You are here: Home

Cruel Logic: Ideas Have Consequences

04/13/2011 2 Comments


The God Delusion was published, I wonder if its neophytes have truly thought it through. For instance, in his opus on genetic determinism, The River Out of Eden, Professor Richard Dawkins infamously wrote:

In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic
replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people
are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason
in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely
the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom,
no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but
blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A. E. Housman
put it:

For Nature, heartless, witless Nature
Will neither care nor know.

DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance
to its music.

Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden, (New York: Harper Collins, 1995), 133.

 

This is precisely where that worldview leaves you… think about it. Now consider this award winning short film Cruel Logic by Brian Godawa:

Atheism invariably leads one to a material reductionist view of reality like that of Dawkins. There can be no real morality if we are merely dancing to the rhythm’s of our DNA. A reductio ad absurdum is a form of argumentation in which you follow an idea to its logical conclusion deriving an absurdity. If the conclusion is absurd to you it is best to discard the idea.

 

Filed Under Apologetics Tagged With Atheism, Brian Godawa, Cruel Logic, genetic determinism, Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden

Atheism and the Escape From Reason (Craig vs. Krauss)

04/08/2011 5 Comments


I watched the William Lane Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss debate on “Is there Evidence for God” hosted at North Carolina State University last week via the live webcast. For more details, and to watch video of the debate, check out the debate website here. William Lane Craig won hands down. It was basically a rout.

I was astonished that Krauss’ first tactic was to deny logic and reason. He even took off his button down shirt to reveal a t-shirt that boasted 2 + 2 = 5. No kidding…

It is a predictable yet unfortunate corollary of God denial. In his treatise on the psychology of atheism R.C. Sproul wrote:

To be sure, the twentieth century has shown a tendency to ignore the law of contradiction as a necessary principle for coherent discourse. In reaction against previous forms of rationalism, many contemporary thinkers, particularly of the existentialist school, have maintained that truth indeed may be contradictory—that is, truth rises above logical categories and cannot be restricted by the law of contradiction. On the other hand, thinkers who have continued to operate using the law of contradiction have been charged with perpetuating Aristotle’s system of truth, which can no longer function in modern thought.” [1]

It also reminds me of Francis Schaeffer’s Escape From Reason. Schaeffer argues that because modern man has separated himself from God he has no rational spiritual connection. However, he cannot really live in his imagined deterministic materialistic universe so he leaps into the irrational upper story. Krauss is using quantum theory as his upper story — his blind faith in the irrational.

It’s so ironic that atheists represent themselves as defenders of reason when they invariably abandon it in their argumentation. It boils down to the fundamental flaw in their worldview. If the universe is a deterministic product of physical laws and matter, then there really is no reason and all science, debate and human thought is completely arbitrary. Accordingly, Intellectually honest atheism must ultimately arrive at nihilism. At 1:02:10 in the debate video Dr. Craig quipped, “if the price of atheism is irrationality then I will leave them to it.” That was amusing… Yet, ultimately it is profoundly sad. Hopefully, we might lead a few out of it as well.  After the debate, William Lane Craig commented on his facebook account:

I was frankly flabbergasted by Krauss’s opening salvo attacking logic and the probability calculus.  Can you imagine what people would think if, in order to defend a Christian worldview, the believer had to reject logic and probability theory?  This was the worst of several outrageous claims Krauss made in the course of the debate.

Then he used the “given an infinite number of universes then there must be one in which contingent beings exist” canard. I always laugh at this sophomoric reasoning. Dr. Craig could just grant that premise and conclude that given an infinite number of universes there must be one with evidence for God. Debate over. But of course you can conclude anything given an infinite, which is why it’s a dumb argument. It just goes to show you the veracity of Paul’s argument from 2000 years ago:

“For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.” (Ro 1:21)

 

Apologetics 315 has posted full Debate MP3 Audio here

[1] R.C. Sproul, If There’s a God, Why Are There Atheists? : Why Atheists Believe in Unbelief, (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1978).

Filed Under Apologetics Tagged With Atheism, Debate, Lawrence Krauss, NCSU, William Lane Craig

Critique of “The Resurrection of Christ: Theological Implications”

04/01/2011 Leave a Comment


In this article Dr. Daniel Wallace argues that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is an essential and central doctrine of the Christian faith.  To make his case Wallace lays a foundation by examining the Old Testament hope for a general resurrection of the dead (Dan 12:1-2). Then he demonstrates the centrality of the resurrection to the first century apostolic faith by examining the sermons in Acts and passages from Paul’s letters. After the groundwork is laid, Wallace examines nine theological points that are dependent upon the reality of Christ’s resurrection.

Strengths:

Wallace is a much respected textual critic and scholar of the first order, yet this article is concise and written in an accessible style.  A major strength is Wallace’s exhaustive command of the scriptures.  In addition, Wallace’s reasoning is sound throughout. His nine theological points are evidenced thoroughly and convincingly with appropriate proof texts. Furthermore, these points are well selected to demonstrate their contingency to the resurrection. Points three and four are especially convincing. Jesus cannot be a good teacher if he was a false prophet and “good news” of the gospel is precisely that death was conquered. In light of that truth, Christianity is incoherent without the resurrection. In the discussion on the forgiveness of sin, Wallace offers real life illustrations that show the doctrine to be sensible and relevant. He also makes a compelling parallel between the Sadducees and liberal theologians. In spite of their objections, he demonstrates from the scriptures that the resurrection is a non negotiable belief for true Christianity.

Weaknesses:

In his brief discussion of the Old Testament, Wallace emphasized the vagueness of Jewish resurrection belief.  While that is true, he neglected to mention that there were many prophecies that point to Jesus crucifixion and resurrection.  Isaiah 53 is a foundational chapter pointing to Jesus Christ, a discussion of it would have added force to Wallace’s case. For instance Isaiah 53:8 points to his death and verse ten points to the resurrection. The typology of Jonah (Jon. 1:17), the bronze serpent (Num 21:9), and Abraham’s offering of Isaac (Gen. 22:2) also come to mind. There is also a very solid historical case to be made for the reality of the resurrection. For example, the early creed, (1 Cor. 15:3-8), dates to a few years of the actual events.[i] I think it would have added to his case to mention the factual historical apologetic.

Conclusions:

Modern skeptics would have us believe that our faith is unreasonable and outdated, yet the popularity of the new age, paranormal and occult has never been higher. I believe that nearly all people intuitively know there is more to reality than mere matter reacting according to the laws of physics and chemistry. One of my passions is to help people to realize that the Christian faith is the true spirituality and that the bible is the true guidebook to the supernatural. One of the best ways to convince people is the evidence for the resurrection. There is a compelling objective basis to believe it really happened. As Wallace demonstrated, once that is established, the rest of Christ’s teaching is authenticated.  To my mind the resurrection is not merely part of the gospel, it is the gospel.  Boice calls it the pivotal doctrine and makes a similar argument to Wallace.[ii] Most definitively, Paul argued that without it “your faith is futile and you are still in your sins” (1 Cor. 15:17).  The scripture also teaches that when someone believes it is an act of supernatural grace (Eph. 2:8). Faith is a gift of God and conversion is the resurrection of a spiritually dead sinner to new life in Christ. I believe the resurrection because, in a spiritual sense, I have experienced it.  It was clear to me that he was writing to evangelicals who may have been influenced by modern liberal theologians or that had perhaps never considered the centrality of the resurrection. I think he was successful and I will refer to this article again in my ministry. To my way of thinking, you really are not a Christian in any meaningful sense of the word if you do not believe that Christ rose from the grave.

[i]Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, Rev. Ed. of: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus. (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company, 1996), 154.

[ii]James Montgomery Boice, Foundations of the Christian Faith : A Comprehensive & Readable Theology (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 340.

Filed Under Apologetics Tagged With Daniel Wallace, Resurrection

New Research Posted: Exodus Evidence

03/26/2011 5 Comments


There is a lot of misinformation surrounding the biblical Exodus. It ranges from spurious accounts of Mount Sinai being located in Saudi Arabia all the way to a complete dismissal as Hebrew mythology. In the Biblical narrative we have an enduring tradition that forms the basis for the majority of the world’s monotheistic religion. It deserves more respect than a dismissive waving of the postmodern hand or the wild irresponsible claims by untrained glory hounds. It may seem an incredible tale. Indeed the Bible records that the Israelites supernaturally received water from a rock and daily manna from the sky. Incredible as this is, protesting a lack of pottery is to not respect what the text says. This is, after all, an account of God’s work, not a secular history. However, we do have evidence. We should perceive the account to have historic and linguistic verisimilitude. Through archeological, historical, etymological and geographic research one can by logical induction discern that the Biblical text reflects historical veracity not legendary fabrication.

The Exodus account and wilderness journey is foundational to the truth claims of Judaism and Christianity. For the believer, it is not merely the inerrancy doctrine at stake; it is the character and deity of Jesus Christ.  Jesus boldly proclaimed “Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died” (John 6:49). Clearly, Jesus affirmed the exodus account as true history.  This creates a challenge for the Christian researcher because there is probably no other Biblical narrative more frequently undermined other than the Genesis creation account. Even amongst sincere believers there are conflicting theories being offered. Some are shamefully staged, while others are misguided. I contend that the Exodus account was a real event occurring in 1446 BC, that it can be inferred circumstantially in Egyptian records, and that the most plausible biblically consistent route is across the y’m su’p (reed sea) and down the western coast of the Sinai Peninsula into the mid-southern Sinai to the holy mountain and back up the Eastern side of the Sinai toward Kadesh-barnea and the Promised Land.

Please look to the top bar on this website and you will find a drop down menu Exodus Research with each section of my research. You may be surprised along the way but our journey through the desert will be a fruitful one. The evidence for the Exodus is not the typical pottery shards and bones yet it is compelling nonetheless.

Filed Under Archeology Tagged With Archeology, Bob Cornuke, Exodus, Finklestein, James Hoffmeier, Randall Price, Ron Wyatt, The Bible Unearthed

Presuppositional Apologetics

03/24/2011 6 Comments


This essay will attempt to demonstrate that the presuppositional apologetic method is a potent posture yet falls short as a methodology for comprehensibly demonstrating the legitimacy of the Christian worldview. Presuppositional apologetics is a systematic defense of Christian theism based on the assumption of certain basic propositions. While it is often associated with fideism which is placing faith above reason, not all presuppositionalists are fideists.[1] In fact, the presuppositonalist would argue that reason itself proves God’s existence. The apologist simply assumes the truth of Christianity to varying degrees and argues from that platform. This varies from a fideistic position that non-Christians are so corrupted by their sin nature that they are incapable of responding to evidence to a more modest position that belief in God is properly basic. The rationale offered by presuppositionalists is that everyone presupposes basic premises which define their worldview. It is certainly true that some beliefs such as the law of non-contradiction must be presupposed for rational discourse to be possible. Accordingly, this is known as a properly basic belief. Philosopher Alvin Plantinga has convincingly argued that belief in God can also be held as properly basic.[2] The different presuppositional approaches all share this epistemological foundation yet vary on issues of truth, scope of human depravity and use of evidence.

Norman Geisler delineates four main approaches based on their means of establishing truth: revelational, rational, systematic consistency and practical presuppositionalism.[3] The revelational approach championed by Cornelius Van Til is perhaps the most well-known and also the most fideistic. He boldly proclaimed, “that all reasoning is, in the nature of the case, circular reasoning.”[4] This style presupposes the authority of scripture and also that those who do not hold this presupposition are incapable of even basic reasoning.Greg Bahnsen is advocate and teacher of Van Til’s method. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries is another modern day practitioner of this Van Tilian style.[5] Here is James discussing the topic:

Rational presuppositionalism is a less strident variant employed by Gordon Clark and Carl F. H. Henry that allows that the secular mind still can use logic and reason. The test for truth is the law of non-contradiction.[6] John Carnell and Gordon Lewis pioneered a method, systematic consistency, which uses the rational approach with the additional qualifications that it must take account of all knowledge and meet man’s basic needs.[7] The style most open to non-believers is the practical approach in the style of Francis Schaeffer who set about demonstrating that all other worldviews are not livable in a consistent fashion.[8] These approaches share the assumption of Biblical revelation yet vary on discerning truth and the scope of unregenerate depravity. There seems to be valid thinking behind each variety and I maintain respect for the respective apologists even if I do not entirely agree with all of their methodology.

It seems reasonable for believers to assume theism because the average Christian does not have time to master complicated philosophical arguments. However, trained apologists should be able to employ those arguments to provide warrant for the average believer. Yet some presuppositionalists fail to distinguish between belief in God and belief that God exists. Many presuppositionalists completely reject traditional apologetics as a futile concession to the skeptic’s methods.[9] Yet we all use the same rules of logic. A principle criticism offered by Geisler is that there is a confusion of epistemology and ontology. He writes,

The Christian fideist may very well be right about the fact that there is a God, but this begs the question unless he can tell how he knows this is the case. God may indeed have revealed himself to us through the Bible, but how do we know that the Bible is the Word of God?  [10]

Van Til did not seem to mind question begging. His style is tactically advantageous but it is unlikely to influence non-Christians. While it is true that men suppress the truth, evidential apologetics causes even hardened skeptics like Antony Flew to change their minds. Ultimately one should remember that Jesus and the apostles appealed to evidence, (Jn 2:23, 1 Cor. 15:3-7).

This essay has briefly summarized the presuppositional method and its four approaches. God’s existence and biblical revelation were defined as the basic foundation. The different styles were differentiated by the scope of their assumption and their test for truth. Critique was offered that the method strongly proclaims that Christianity is true but falls short of adequately explaining why it is true. A hybrid approach along the lines of Schaeffer’s technique in Escape From Reason and other works are worthy of further study. I must admit I am very interested in the ideas and techniques employed. It seems that there are some valuable tactics and truths in this method yet is not entirely convincing.

This site is powerful example of how the presuppositional method can be employed: Proof That God Exists

[1]Norman L. Geisler, Christian Apologetics, Includes Index. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976), 47.

[2] Thomas Provenzola. “Apologetics, Reformed.” In The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics, by Ed Hindson, & Ergun Caner, ( Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2008), 59.

[3]Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker reference library (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1999), 607.

[4]Cornelius Van Til and William Edgar, Christian Apologetics, 2nd ed. (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing     Company: Phillipsburg, NJ, 2003).

[5] White, James. Alpha and Omega Ministries. n.d. http://aomin.org/articles/bio.html (accessed 10 08, 2010).

[6] Geisler, Baker, 607

[7] Geisler, Baker, 607

[8] Geisler, Baker, 607.

[9] Mark Coppenger. “Presuppositonalism.” In The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics, by Ed Hindson, & Ergun Caner, 401-404. (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2008), 402

[10]Norman L. Geisler, Christian Apologetics. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976), 61.

Filed Under Apologetics Tagged With Apologetics, Fideism, Francis Schaeffer, Greg Bahnsen, James White, Norman Geisler, Presuppositional Apologetics, Reformed, Van Til
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »