite is wrong. "Right" and "wrong" are terms of morality. It is logically impossible to not affirm someone's morality with the statement in the meme because it is affirming a moral belief. If someone affirms that the belief (that you should not force your beliefs on others) is right, then they affirm that its opposite (that you should force your beliefs on others) is wrong. If they insist that others hold to that same belief, then they have violated their own belief. That is why it is self-defeating. This has nothing to do with religion; rather it has everything to do with logic.

Challenge #2: There is no morality in this meme.

Response: morality is found in the meme in the implied "should" or "ought" in the affirmative phrase "is not okay." These are terms of obligation that are independent of a person (this is called "objective"). The moral claim is that someone should not force their beliefs on someone else. However, for something like morality to exist, it must have an ontological/metaphysical grounding. If your worldview does not contain such an object (such as God), then objective morality does not exist in your worldview, and nothing can be said to be truly "right" or "wrong;" it is all just a matter of opinion (and enforceable by who's in power). Now, if the person posting this meme is merely offering an opinion, then that is fine. It is their opinion that beliefs should not be forced on someone else, but it cannot go beyond an opinion to be an actual moral obligation. If morality is not objective, then any obligations end at the person asserting them; they do not apply beyond that person (this is called "subjective"). And that is exactly what this meme is denouncing and violating simultaneously. There is morality in this meme; there is not sound logic in this meme.

Challenge #3: We can be good without God. You are saying that I'm immoral because I don't believe the way you do.

Response: That is not my claim. I'm saying that it is only with an ontological foundation that morality (in any objective sense, which is what the meme seems to want to enforce) even exists. It is only if God exists that someone can be either moral or immoral. If there is no ontological grounding for morality, then we are all amoral because the world is amoral. This is not the same as "immoral." "Amoral" indicates the absence of a standard by which to conclude someone or something is moral or immoral. None of what I have said even implies someone's moral status; I've only made claims about the existence of morality that would allow statements about someone's moral status.

Conclusion

This meme and many of its type are quite common on social media these days. It is imperative that we logically evaluate their claims for soundness. If we find that they are not, we need to show how that is so. It is important that people be able to recognize bad logic when they see it, so they can learn to think clearly as other issues and claims arise.

Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media

 

Recommended Books for Further Investigation:

• Time For Truth: Living Free In A World Of Lies, Hype, and Spin by Os Guinness
• The Beauty of Intolerance: Setting A Generation Free to Know Truth And Love by Josh and Sean McDowell
• Relativism: Feet Planted in Mid-Air by Greg Koukl and Frank Beckwith
• Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek

Book Review: Legislating Morality- Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible

Introduction

Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek has been on my reading list for quite some time. It is often brought up by skeptics that Christians do not have a consistent view of morality, especially when it comes to government. This is often used as evidence of internal inconsistency within the Christian worldview and often leads to the conclusion that Christianity is false. And with the political season upon us yet again, I have been involved in many discussions about morality and politics. When defending the existence of God by using the moral argument, it is important to recognize the difference between moral ontology and moral epistemology (does objective morality exist vs. which objective morality exists) to address the claim of an internal inconsistency; however, we cannot stop there. Often the challenge comes from a genuine concern about the consistency of the moral code that Christians say is objectively established by the God of the Bible. So, it is important that defenders of the Christian worldview educate themselves on views of morality, and in political seasons, the morality of legislating morality.

A few weeks ago I decided to put reading two other books on hold and go through this one to better prepare myself as these discussions become more and more common with the season. Was I disappointed with that decision? I will give this book my usual chapter-by-chapter summary treatment then provide my recommendations at the end.

12 Quotes From Greg Koukl on Theological Discussions

"Loving God with the mind is not a passive process. It is not enough to have sentimental religious thoughts. Rather, it involves coming to conclusions about God and his world based on revelation, observation, and careful reflection...This is not rationalism, a kind of idolatry of the mind that places man's thinking at the center of the universe. Rather, it's the proper use of one of the faculties God has given us to understand him and the world he has made."

"In order to understand the truth of the Bible accurately, our mental faculties must be intact and we must use them as God intended."

"The Bible is first in terms of authority, but something else if first in terms of the order of knowing. We cannot grasp the authoritative teaching God's Word unless we use our minds properly. Therefore the mind, not the Bible, is the very first line of defense God has given us against error."

"A commitment to truth -- as opposed to a commitment to an organization -- means an openness to refining one's own views. It means increasing the accuracy of one's understanding and being open to correction in thinking. A challenger might turn out to be a blessing in disguise, an ally instead of an enemy. An evangelist who is convinced of her view, then, should be willing to engage the best arguments against it."