Thoughts on Apologetics and Theology

Micah Coate's Gunman Analogy

2011-11-27T16:14:00.001-05:00

(Note: I am using the Kindle version of Micah Coate's A Cultish Side of Calvinism. In this entry and future entries I will use the notation “KL” to refer to Kindle location numbers.)

A Calvinist may argue that God is not obligated to offer salvation to everyone and is in fact merciful to save anyone at all. Coate objects to this (KL 4708-25) and responds with his gunman analogy. A man carrying a gun walks into a church of 300 people and kills 275. Would the people rejoice over the gunman's graciousness for sparing them and accept his invitation to his house for a feast, or would they be recoiled and run from him? (KL 4725-35)

It should be noted that Coate does not even touch Romans 9 in this argument. However, leaving all of that aside, it should also be noted that this argument employs a serious level of misrepresentation. The gunman is not a holy God against whom the people (who are his creations and therefore owe him worship and obedience) have repeatedly and stubbornly rebelled and therefore deserve his judgment. The people in the church did not sin against the gunman and did not deserve to be shot. Unlike the people in the church who are worshipping God, we in our natural state rebel and sin against God every day and do deserve hell. The gunman, like us, is a sinner rebelling against God and God's moral standard. God, however, is God, and His eternal nature is the very foundation of all moral standards.

Coate says that the response that God does not need to save anyone is true, but "it fails to make coherent sense of an all-loving God" (KL 4734). First, what then does Coate mean when he says that God does not need to save anyone if he immediately argues that not offering salvation to everyone would be contrary to His nature as an all-loving God? Second, if Coate is correct then why does God not just save everyone (universalism)? Coate would likely cite human free will, but this ignores the fact that no one seeks God when left to his own nature (Romans 1:18-32, 3:11). More seriously, Coate's theology requires a divine love and mercy that can overwhelm the holiness and justice of the God who created people and the universe but must bow to the wishes of a stubbornly rebellious creation. This is blatantly unbiblical (Proverbs 16:9, 19:21). "Let God be true but every man a liar" (Romans 3:4). Coate might also cite the exclusivity of salvation through Christ (which I would also affirm), but if love and mercy are so overwhelmingly powerful compared to God's justice and holiness (as they must be if Coate is correct) then how can God set such a limit? How does Coate avoid universalism? Only by being inconsistent in applying his presuppositions, and that shows a serious flaw in his position.

Every person is equally in need of salvation. God is indeed loving and merciful in providing salvation to those who trust Christ for salvation, but He does so in a manner that is consistent with his holiness and justice and demonstrates the full range of His attributes.

One side note: Coate's gunman analogy appears immediately before what James White calls "The Absurdity" in which Coate reproduces a caricature of part of the White/Bryson debate as an alleged paraphrase (KL 4735). For further information on this see: here, here, here.

Coate speaks in his last chapter about the need to present a fair critique that gives an accurate presentation of the other side, but the entire book shows he does not attempt to do this.

Brief Review of "A Cultuish Side of Calvinism"

2011-11-11T16:10:00.008-05:00

I recently finished reading A Cultish Side of Calvinism by Micah Coate. The research in this book is amazingly superficial. An honestly and responsibly written critique gives the other side fair representation from its own sources. In this case, Coate should present Calvinist theology from Calvinist sources in order to ensure that he presents it accurately and then follow this with sources supporting his critique, but he primarily makes heavy use of four authors opposed to Calvinism and very spotty use of Calvinist authors. He also consistently misrepresents Calvinism. One would get the impression from reading this book that Calvinists are evil secret agents who are deceptively infiltrating churches and who have little or no concern for the lost, but nothing could be further from the truth.

He does not provide serious exegesis of biblical texts. Usually he just quotes them, assumes his interpretation, and moves on with no meaningful critique of Calvinist interpretations and no counter-exegesis. The closest he comes to seriously engaging the biblical text is his chapter on Romans 9 which is disjointed, inconsistent, and seriously eisegetical.

His comparisons with cults are forced and artificial. His review of John Calvin uses very poor research based on secondary sources. His accusations against Calvinists are straw men. Many accusations are hypocritical, and many are truly libelous.

Listen to James White's rebuttal for a helpful and thorough commentary on this book:

This is a preliminary review. I hope to follow this post with more in depth critiques.

God vs. Science in “The Grand Design”

2010-11-01T20:19:00.001-04:00

In The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow present religion and science as rivals and give the impression that they are irreconcilable. The following quotes present such an opposition, and they reveal an antagonism toward religion in the authors:

"Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to invent gods to lord it over every aspect of human life" (17).

"Since the connection of cause and effect in nature was invisible to their eyes, these gods appeared inscrutable, and people at their mercy" (17).

“In this book I have described how regularities in the motion of astronomical bodies such as the sun, the moon, and the planets suggested that they were governed by fixed laws rather than being subject to the arbitrary whims and caprices of gods and demons” (171).

"The Greeks' Christian successors rejected the idea that the universe is governed by indifferent natural law. They also rejected the idea that humans do not hold a privileged place within that universe. . . . A common theme was that the universe is God's dollhouse, and religion is a far worthier study than the phenomena of nature" (24).

The straw men and loaded language in these statements are plentiful. How does the sovereign rule of God conflict with laws of nature? Why does belief in God lead to degradation of science as a worthy discipline? One would get such an impression from these statements. It also fits how Hawking and Mlodinow define laws of nature. As explained in a previous post, they present a no-exceptions view of laws of nature. Consider the following statements:

"In modern scientific laws of nature are usually phrased in mathematics. They can be either exact or approximate, but they must have been observed to hold without exception - if not universally, then at least under a stipulated set of conditions" (28).

"Scientific determinism: Given the state of our universe at one time, a complete set of laws fully determines both the future and the past. This would exclude the possibility of miracles or an active role for God" (30).

"It is, in fact, the basis of all modern science, and a principle that is important throughout this book. A scientific law is not a scientific law if it holds only when some supernatural being does not intervene" (30).

"This book is rooted in the concept of scientific determinism, which implies that the answer to question two is that there are no miracles, or exceptions to the laws of nature" (34).

“Scientific determinism: There must be a complete set of laws that, given the state of the universe at a specific time, would specify how the universe would develop from that time forward. These laws should hold everywhere and at all times; otherwise they wouldn’t be laws. There could be no exceptions or miracles. Gods or demons couldn’t intervene in the running of the universe” (171).

“We claim, however, that it is possible to answer these questions purely within the realm of science, and without invoking any divine beings” (172).

These statements incorporate many un-defended assumptions. Why must there be laws? Why must these laws have no exceptions? Hawking and Mlodinow say, “Today most scientists would say a law of nature is a rule that is based upon an observed regularity and provides predictions that go beyond the immediate situations upon which it is based. . . . This is a generalization that goes beyond our limited observations" (27-28). The last sentence in this quote is significant. Greg Bahnsen explains that "scientific investigation is only possible in an orderly, rational, coherent, unified system" (Pushing the Antithesis: The Apologetic Methodology of Greg L. Bahnsen 187). Scientific laws cannot exist without uniformity. If there is a rational God who designed the universe, then there is a firm basis for this uniformity. For an atheist it is very problematic due to what Bertrand Russell called the principle of induction (See Bertrand Russell, Problems of Philosophy, 41-48). We can make predictions of how the universe will behave in the future based on past observations, but as Russell explained, these observations only tell us about the past. The assumption that the future will be like the past is just that - an assumption. True, our observations continue to demonstrate uniformity, but why does this uniformity exist, and what guarantee do we have that it will continue to exist? For the Christian this is not a problem because a reasonable and sovereign God both created and oversees the universe. But a purely atheistic/materialist worldview ultimately provides no basis for the assumption of uniformity beyond particular, finite observations of past events. Scientific investigation, however, is impossible without assuming such uniformity. Bahnsen concludes:

"The issue boils down to this: Since man cannot know everything he must assume or presuppose uniformity and then think and act on this very basic assumption. Consequently the principle of uniformity is not a scientific law but an act of faith which undergirds scientific law. Thus, adherence to the principle of uniformity – though absolutely essential to science and the scientific method – is an intrinsically religious commitment" (Bahnsen, Pushing the Antithesis, 192).

(Jason Lisle provides a similar argument in The Ultimate Proof of Creation, 57-60.)

What makes this even worse is that Hawking and Mlodinow also leave themselves with no basis for reliable observations on which to base their generalizations. They apply model-dependent realism to scientific theories. They say that a scientist can apply any model which matches his observations, and if there is more than one option then he can choose whichever is more convenient in a given situation. Whether or not the theory is actually true is a pointless question (46). However, shortly after explaining this they cut the feet off of their own argument. They argue that model-dependent realism applies to everyday life as well. They say that “there is no way to remove the observer-us-from our perceptions” (46). Perception is shaped by “the interpretive structures of our human brains” (46). It is true that people's interpretations are shaped by their worldviews, which would include interpretive structures, but Hawking and Mlodinow go further than this. “What one means when one says ‘I see a chair’ is merely that one has used the light scattered by the chair to build a mental image or model of the chair” (47). This is reminiscent of Morpheus' words to Neo in The Matrix: “What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain” (The Matrix;[DVD], 0:40:16). If this was true, then it would be impossible to decide which model best matches one's observations. It also makes no sense to trust one's observations if free will, as Hawking and Mlodinow argue, is ultimately an illusion (See “'The Grand Design' and Free Will”).

It is quite different if God created the universe:

"The uniformity of nature is perfectly compatible, however, with the Christian worldview. The absolute, all-creating, sovereignly-governing God reveals to us in Scripture that we can count on regularities in the natural world. . . . Because of this God-governed regularity in nature, the scientific enterprise is possible and even fruitful" (Bahnsen, Pushing the Antithesis, 194-95).

For the Christian, scientific investigation has a firm foundation in the eternal, rational, and self-existent God who created the universe and set its physical laws. Scientific investigation also reveals the glory and intelligence of God.

"The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge" (Psalm 19:1-2).

"For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them. How precious to me are your thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them! If I would count them, they are more than the sand. I awake, and I am still with you" (Psalm 139:13-18).

"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse" (Romans 1:19-20).

It makes sense for a Christian to believe in consistent laws of nature and empirical observation because he believes a reasonable God created a universe which He designed to demonstrate His eternal nature (Romans 1:18-23), and therefore a universe which can, and should, be investigated. To examine the laws of nature is to more fully understand the creation of God. Scientific investigation can be motivated by an attitude of devotion to God because to investigate the universe is to investigate the universe which God made. Francis Schaeffer explains in How Should We Then Live? that the founders of modern science (such as Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton) operated on the assumption that a reasonable God had created the universe, and so it was natural to assume that people could make true discoveries about the universe through the use of observation and reason. They also believed that the universe was a real, objective reality and not merely an illusion. It was therefore possible to investigate the universe, and because God had created it, it was worth investigating. Not all of the scientists of this time were Christians in the biblical sense, but they nonetheless operated within a generally Christian framework. (See How Should We Then Live?, 155-64, in The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer: A Christian Worldview, vol. 5). A Christian also has reason to believe in miracles and other forms of divine intervention because the God who created the universe is also sovereign over it.

Hawking and Mlodinow also appear to argue against a “god of the gaps”:

"Many people through the ages have attributed to God the beauty and complexity of nature that in their time seemed to have no scientific explanation. But just as Darwin and Wallace explained how the apparently miraculous design of living forms could appear without intervention by a supreme being, the multiverse concept can explain the fine-tuning of physical law without the need for a benevolent creator who made the universe for our benefit" (165).

This sounds like the argument that as science advances the “god of the gaps” is continually pushed out of the picture. This argument is flawed on a fundamental level. Explaining the processes of the natural world does nothing to eliminate the creator. In his response to The Grand Design, John Lennox explains a crucial distinction:

“Contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions.

“What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine” (John Lennox, “As a scientist I'm certain Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God”).

Lennox argues in God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? that the existence of God makes science possible: "The point to grasp here is that, because God is not an alternative to science as an explanation, he is not to be understood merely as a God of the gaps. On the contrary, he is the ground of all explanation: it is his existence which gives rise to the very possibility of explanation, scientific or otherwise" (God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?, 47. Emphasis original). In this video Lennox also explains that it is not the science which he does not understand which motivates him to believe in God. Instead, it is the science which he does understand, because he sees the amazing and brilliant design inherent in it. Christians need not, and should not, take a "god of the gaps" route in defending their faith. They can instead hit opposing arguments at their core. As Albert Mohler explains, “the 'God of the gaps' as a false idol of theological surrender."

Hawing and Mlodinow argue that complex systems can arise without God. Okay, so what? One could possibly respond that this does not prove that such systems actually did arise without God, but that would only place the believer and unbeliever back on equal footing where they are simply arguing past each other. There is a much more fundamental problem here. Without a basis for the existence of natural law, Hawking and Mlodinow have no basis on which to even begin their argument. A Christian has a basis on which to account for a reasonable universe which operates according to natural laws, and a basis on which he can use his senses to observe it, because the universe was created by a reasonable God who designed it in such a way as to reveal Himself (Psalm 19; Romans 1). And yet, because God created the universe, and because He is completely sovereign over it, there is no contradiction in His divine intervention in the universe.

Christians, you do not need to feel threatened by the arguments of unbelievers, regardless of how sophisticated they may sound. Jamin Hubner gives a great illustration at RealApologetics.org. While Dorothy, the scarecrow, lion, and tin man are trying to reason with great Wizard of Oz, and getting nowhere, Toto calmly and quietly walks over to the booth where the real “wizard” is hiding, pulls back the curtain, and exposes his pretension for the sham that it is. Yes, the unbeliever may be widely read, educated, and very intelligent, but ultimately he does not have a leg to stand on.

"Unless God is back of everything, you cannot find meaning in anything" (Cornelius Van Til, Why I Believe in God)

“I hold that belief in God is not merely as reasonable as other belief; it is not a little more probably, or infinitely more probable, than unbelief. I hold rather that unless you believe in God you can logically believe in nothing else.” (Cornelius Van Til, Why I Believe in God)

(In its original context, Hubner uses his illustration to explain the fundamental difference between how classical/evidential and presuppositional apologetics respond to non-Christian arguments. The illustration is adapted in this article.)

Further reading:

No Need for God? Stephen Hawking Defies Divine Creation, by Albert Mohler
The Grand Design, by Jason Lisle

"The Grand Design" and Free Will

2010-10-25T18:50:00.003-04:00

In their new book, The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow defend scientific determinism, which they define as follows:

“Given the state of our universe at one time, a complete set of laws fully determines both the future and the past. This would exclude the possibility of miracles or an active role for God. . . . It is, in fact, the basis of all modern science, and a principle that is important throughout this book. A scientific law is not a scientific law if it holds only when some supernatural being does not intervene” (30).

Essentially, laws of nature must hold true in all cases without being overridden by divine intervention. They must operate without exceptions, except “under a stipulated set of conditions” (28).

They then apply scientific determinism in rejecting human free will. They reason that humans live in the universe and interact with it. Therefore scientific determinism must apply to them just as it applies to the rest of the universe. They argue, “though we feel that we can choose what we do, our understanding of the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets" (31-32). For support they point out that electrical stimulation of the brain can create false sensations. They conclude, “so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion” (32).

They then argue that human behavior, though it is determined by nature, is impossible to predict in practice due to the complexity and the numerous variables involved. They instead propose applying an “effective model” (a model which can explain an overall phenomenon without explaining all underlying processes in detail) to human behavior. For example, we cannot calculate all the gravitational attractions between the atoms of a human body and the atoms of the earth, but we can still describe the overall gravitational attraction between a person and the earth. Chemistry provides an effective model to explain how atoms and molecules interact without the explaining the interactions in complete detail. Hawking and Mlodinow argue:

"In the case of people, since we cannot solve the equations that determine our behavior, we use the effective theory that people have free will. The study of our will, and of the behavior that arises from it, is the science of psychology. . . . That effective theory is only moderately successful in predicting behavior because, as we all know, decisions are often not rational or are based on a defective analysis of the consequences of the choice. That is why the world is in such a mess" (33).

If a person begins with scientific determinism and a no-exceptions view of the laws of nature, then it makes sense that he would conclude that free will is illusory. However, this still causes many problems for Hawking and Mlodinow argument. No doubt they would try to persuade people of the veracity of their view. Presumably this at least one reason for writing this book. However, if free will is an illusion what is the point of persuasion? If Hawking and Mlodinow are correct, then a person agrees or disagrees, is persuaded or not persuaded, only because he was scientifically determined to do so. Hawking and Mlodinow hold their view, and wrote their book, only because they were scientifically determined to do so.

Hawking and Mlodinow say that decisions are often irrational and that this is why “the world is in such a mess.” (33) If someone's decision is irrational, should we try to persuade a him to be rational? What is the point if he is only doing what he is scientifically determined to do? Strictly speaking, he is not even making a decision. How do we judge what is and is not rational if we do not even choose one option over another? Rationality and persuasion are meaningless in such a system (for an analysis of the foundation of logic, see this article). So what if the world is in such a mess? Even if standards of mess vs. non-mess have any meaning here, each person would only be holding his scientifically determined standard and either following or violating it in a scientifically determined manner.

Also, what is the point of employing an “effective theory” of human free will? Hawking's and Mlodinow's examples of gravity and chemistry do not provide a helpful analogy. In this illustration, gravity and chemistry provide generalizations of observable processes. However, if free will is ultimately an illusion, as Hawking and Mlodinow argue, then an “effective theory” of free will is no more than an illusion, applying what Hawking and Mlodinow have already rejected.

Hawking and Mlodinow also seem to contradict themselves near the end of this book. They speculate on the possibility of meeting an alien being and how to determine that it has free will and is not simply a robot. They say that “the behavior of a robot would be completely determined, unlike that of a being with free will. Thus one could in principle detect a robot as a being whose actions can be predicted” (178). However, there are too many particles in a complex being to do calculations to predict its behavior. We can say it has free will but merely as "an admission of our inability to do the calculations that would enable us to predict its actions" (178).

Now hold on a minute. Did they not argue that human behavior is causally determined due to scientific determinism and a no-exceptions view of the laws of nature? That being the case, why do they even speculate about determining whether an alien has free will? If free will is an illusion, then an alien has no free will. Of course, if Hawking and Mlodinow do meet an alien they may conclude that it has free will, but only because they were scientifically determined to make that conclusion. On the other hand, it is possible that Hawking and Mlodinow consider the possibility of an alien with free will in a purely hypothetical manner, but this begs the question of why they would do so if they believe that free will is ultimately an illusion.

Maybe they would try to resolve this contradiction by appealing to model-dependent realism. They explain:

“Model-dependent realism short-circuits all this argument and discussion between realism and anti-realism schools of thought. According to model-dependent realism, it is pointless to ask whether a model is real, only whether it agrees with observation. If there are two models that both agree with observation, like the goldfish’s picture and ours, then one cannot say that one is more real than another. One can use whichever model is more convenient in the situation under discussion.” (45-46).

They also say that the simpler theory has an advantage (47, 52) and that whichever model that best explains present observations is the best theory (50-53). So would they vascillate between denying and affirming free will according to the circumstances? However they attempt to resolve this problem, it seems that Hawking and Mlodinow find it difficult to live with the consequences of their arguments.

Christians, however, affirm that God created mankind and created them in His image. Christians disagree on the extent to which mankind's fallen nature has affected their free will, and on the exact relationship between human free will and divine sovereignty, but Christians nonetheless reject a determinism that precludes free will of one form or another. Under the assumption of mankind's creation by God, the existence of free will makes sense, both in theory and in practice.

Further reading:

The Grand Design, by Jason Lisle
No Need for God? Stephen Hawking Defies Divine Creation, by Albert Mohler
Hawking atheopathy: Famous physicist goes beyond the evidence, by Jonathan Sarfati
Hawking Not Needed to Explain His New Book, Says Universe
This article turns Hawking's arguments against him. It reminds me of this spoof of Richard Dawkins.
"The Foundation of Logic in the Nature of God," by Henry Middleton

Toto the Presuppositionalist

2010-09-26T15:21:00.003-04:00

In this blog post Jamin Hubner of RealApologetics.org uses a humorous Wizard of Oz illustration to explain the difference between classical/evidential apologetics and presuppositional apologetics. While Dorothy and the others are trying to reason with the booming voice of the wizard, Toto (an unintimidated Van Tilian) exposes the sham, showing that the wizard is all bluster with no foundation.

Hubner is the author of The Portable Presuppositionalist. I recommend this book. It is easy to read and provides some very helpful material. Hubner also has a blog (some of which is also posted at Pros Apologian) and a podcast.

"Unless God is back of everything, you cannot find meaning in anything" (Cornelius Van Til, Why I Believe in God)

“I hold that belief in God is not merely as reasonable as other belief; it is not a little more probably, or infinitely more probable, than unbelief. I hold rather that unless you believe in God you can logically believe in nothing else.” (Cornelius Van Til, Why I Believe in God)

Dawkinite Contradiction

2010-08-03T08:14:00.001-04:00

Barry Arrington at Uncommon Descent provides an interesting blog post in which he contrasts two statements by Richard Dawkins. In the first, he quotes a famous (or notorious) statement in River out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life in which Dawkins says that there are no ethics or purpose but only "blind, pitiless indifference. . . . DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music" (River out of Eden, p. 133). Arrington then provides a quote from a debate in which Dawkins argued that humans are capable of rebelling against their DNA and breaking away from selfishness in favor of long-term planning. Dawkins says that if humans do not do this, then no species will.

Arrington rightly explains the logical contradiction between these quotes. On the one hand, there are no ethics in this system. On the other hand, Dawkins says that humans should relinquish selfishness. In all that I have read by Dawkins I have never encountered a single instance in which Dawkins attempts to resolve this contradiction, or even demonstrates that he is aware of it (if anyone knows of such an attempt, cite it in a comment below).

How could someone hold such contradictory views? The quote from River out of Eden is a logically inescapable consequence of atheistic Darwinism. It is not surprising that someone with that worldview would conclude that ultimately there is no basis for ethics. However, every person is created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27) and has an inner concience of God's moral law implanted in him (Romans 2), and so it is expected that a person would try to hold onto some concept of morality and goodness despite his worldview. The contradiction between Dawkins' statements illustrates that he is unable to live with the consequences of his own worldview.

I have written elsewhere on the necessarily theistic foundation of morality. A more complete explanation is provided in those posts: here, here, here, here, and here.

Online Confessions and Catechisms

2010-05-23T21:12:00.004-04:00

This post at Apologetics 315 provides iTunes links for podcasted audio versions of the Westminster Shorter and Larger Catechisms. When I visited the iTunes pages I found links to many more similar podcasts:

Full text versions of these and many more historic church documents are available here. I also recommend the following books:

John H. Leith, Creeds of the Churches: A Reader in Christian Doctrine, from the Bible to the Present
This book provides the text of many creeds and confessions from multiple traditions throughout church history.

Joel R. Beeke, Reformed Confessions Harmonized
This book contains the Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, Second Helvetic Confession, Canons of Dort, Westminster Confession, Westminster Shorter Catechism, and Westminster Larger Catechism. It places sections from each document in parallel columns according to topic. For example, it will list in parallel what each document says about justification, or the offices of Christ, etc. It is very useful when you want to research historic statements on specific topics. I used when writing my Reformation Day post.

The Westminster Confession can be downloaded to the Aldiko Android App.

The following are available in stand-alone eBook format on Android phones:

Reforming Our Nation on the Solid Foundation of Christ

2010-04-18T19:07:00.003-04:00

A friend posted this note on his Facebook page on 4/14/10:

April 15th used to be only known for one thing. Taxes. However in recent years, as our God given liberties have been lost with every piece of legislation we have seen a rise in political grassroots. The aim of which is to restore the Country back to the historical constitutional roots.

I praise God that there is a lot of talk about about the Constitution. People are carrying it around in their pockets, people are reading it and many people, for the first time, are learning of their God given rights and the restrictions of the Government. This is a very, very good thing. However by itself, the parties, the petitions, the flag waving, the protests, the signs, and the passion are meaningless with out the one thing the overwhelming noise of the Parties are silent about...

The Gospel

Now don't get me wrong. I am not saying that as Christians we should be absent from the political process and just preach the Gospel. I believe the exact opposite. I believe that as Christians, because we have the Gospel, we are the only ones who are capable of running and sustaining a Government.

Read the words of Noah Webster, the founder of modern American public education.
“In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed... No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.” -Noah Webster written in the preface to his American Dictionary of the English Language of 1828.
Understand this point. Without Christ, men are wicked (Gen 6:5), they are born at enmity towards God (Rom 8:7), they hate God (Rom 1:30). They despise his wisdom (Pro 1:7), they despise the education that comes from his Word. Without Christ men are fools (Rom 1), and they seek after their own pleasure (Ecc 7:4), they are liars, thieves and adulterers (1 Cor 6). Everything about sinful man is in constant rebellion to God. (Rom 3)

Yet these men, year after year, election after election are ones we put on the ballot, we promote, we petition and we evangelize for these enemies of God. Be they Mormons, Catholics or Unregenerate posers, We give men who we would not trust five minutes alone with our wallets, control of our entire country.

We have come to the conclusion that we don't need Christians in office, we just need people who resemble Christians. Great Moralist. Our perfect candidate is the perfect description of a wolf in sheeps clothing. We want someone who is politically correct, won't talk about Jesus in public and reduces the slaughter of millions of Children a mere check mark on his election brochure. We want candidates who simply resemble Christianity. Be they any religion they please but true regeneration is of the least of our concerns.

However it should be the priority. It should be the very first question we ask.

I don't want a candidate who can articulate the finer aspects of capitalism and the free market if he cannot show me in Scripture why this method is ordained by God.

I don't want a candidate who is against abortion because it's a moral tragedy. I want one who can articulate it's violation of the sixth commandment, and testifies with authority that it violates God's Law and forgiveness for this terrible transgression is only in Christ.

I don't want a candidate who goes to Church, but I want a candidate who Loves the Church and would gladly risk persecution from terrorists or ecumenists to propose it's truth.

Most importantly, I don't want a candidate who is unable and unwilling to testify to the truths of his own salvation. If a Godly candidate has Christ as the center of all his policy, all other policies will fall into play.

But very little of this talk will be happening at the Tea Parties tomorrow and that is why the movements, if left to vain conversation grounded in the rambling reason and leadership of unregenerate men, will fail.

Christian. I urge you not to shy away from the political sphere but subdue it. Speak up, turn off Fox News, a network dominated by unregenerate Catholics and Mormons. Turn off CNN and MSNBC who promote unbiblical policies, and turn back to Christ as the source for all political knowledge and wisdom. Get involved locally. Share the Gospel at meetings. Run for Office if for no other reason but to proclaim the Truth of the Gospel and the sola source of true Freedom and Liberty.

Take this Nation Captive for the Gospel. First by Preaching it openly and publicly and second by overflowing with truly good works that are not only centered but dependent on Christ, for your Country.

I pray that as we head out to our rallies, while waving banners of freedom we realize that without Christ at the center all ideas are depraved vanities which will do the opposite of giving us true Liberty, but instead they will enslave us to damning moralism doomed by the depraved hearts of men to fail.

As Noah Webster said:
"Let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers just men who will rule in the fear of God [Exodus 18:21]. . . . If the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted . . . If our government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws." - Noah Webster, The History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie and Peck, 1832), pp. 336-337, 49
For the sake of restoring the Sovereign.

Marcus

===============================================

I do not have a problem with watching the news as long as a person uses discernment. Nonetheless, Marcus makes some important points. Political rallies and political reform have value, and they can accomplish good ends. However, purely political solutions do not address the root problem. They ultimately put a band-aid on a deep and increasingly infected wound. Our country's root problem is that we have turned away from God.

Secular writers will often argue that the United States is not a Christian nation and that the US Constitution is a secular document. On the contrary, the existence and active role played by the biblical God was paramount in the minds of this country's founders. While it is true that the US is not a Christian nation in the sense that the majority of government and public policies now operate on Christian principles, we should still keep some important historical facts in mind. The US Constitution does not mention Christianity as a state religion, but it does presuppose Christianity. For example, Sunday is not counted in the number of days that the president has to sign a bill, thereby making it a day off. The Constitution was also signed on "the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."

George Washington saw the hand of God in the formation of the country. He wrote to Gov. Trumbull of Connecticut:

"We may with a kind of pious and grateful exultation trace the finger of Providence through those dark and mysterious events which first induced the States to appoint a general convention, and then led them one after another, by such steps as were best calculated to effect the object, into an adoption of the system recommended by the general convention, thereby, in all human probability, laying a lasting foundation for tranquillity and happiness, when we had too much reason to fear that confusion and misery were coming upon us." (Benjamin F. Morris, The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States [Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2007], 305)

The Declaration of Independence is far from secular. Human rights were endowed by "Nature's God" and the "Creator." The signers appealed to "the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions." The Declaration closed with the following: "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

The modern concept of "separation of church and state" would have been foreign to the minds of the founders. Properly understood, the first amendment does not forbid religion from being involved in politics, whether that be on the local, state, or even federal level. It limits what the government can do regarding religion, but it does not limit the freedom of religious organizations or individual believers. It protects churches from the state. It was never intended to ban the church from politics.

This will surprise many people, but the establishment clause of the first amendment originally forbade only a nationally endorsed church. The states had state endorsed churches, and the states could (and did) impose religious conditions for holding office. Christianity was the accepted religion of the country, but no particular denomination was mandated by law. It is also worth noting that on same day that the first amendment was approved, president George Washington declared a national day of prayer. Such an act today would draw the wrath of the ACLU on the grounds that it constitutes an "unconstitutional" establishment of religion, even though the very men who wrote the first amendment would not have seen it that way.

Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association can hardly be used as a basis for a separation of church from the state (as separation of church and state is commonly applied today) considering that Jefferson (a hero of secularists today), while he was the governor of Virginia, declared days of prayer and thanksgiving to God. As president he prayed in both of his inaugural addresses. He signed bills which provided funds for chaplains. He supported the teaching of religion in state-endorsed schools. He also proposed that the national seal include an image of Pharaoh’s army being killed in the Red Sea (one of the most significant events in the Bible).

Our nation has increasingly become more secular, but this was not the intention of the founders. Secularism also is not a source of strength. The US Constitution officially guarantees freedoms to the citizens of this country, but it is only as strong as the foundation on which this country rests. Genuine strength to respond to such forces as moral relativism, rampant political corruption, and racial tension, but still maintain individual freedoms, comes from having a firm foundation for values. This foundation is found only in the eternal, holy, and just creator, and it is in him that our country can find what it needs to recover from its current decline. Daniel Webster wrote:

"If we and our posterity shall be true to the Christian religion—if we and they shall live always in the fear of God and shall respect his commandments—if we and they shall maintain just moral sentiments, and such conscientious convictions of duty as shall control the heart and life—we may have the highest hopes of the future fortunes of our country; and if we maintain those institutions of government, and that political union exceeding all praise as much as it exceeds all former examples of political association, we may be sure of one thing, that, while our country furnishes materials for a thousand masters of the historic art, it will be no topic for a Gibbon—it will have no decline and fall. It will go on prospering and to prosper. But if we and our posterity neglect religious instruction and authority, violate the rules of eternal justice, trifle with the injunctions of morality, and recklessly destroy the political constitution which holds us together, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us that shall bury all our glory in profound obscurity. If that catastrophe shall happen, let it have no history! Let the horrible narrative never be written! Let its fate be like that of the lost books of Livy, which no human eye shall ever read, or the missing Pleiad, of which no man can know more than that it is lost, and lost forever." (Morris, 320-21)

The biblical Christian worldview is a comprehensive worldview. It covers more than what people believe about God and the afterlife, and what people do on Sunday mornings. It includes how a person should see all aspects of life: work, culture, society, politics, economics, philosophy, art, literature, music, and leisure. The Gospel is also the means by which God reforms both individuals and societies. Francis Schaeffer said it well.

"If we ache and have compassion for humanity today in our own country and across the world, we must do all that we can to help people see the truth of Christianity and accept Christ as Savior. And we must stand against the loss of humanness in all its forms. It is God's life-changing power that is able to touch every individual, who then has a responsibility to touch the world around him with the absolutes found in the Bible. In the end we must realize that the tide of humanism, with its loss of humanness, is not merely a cultural ill, but a spiritual ill that the truth given us in the Bible and Christ alone can cure." (Francis A. Schaeffer, Whatever Happened to the Human Race?, in Francis A. Schaeffer, The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer [Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1982], vol. 5, 410. Emphasis mine).

Religion is not a private matter. It has significant impact on both individual lives and the life of a nation:

"The central message of biblical Christianity is the possibility of men and women approaching God through the work of Christ. But the message also has secondary results, among them the unusual and wide freedoms which biblical Christianity gave to countries where it supplied the consensus. When these freedoms are separated from the Christian base, however, they become a force of destruction leading to chaos. When this happens, as it has today, then, to quote Eric Hoffer (1902– ), 'When freedom destroys order, the yearning for order will destroy freedom.'

"At that point the words left or right will make no difference. They are only two roads to the same end. There is no difference between an authoritarian government from the right or left: the results are the same. An elite, authoritarianism as such, will gradually force form on society so that it will not go on to chaos. And most people will accept it—from the desire for personal peace and affluence, from apathy, and from the yearning for order to assure the functioning of some political system, business, and the affairs of daily life. That is just what Rome did with Caesar Augustus" (Francis A. Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live?, in Francis A. Schaeffer, The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer, vol. 5, 243–44. Emphasis original).

(I comment on this further here.)

Christians should be involved in politics. They should use the political means which are made available, but they should keep such efforts in the proper perspective. Political solutions from any political party, however helpful they may be, are ultimately inadequate. The Gospel of Christ provides the only means by which our country can ultimately be saved from it current decline. Christians can and should vote and run for office, but they should remember that purely political efforts are limited and that their first priority is to spread the Gospel of Christ and train believers in a life which is submitted to God and glorifies Him.

I suggest the following books on the Christian background of the United States:

Benjamin F. Morris, The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2007) (paperback, ebook). An older edition is available at Google Books

Gary Demar, America's Christian Heritage (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2003) (hardback).

Did They Bother to Think This Through?

2010-03-01T19:20:00.003-05:00

In the Feb. 26 episode of the Intelligent Design the Future podcast Logan Gage reviews an argument by which evolutionists try to say that religion is a product of evolution which is innate, pre-programmed, and not formed from experience. They say that the human mind is endowed by evolution with innate ideas and mechanisms which encourage people to believe in gods. Advocates of this argument conclude that belief in God is an accidental byproduct of evolution and is therefore unwarranted. Gage argues that this is self-defeating because it would challenge many other beliefs. Do our cognitive processes always get things wrong? Of course not. Advocates of this argument single out belief in God but leave other beliefs untouched. If their argument were applied consistently, then the beliefs which form the basis of own argument would be invalid.

In other words, if their argument is true, then it is false. This is an especially serious problem if the laws of logic are said to be products of evolution. If that were the case, then we would have no reason to speak of the "laws" of logic as genuine laws. Survival value, as mediated by natural selection, does not necessarily equate with truth. The system of logic that we use also could not be considered valid in the strictest sense but instead would be the system with the best survival value so far. It would have pragmatic value but not inherent validity. As C. S. Lewis argued:

“If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts—i.e. of Materialism and Astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a correct account of all the other accidents. It is like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.” (C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, [Cambridge: Wm. B. Eerdmans], 52–53. Emphasis original)

On the other hand, if God exists, then logic is based in the God who is eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. This provides a firm foundation for universal and unchanging laws of logic. Evolution provides no such standard. This illustrates the point made by the late Cornelius Van Til: "I propose to argue that unless God is back of everything you cannot find meaning in anything." (Cornelius Van Til, Why I Believe in God [Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Theological Seminary, 1976], 1)

Atheist Aid to Haiti

2010-01-21T19:43:00.002-05:00

A campaign to collect money for the earthquake victims in Haiti has been launched by Non-Believers Giving Aid, a charity started by Richard Dawkins. The author of the announcement closes with the following statement:

I couldn't care less whether someone donates to a religious organization helping out there or not. You should donate to whatever group you are comfortable donating to. But I think it's a good idea to do so through a non-religious organization because you can help out at the same time you're disproving the myth that religion is required for morality or charity. That's where I chose to donate. I hope you will too.

Michael Shermer makes the following statement:

In other words, we all have the capacity to be generous and giving, as long as we belong to social groups who encourage the better angels of our natures. That is social capital that generates economic capital, and nonbelievers are just as generous as believers. Call it bowling for atheists!

First, help for the victims in Haiti is to be commended, whether the people giving the aid are religious or not. Victims of this tragedy will welcome the help regardless.

However, the arguments given above make a fundamental error. They are essentially "we can be good (or moral) without believing in God" arguments, like the recent "be good for goodness sake" atheist ad campaign (post here). Such arguments make an error which is common among atheists and which misses the entire point regarding the religious basis of morality. The question is not whether people can do good deeds without believing in God. The question is, "what is the basis of morality?" or "on what basis is an action judged to be good or evil?" Richard Dawkins argues in The God Delusion that morality is grounded in evolution by appealing to his selfish gene theory. However, this is a purely pragmatic criteria which states that altruism increases the chance for certain genes to survive. Explaining pragmatically why someone does something does not explain why he should or should not do it.

An action can be declared to be morally good for everyone only if it that judgment is grounded in a standard which transcends individual people and individual societies. This standard would also need to be grounded in a personal reality because moral obligation involves choice which requires personality and consciousness. A purely naturalistic worldview cannot provide such a basis. On the other hand, if morality is based in a transcendent and personal reality (such as God) then there is an objective foundation for morality. Being the creation of such a being would also explain mankind's universal moral consciousness (although people differ on some of the details).

Of course people can do good deeds without believing in God, but they cannot account for their standard of goodness. Without a personal and transcendent foundation, morality ultimately boils down to personal or popular opinion and pragmatics. In such a world an action could be helpful or not helpful, desirable or undesirable, but it could not be declared to be good or evil. If morality is a reflection of the eternal nature of God, however, then there is a firm basis on which to distinguish between good and evil. The fact that people recognize a distinction between good and evil regardless of their religious beliefs is a reflection of God's general revelation and the image of God in each person.

Excitement over "Synthethic Life"

2010-01-20T17:02:00.000-05:00

NewScientist.com reported a month ago that Craig Venter was close to producing synthetic life in the form of a bacteria with a custom designed DNA (article). Some people may argue that this this demonstrates that the origin of life does not require the existence of God. However, this misses some obvious problems.

First, synthetic life requires an intelligent designer. In this case the designer is a scientist. Nonetheless, far from eliminating the logical necessity of God for the existence of life, this demonstrates the role of a designing intelligence. Second, even if Venter did succeed in accomplishing his goal, he still would not create life. The article at NewScientist.com explains that the custom designed DNA would be inserted into an existing bacterial cell which has been stripped of its original DNA. This is not creating life; it is modifying life. Both this procedure, and Venter's goal to construct synthetic self-assembling ribosomes, depend on pre-existing life from which to work. This reminds me of a parable that my philosophy professor once told in class:

A group of scientists decide that they have advanced to the point where they no longer need God, and so they choose a representative to go to God and tell him to just go away. The chosen representative goes to God and says, "We have developed the ability to perform many miraculous things. We do not think we need you anymore, and so why not just go away and leave us alone?" God listens and then says, "Okay. Let's have a man-making contest." The scientist says this would not be a problem, but then God says, "now, we will do this like I did it in the old days." The scientist says "no problem" and then bends down to pick up a handful of dirt," to which God replies, "No, you go get your own dirt."

No matter how advanced science becomes, it still works from pre-existing materials and pre-existing scientific laws. Even if humans could create new life, it would nonetheless beg the question of the origin of the original life. Claiming that science has eliminated the necessity of God is like the moon claiming to illuminate the night while ignoring the fact that its light is merely a reflection from the sun (article). Eventually one must face the reality of an eternally existing and ultimate creator.

Science is, without a doubt, a valuable pursuit. However, rather than challenging the rationality of believing in God, further advances in science instead demonstrate the genius of God's design and provide further reasons to believe in Him (see post here)."The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork" (Psalm 19:1).

"Good for Godness Sake" Ad Campaign

2009-12-08T17:28:00.002-05:00

The American Humanist Association is launching an ad campaign to promote the idea that people can be “good without God.” Buses in DC will carry the slogan “Be Good for Goodness’ sake. Humanism is the idea that you can be good without a belief in God." Roy Speckhardt (executive director of the American Humanist Association) says that the view that lack of belief in God means that a person is not moral motivated this campaign (article here). Another ad in Baltimore says, “Are you good without God? Millions are (article here).

This campaign makes an error which is very common today. Do we need God in order to be moral? Do we need religion or belief in God in order to be moral? Those questions are often treated interchangeably, but they are separate questions. If God does exist, then there is a universal basis for morality. This would be true regardless of whether or not a person believes in God. Morality would have a theological foundation even for atheists. If God does not exist, then what is the basis of morality? The ad campaign tells us to be good “for goodness’ sake.” What is “goodness”? What sort of authority does that have regarding how people behave?

In order to say that an action is good or evil, one needs an objective and universal moral standard that transcends individual people and individual societies. It must also be personal in nature. Moral standards deal with right and wrong, what should and should not be done. That implies a choice which requires personality and consciousness. A transcendent moral standard would therefore need to be grounded in a conscious, personal, and transcendent being. Christians find this in God. “Goodness’ sake” is not a basis for being “good” because it lacks a firm basis for defining what “good” is. Without a transcendent standard there are only the changing opinions of individuals and society.

Can people be good without religion or belief in God? Yes, if there is a transcendent being who has imprinted human nature with his moral standard. However, someone who does not believe in God would have the impossible task of accounting for a transcendent moral standard within the confines of his worldview. Can people be good without God? No, because if God does not exist then there is no basis on which to call a behavior “good” or “bad.” If there is no God, then nothing is moral or immoral; everything simply is.

For more info: Henry W. Middleton, "Can Morality be Based in our 'Selfish' Evolutionary Past?," Christian Research Journal, vol. 32, no. 4 (2009): 36-43.

Some "Great Conversations" on Some Fundamental Topics

2009-12-05T12:35:00.000-05:00

About a month or so ago I finished reading Ravi Zacharias' "Great Conversations" series.

The Lotus and the Cross: Jesus Talks with Buddha
Conversation between Jesus, Buddha, a boat driver, and Priya (a woman in Thailand who committed suicide after a very difficult life).

Zacharias explains that there is ultimately no enduring "self" in Buddhism. In contrast to this, he explains that God loves people as individuals and that people find the full expression of their uniqueness only when they find Jesus as Savior (63). He explains that "it is not so much the illusion of self but the self over God that breeds a breakdown of what God intended us to be" (58. Emphasis original). He also explains that morality only makes sense in the context of personhood. “There is no way to talk of what one ought to do without showing the value of the person” (71. Emphasis original). He concludes that "Jesus Christ came to give us a life of fullness, not detachment, a life that will be eternal, not impermanent" (93). Zacharias also explains that a drive to worship something is part of human nature. People cannot escape this. If they do not worship God in truth, then they will worship a falsehood. When this happens, “life’s ultimate purpose is desecrated” (77).

Sense and Sensuality: Jesus Talks with Oscar Wilde
Conversation between Jesus, Oscar Wilde, and Blaise Pascal.

Zacharias says that Wilde represents the spirit of our age “because he was obsessed with art and pleasure for their own sakes” (5), but in doing so a person jettisons absolute values. Zacharias explores pleasure as it relates to the purpose of life. He explains that God’s laws are in place for the good of mankind. “Those who understand best the human capacity for evil understand the need for laws” (28). The human heart tends to twist those laws. However, society may change its laws, but those changes are not necessarily beneficial. Zacharias says that people should worship God “in the beauty of holiness - these two are inseparable. When beauty is bounded by holiness, the artist soars the highest" (42. Emphasis original). To violate holiness is to risk violating beauty. “Before anything is offered to man, it must first be offered to God” (42). Beauty must be subservient to morality. In shunning God’s rules a man builds a prison for himself. In pursuing pleasure, one loses the person, but “in pursuing the sacred, you exalt the person and the sensation follows. Life then makes sense” (71). A changed life and heart are offered in the Cross of Christ. Only the blood of Christ can cleanse the heart.

The Lamb and the Führer: Jesus Talks with Hitler
Conversation between Jesus, Adolf Hitler, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

In this book Zacharias illustrates the practical consequences of rejecting God. He contrasts Hitler's political ambitions for power and disregard for other people with Bonhoeffer's dedication to God and with God's true design for people to find forgiveness and life in Christ. Zacharias also comments on the practical implications of rejecting God and rejecting the image of God in each person: “While religion cannot be politicized, to evict faith in God from the laws of the land or to forbid teaching faith in God to our children is to create a society one generation from total anarchy. Demagogues and anarchists are always in the wings to seize that power” (77). He also reminds us that the evil which was in Hitler is present in every one of us, and he explains that the image of God in each person provides a framework for law. "You simply cannot condemn Hitler without affirming the fundamental premise that life at its core is sacred" (89). True freedom and individual worth are found in Jesus. I comment on this book at more length here.

New Birth of Rebirth? Jesus Talks with Krishna
Conversation between Jesus, Krishna, and Subramaniam (an Indian man who was raised a Hindu but became a Christian).

One of Zacharias’ basic premises in this book is that “all religions are, at best, superficially similar but fundamentally different” (3). He then compares Christianity and Hinduism. He argues that what you believe does matter. He also notes that when truth is attacked, it is “seldom attacked head on. It is gradually reduced until it begins to seduce a person with a mixture of half-truths and half-lies” (36). Zacharias explains that there is a rift between mankind and God, but “the heart is not separated from God because it is unethical or immoral. No amount of moral rectitude can bridge the separation between God and humanity, between God and each human heart. I [Jesus] paid the price to reconcile God to man and change the human heart by the power of God” (74). He says that only when a person realizes his own spiritual poverty is he prepared to accept the new birth offered through Jesus.

I enjoyed each of these books. They are all short (about 100 small pages each), written in an easy to follow conversational style, and formatted similar to a script for a play. However, they contain material which requires close attention because they each deal with key elements of contrasting worldviews. In each case Zacharias attempts to be fair to both sides, but he still shows how the answer to mankind's deepest questions is found in Christ alone.

The Devaluing of Human Life

2009-11-21T22:11:00.000-05:00

Neocutis in San Francisco has admitted to using skin cells from an aborted boy in its anti-aging cream. In response to protests, Neocutis claims that the cells were acquired in a responsible and ethical way (article here).

This is a sign of how seriously Western society devalues human life. Killing our children is bad enough. Harvesting them for our own use just adds to the depravity. There is nothing responsible or ethical about it. Most people in Western society would be repulsed by cannibalism. This is not as blatant, but how is it fundamentally different? In either case, people are killing other people for their own consumption.

Ravi Zacharias explains in The Lamb and the Führer: Jesus Talks with Hitler that "If you reduce mankind to mere matter, the offspring of natural causes, you take away the equality and dignity of each person" (75). He further explains that, "in denying the moral law, everything becomes a pathetic attempt to defend even the abominable" (87). He argues that the devaluing of human life in free societies is no different from what is found in Nazism and Al Qaeda. "The atrocities we commit in our civilized societies are only dressed up with law and language. The world is reeling with the tricks being played to justify the profane. Our ways today are only better than sixty years ago at the surface level. At the core we are all in the same mess" (87-88).

Justifying the use of aborted fetuses in cosmetics has the potential to lead to dangerous practices further down the road. Francis Schaeffer warned that the devaluing of human life in abortion can lead to serious consequences:

Without the Judeo-Christian base which gives every individual an intrinsic dignity as made in the image of the personal-infinite Creator, each successive horror falls naturally into place. Combine arbitrary law (in which a small group of people may decide what is good for society at that moment in history) with the Supreme Court ruling on arbitrary abortion and the gates are opened for many kinds of killing under the guise of social good (WHHR, 329).

As I have explained in multiple posts, when society abandons God it ultimately loses its foundation for morality. Such a foundation can be found only in the form and freedom provided in the biblical Gospel (see here, here, here, and here).

WHHR = Francis A. Schaeffer, Whatever Happened to the Human Race? in Francis A. Schaeffer, The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer, vol. 5 (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1982).

Remember October 31 - Reformation Day

2009-10-31T00:01:00.136-04:00

October 31, which we commonly call Halloween, is also Reformation Day. On October 31, 1517 Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses on the door of the cathedral in Wittenburg, Germany. He did this to respond to the sale of indulgences by John Tetzel, authorized by Pope Leo X. Among other outlandish claims, Tetzel said that the indulgences could make a person cleaner than Adam had been before the Fall. Luther not only rejected the practice of selling indulgences but also criticized the exploitation which he saw at the heart of the practice.

Here is a clip from the Luther movie of Tetzel selling indulgences followed by Luther nailing up the Ninety-Five Theses:

Before entering the monastery, Martin Luther was worried by the righteousness of God. He thought of God as a severe judge toward sinners, and he felt the guilt of his own sins. He feared that he would not be ready to face the judgment of God. After being frightened in a thunderstorm he entered a monastery to try to make himself acceptable to God.

While serving as a monk of the Augustinian order, his good works, penance, and seeking to obey the rules of his order to the fullest were unable to settle his own fear of judgment. The more he pondered his condition and studied his own actions, the more sin he found in himself. He consulted the writings of German mystics, but they did not help to settle his anxiety. He saw a God who required a level of holiness which he could not attain, and so instead of feeling love for God, he felt hatred. He wondered how a holy and righteous God could love a sinner like himself.

Eventually Luther's confessor assigned him to study and teach the Bible. For a while he taught the Psalms, which he interpreted Christologically. He found some comfort in the description of the suffering of Christ in Psalm 22. Upon reading Psalm 22:1 ("My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" [see also Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34]) he realized that the holy God is also a loving God, and he realized that justice and love are connected in God, but even this was insufficient.

A breakthrough came, however, as Luther was preparing lectures on Romans, when he read Rom. 1:17 - "The righteous shall live by faith." He realized that a person is justified before God by faith; justification is a gift from God. On his own, man does not have what he needs to obtain forgiveness, but the price was paid by Christ. As Alister McGrath explains, "Luther's insight, which he describes in this autobiographical passage [referring the the 'autobiographical fragment'], is that the God of the Christian gospel is not a harsh judge who rewards individuals according to their merits, but a merciful and gracious God who bestows righteousness upon sinners as a gift" (Aliter McGrath, Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought [Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998], 186–87). For Luther, faith is personal trust in Jesus, not merely intellectual belief in the historicity of Jesus. It involves trusting Jesus. Faith also unites the believer with Christ (Ibid., 187–88).

Luther emphasized that people cannot justify themselves. Being a bad tree, man freely chooses evil. There is nothing in him by which he can please God. Man is in bondage to sin and death but is liberated through Christ. God initiates justification on the basis of an "alien righteousness," meaning not the sinner's own righteousness, but instead on the basis of the righteousness of Christ which is imputed to the believer by faith. Philip Melancthon called this "forensic justification." A person is declared righteous in God’s court. He then becomes righteous through the continuing process of sanctification. Luther did not teach, however, that God is indifferent to sin or that he simply forgives sin because it is not important. Instead, God is holy, and so sin is repugnant. In fact, a believer who has been justified realizes how sinful he is, but God has declared him to be righteous despite his sin. (importance of obedience discussed below)

Luther’s 95 Theses and his teaching spread through Germany. In 1530 at the Diet of Augsburg the German princes presented their case to Charles V with the Augsburg Confession (primarily written by Melanchthon). A few quotes are noteworthy. Section IV states:

"It is also taught among us that we cannot obtain forgiveness of sin and righteousness before God by our own merits, works, or satisfactions, but that we receive forgiveness of sin and become righteous before God by grace, for Christ’s sake, through faith, when we believe that Christ suffered for us and that for his sake our sin is forgiven and righteousness and eternal life are given to us. For God will regard and reckon this faith as righteousness, as Paul says in Romans 3:21–26 and 4:5."

Nevertheless, they did not claim that obedience to God is unimportant. Section VI says:

"It is also taught among us that such faith should produce good fruits and good works and that we must do all such good works as God has commanded, but we should do them for God’s sake and not place our trust in them as if thereby merit favor before God. For we receive forgiveness of sin and righteousness through faith in Christ."

Section XX teaches that we receive forgiveness by faith through Christ who is the only mediator between us and the father and that "whoever imagines that he can accomplish this by works, or that he can merit grace, despises Christ and seeks his own way to God, contrary to the Gospel." It also teaches, however, that we should do good works "that we may do God’s will and glorify him" and that "when through faith the Holy Spirit is given, the heart is moved to do good works." Works are a sign of true faith in a believer rather than a prerequisite.

(Quotes from the Augsburg Confession are taken from John Leith, Creeds of the Churches [Louisville: John Knox Press, 1982]).

The Listener's Bible provides a good (and free) presentation by Max McLean of the events of Luther's life leading up to and including the Diet of Worms here.

John Calvin
A post on justification must include John Calvin. As Justo González explains, "While Luther was the daring trailblazer for the movement, Calvin was the careful thinker who bound the various Protestant doctrines into a cohesive whole" (Justo L. González, The Story of Christianity, vol. 2, The Reformation to the Present Day [San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1985], 61).

Calvin explains in Institutes 3.11.2 (LCC 726) that a person “is justified in God’s sight who is both reckoned righteous in God’s judgment and has been accepted on account of his righteousness.” Where there is sin, there is the wrath of God, but “he is justified who is reckoned in the condition not of a sinner, but of a righteous man; and for that reason, he stands firm before God’s judgment seat while all sinners fall.” Calvin explains that the law cannot justify us. Instead, we are justified (declared innocent, not by confirming our own innocence, but by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, “so that we who are not righteous in ourselves may be reckoned as such in Christ” (3.11.3 [LCC 728]). Justifying righteousness also cannot be based on faith plus works. “So long as any particle of works righteousness remains some occasion for boasting remains with us. Now, if faith excludes all boasting [Rom. 3:27], works righteousness can in no way be associated with faith righteousness” (3.11.13 [LCC 743]). The justified sinner looks away from his own works and solely at “God’s mercy and Christ’s perfection” (3.11.16 [LCC 746]. See also 3.11.17–18, 23 [LCC 746–48, 753–54]).

Later in 3.12.7–8 (LCC 761–62) Calvin contrasts the Pharisee and the tax collector in Luke 18:10–14. The Pharisee is confident in his own righteousness, but the tax collector is humble recognizing his sinful heart. Calvin says that our hearts cannot receive the mercy of God until they have been emptied of all opinion of self. If we would answer God’s call we must put away arrogance (thinking oneself to have something which will commend him before God) and complacency (drunkenness in one’s vices to the point of disregarding God’s judgment). He then makes an excellent conclusion:

“Such sloth is no less to be shaken off than any confidence in ourselves is to be cast away in order that we may without hindrance hasten to Christ, and empty and hungering, may be filled with his good things. For we will never have enough confidence in him unless we become deeply distrustful of ourselves; we will never lift up our hearts enough in him unless they be previously cast down in us; we will never have consolation enough in him unless we have already experienced desolation in ourselves" (3.12.8 [LCC 762]. Emphasis added).

Calvin also summarizes this attitude ion his “Prefatory Address to King Francis” (LCC 13. Insert original in this edition):

"For what is more consonant with faith than to recognize that we are naked of all virtue, in order to be clothed by God? That we are empty of all good, to be filled by him? That we are slaves of sin, to be freed by him? Blind, to be illumined by him? Lame, to be made straight by him? Weak, to be sustained by him? To take away from us all occasion for glorying, that he alone may stand forth gloriously and we glory in him [cf. I Cor. 1:31; II Cor. 10:17]?"

LCC = John Calvin, Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, Library of Christian Classics, vol. 20, gen. eds., John Baillie, John T.McNeill, and Henry P. Van Dusen (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960).

The Doctrine of Justification
Justification is a legal declaration by which a person is declared righteous through his faith in Christ, not because of his merit, but instead based on the righteousness of Christ imputed to the believer. It is based on the grace of God. God also declares the believer to be forgiven of all sins, past, present, and future (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994], 722–33).

The Westminster Standards provide good explanations of justification. For example, the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) XI:3 says:

Christ, by His obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real and full satisfaction to His Father's justice in their behalf. Yet, in as much as He was given by the Father for them; and His obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead; and both, freely, not for any thing in them; their justification is only of free grace; that both the exact justice, and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.

I like how this explanation emphasizes that Christ paid the debt of sin for all who are justified but in a way which satisfied both the grace and the justice of God.

The Westminster Larger Catechism (1648) emphasizes the imputation of Christ’s righteousness apart from any human righteousness:

Q. 70. What is justification?
A. Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone.

Q. 71. How is justification an act of God’s free grace?
A. Although Christ, by his obedience and death, did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to God’s justice in the behalf of them that are justified; yet in as much as God accepteth the satisfaction from a surety, which he might have demanded of them, and did provide this surety, his own only Son, imputing his righteousness to them, and requiring nothing of them for their justification but faith, which also is his gift, their justification is to them of free grace.

(Note: When searching through Reformed confessions and catechisms I used Reformed Confessions Harmonized, edited by Joel R. Beeke and Sinclair B. Ferguson. This is an excellent resource. It topically arranges the following sources and places them in parallel columns: Belgic Confession [1561], Heidelberg Confession [1563], Second Helvetic Confession [1566], Canons of Dort [1619], Westminster Confession of Faith [1647], Westminster Shorter Catechism [1647], and Westminster Larger Catechism [1648].)

The truth of justification is stated quite strongly in the Bible. Romans 3:20–28 explains how God justifies sinners apart from their own merits but without compromising His own just and holy nature. Romans 5 explains how the righteousness by which we are redeemed is the righteousness of Christ.

In Hebrews 10 we learn that the law was a shadow of what was to come through Christ. The sacrifices under the law could not remove sin and had to be repeated. This was not true, however, of the sacrifice made by Christ:

¹⁰And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. ¹¹And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. ¹²But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, ¹³waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. ¹⁴For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. (Heb. 10:10–14)

Through Christ we have reconciliation with God and redemption from sin:

¹⁷Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. ¹⁸All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; ¹⁹that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. ²⁰Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. ²¹For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Cor. 5:17–21)

Philippians 3:8–9 emphatically states that this is the righteousness of Christ, not our own righteousness:

Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith" (See also Isaiah 53:11; Gal. 3; and Eph. 2:8–10).

As González explains, "Justification is not something that we achieve or merit. It is not something that God grants us on the basis of our future achievements. Justification is, first of all, the decree of absolution that God pronounces upon us, declaring us justified in spite of our sinfulness" (Justo L. González, A History of Christian Thought, vol. 3, From the Protestant Reformation to the Twentieth Century [Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1993], 57). Thomas Oden explains it well. He says that justification does not make a person behaviorally righteous, but it does acquit a person "from guilt and punitive liability." It is not based on improved human performance. Instead, it is a declaration of God on the basis of the sinner being in Christ. He says, "Justification is not the summit but the ground of the Christian life, not the end but the beginning of the journey of evangelical faith" (Thomas Oden, Systematic Theology [San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987–1992], 3:109).

Alister McGrath explains that the doctrine of justification is vital and central to the gospel of Christ:

"The Christian doctrine of justification, which forms the subject of the present study, thus constitutes the real centre of the theological system of the Christian church, encapsulating the direct and normative consequences of the historical revelation of God to mankind in Jesus Christ. There never was, and there never can be, any true Christian church without the doctrine of justification, for the community of faith cannot exist without proclaiming, in word and sacrament, the truth of what God has done for man in Christ" (Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, 2nd ed. [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press], 1).

"Who Christ is becomes known in his saving action; who man is becomes known through his being the object of that saving action. The doctrine of justification thus encapsulates the essence of the Christian faith and proclamation, locating the essence of Christianity in the saving action of God towards mankind in Jesus Christ" (Ibid., 2).

A believer’s sins are still present, but they are not reckoned to the believer’s account. His righteousness is found in Christ, not himself. Nevertheless, God does not casually ignore human sin. God's righteousness was vindicated by Christ on the cross when Christ took the sins of the world on himself and then conquered death in the resurrection. Justification is a one-time provision. Sanctification is a continual process by which God transforms a believer and makes him actually righteous. Justification is a legal declaration, while sanctification actually changes the believer’s moral nature (Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A. Demarest, Integrative Theology [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], 3:152–53). Justification also eliminates all grounds for boasting of one’s salvation and gives all of the glory to God.

Grudem explains that justification is a one time work which changes a believer’s legal standing and is entirely the result of God’s work. Sanctification is a continuing work which affects a believer’s “internal condition” and is the result of cooperative effort by God and the believer (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 746).

As Anthony Hoekema argues, it is important to keep justification and sanctification distinct. Failing to distinguish them results in making forgiveness of sins “dependent in some sense on the progress one is making in the sanctified life.” He stresses that justification is based on the work of Christ “and not one whit on our own good works” (Anthony A. Hoekema, Saved by Grace [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989], 178).

Justification by faith alone does not encourage unfaithfulness because it transforms a person in such a way that works become a natural result (Lewis and Demarest, Integrative Theology, 3:163–64). As John MacArthur explains, "The very essence of God’s saving work is the transformation of the will, resulting in a love for God. Salvation thus produces the root that will surely produce the fruit" (John F. MacArthur Jr., The Gospel According to Jesus: What Does Jesus Mean When He Says "Follow Me"?, rev. ed. [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994], xvi. Emphasis original).

McGrath explains it well. He insists that salvation is a gift for which a person can offer nothing, but it does change the believer. He says, “We come to God empty-handed, having nothing to offer except that which we receive by the grace of God. That gift, however, brings with it our transformation.” To reverse the order and make forgiveness conditional upon moral renewal is to miss the central point of justification and move into moralism (Alister E. McGrath, Justification by Faith: What It Means for Us Today [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988], 140).

In summary, a person so corrupted by sin that he could never earn forgiveness from God (Isaiah 64:6). Instead, a person who has been justified has been justified according to the righteousness of Christ imputed to him. Salvation is based on, and granted by, the grace of God alone, apart from any human works. God still commands the redeemed believer to live a holy life, but these works are a manifestation of the change which God has already made in him. Justification by grace alone does not encourage unfaithfulness because it transforms a person in such a way that works become a natural result.

A few years ago I was speaking to a Mormon philosophy of religion class at Brigham Young University. One student said that evangelicals believe that they are saved by grace alone but follow this with works, while Mormons believe they are saved by grace plus works. He asked, "In the end, is there a difference?" I responded that the difference lies in the basis of forgiveness. Is it based wholly on the grace of God or not? To add an extra requirement to the grace of God is to say that the grace of God is insufficient.

Most people know October 31 only as Halloween. Do not let this distract you from the legacy left to us by such great men of God as Luther and Calvin and the message which they emphasized - A Gospel which gives all of the glory to God and reminds us of our utter dependence on Him and the full sufficiency of the atonement achieved in Christ alone.

The Five Solas - The heart of the Protestant Reformation
Sola Scriptura - Scripture Alone
Solus Christus - Christ Alone
Sola Gratia - Grace Alone
Sola Fide - Faith Alone
Soli Deo Gloria - The Glory of God Alone

Here are two videos commemorating the Reformation:

I ended my post on sola scriptura with a silly video, and so why not do the same this time :)

You can play this game here.

My First Published Article

2009-10-16T08:14:00.003-04:00

My first published article (in the next Christian Research Journal) has been announced here.

"Can Morality Be Based in Our "Selfish" Evolutionary Past?"

In this article I respond to Richard Dawkins' argument that morality is a product of evolution. I apply the thinking of Francis Schaeffer and Greg Bahnsen. I argue that if atheistic evolution is applied consistently then morality lacks a foundation. I also explain how Dawkins misunderstands the nature of general revelation in morality.

Timoty George and Francis Beckwith

2009-10-07T16:04:00.009-04:00

James White gives a very interesting series on The Dividing Line in which he critiques a dialogue between Timothy George and Francis Beckwith. White discusses the differences between Protestant and Roman Catholic theology and his problems with ecumenical dialogue.

Dividing Line episodes:
9/15/09
9/17/09
9/22/09
9/24/09

Blog Entries:
http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3501

http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3502

http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3503

http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3504

John Holdren vs. "Whatever Happened to the Human Race?"

2009-09-29T12:15:00.002-04:00

Obama's science czar John Holdren argued in a book which he co-authored with Paul Erlich in 1977 that involuntary abortion is an acceptable means of controlling population growth (article here). This is the kind of thing Francis Schaeffer warned us about in How Should We Then Live? and Whatever Happened to the Human Race? When this country abandoned its Christian base in favor of secularism it lost its basis for attributing value to individual people. People are often reduced to their economic value. The same applies to euthanasia of the elderly.

Schaeffer rightly states that "cultures can be judged in many ways, but eventually every nation in every age must be judged by this test: how did it treat people? . . . The final measure of mankind's humanity is how humanely people treat one another" (WHHR, 281. Emphasis original). The Supreme Court ruled that unborn fetuses are not protected by the 14th Amendment. In a culture which has abandoned God, this is not surprising. Schaeffer argues that if people are merely the results of mechanistic processes plus time and chance, then they are not made in the image of God (WHHR, 285-90). We then lose our basis for human dignity. This has serious implications:

Without the Judeo-Christian base which gives every individual an intrinsic dignity as made in the image of the personal-infinite Creator, each successive horror falls naturally into place. Combine arbitrary law (in which a small group of people may decide what is good for society at that moment in history) with the Supreme Court ruling on arbitrary abortion and the gates are opened for many kinds of killing under the guise of social good (WHHR, 329).

Our creation by God in the image of God, however, gives value to each individual person:

Each man, woman, and child is of great value, not for some ulterior motive such as self-gratification or wealth or power or a sex object or "the good of society" or the maintenance of the gene pool—but simply because of his or her origin.

This flow of history that springs from Genesis has implications for every aspect of our lives. Each of us stands in the flow of history. We know our origin—a lineage more ancient than the Queen of England's or the Pilgrim Fathers'. As we look at ourselves in the flow of space-time reality, we see our origin in Adam and Eve, and we know that God has created every human being in His own image (WHHR, 388).

We then have a firm foundation on which to value the lives of not only the unborn but also the elderly, the disabled, our co-workers, friends, family, and even ourselves. This is very relevant today as our country considers socialized health care and the rationing of health care which will be the inevitable result. What do we value more? The person or "the good of society" as defined by politicians?

Schaeffer says that the remedy to the disregard for human life found in abortion and euthanasia is "the certainty of the absolute uniqueness and value of people" which is found only in the image of God, which we know through God's revelation in the Bible (WHHR, 405). However, the Christian Gospel must be embraced not as a useful cure for social ills but as truth (WHHR, 406). (See my comments here). He further explains:

If we ache and have compassion for humanity today in our own country and across the world, we must do all that we can to help people see the truth of Christianity and accept Christ as Savior. And we must stand against the loss of humanness in all its forms. It is God's life-changing power that is able to touch every individual, who then has a responsibility to touch the world around him with the absolutes found in the Bible. In the end we must realize that the tide of humanism, with its loss of humanness, is not merely a cultural ill, but a spiritual ill that the truth given us in the Bible and Christ alone can cure (WHHR, 410. Emphasis mine).

One last note. Christians are very vocal in opposing abortion, as they should be, but they should not stop there. Schaeffer speaks strongly against abortion, but he also adds that in opposing abortion, Christian churches also obligate themselves to tend to the needs of mothers who choose not to abort their children. "Saying that abortion is wrong immediately confronts us with a challenge to be willing to share in the consequences which our advice brings. For Christians who adhere to the truth of the Bible, the importance of doing what it teaches is imperative. We are to be compassionate about people's physical needs" (WHHR, 349). A mother may be unable to raise the child without child care and economic assistance. The church can provide this. Caring for those in economic need is, after all, a biblical role of the church (Acts 6; Rom. 15:25-28). This also applies to Christian opposition to euthanasia; the church should help families who are caring for seriously ill or disabled relatives. These are jobs of the church which should not be surrendered to the government.

WHHR = Francis A. Schaeffer, Whatever Happened to the Human Race? in Francis A. Schaeffer, The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer, vol. 5 (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1982).

"But I Am a Good Person"

2009-09-08T22:20:00.006-04:00

I saw this movie at church a few weeks ago. I highly recommend it (Trailer; Music video). This movie has two primary themes: 1) Caleb's efforts to save his marriage, and 2) Caleb realizing his need for forgiveness from God. I will focus on the second theme in this post.

This is one of the best scenes. First of all, it explains the Gospel. Second, it puts our complaints about how other people treat us in perspective by showing that we treat God the same way. John also explains to Caleb that the key to reconciling with Catherine is to be reconciled with God.

John explains that all the good that Caleb does is not enough to make him righteous before God. As Isaiah 64:6 says, "We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away." Paul makes it clear in Romans 1-2 that everyone is guilty in God's eyes. Every person is without excuse (1:20; 2:1; 3:19). No one can be forgiven through good works. Instead, the Law of God exposes our sin (3:20). A person can receive forgiveness only through the grace of God apart from the Law (3:21-26). No one can boast of his good works because they "are like a polluted garment." Forgiveness is found only in Christ.

The Mediator

Everlasting Creator-Father,

I have destroyed myself,
   my nature is defiled,
   the powers of my soul are degraded;
   I am vile, miserable, strengthless,
   but my hope is in thee.
If ever I am saved it will be by goodness
      undeserved and astonishing,
   not by mercy alone but by abundant mercy,
   not by grace alone but by exceeding riches of grace;
And such thou hast revealed, promised, exemplified
   in thoughts of peace, not of evil.

Thou hast devised means
   to rescue me from sin’s perdition,
   to restore me to happiness, honour, safety.
I bless thee for the everlasting covenant,
   for the appointment of a Mediator.
I rejoice that he failed not, nor was discouraged,
   but accomplished the work thou gavest him to do;
   and said on the cross, ‘It is finished.’
I exult in the thought that
   thy justice is satisfied,
   thy truth established,
   thy law magnified,
   and a foundation is laid for my hope.
I look to a present and personal interest in Christ and say,
   Surely he has borne my griefs,
   carried my sorrows,
   won my peace,
   healed my soul.
Justified by his blood I am saved by his life,
Glorying in his cross I bow to his scepter,
Having his Spirit I possess his mind.

Lord, grant that my religion may not be
   occasional and partial,
   but universal, influential, effective,
   and may I always continue in thy words
      as well as thy works,
   so that I may reach my end in peace.

(From The Valley of Vision: A Collection of Puritan Prayers and Devotions)

"Amazing Grace" Documentary

2009-09-02T10:15:00.000-04:00

I recently finished watching the documentary "Amazing Grace: The History and Theology of Calvinism" produced by Apologetics Group Media. I enjoyed it very much. It is filled with church history and exegesis of the Bible.

Available at Amazon, The Apologetics Group, Nicene Council, and American Vision.

Reviewed here

Free study guide

How Important is the Book of Abraham?

2009-08-20T21:22:00.007-04:00

Sharon Lindbloom and Aaron Shafovaloff have posted an interesting article at the Mormon Coffee blog in which they review a lecture delivered by John Gee at Brigham Young University in which he argues that the Book of Abraham in The Pearl of Great Price is "not central to the restored gospel of Christ" (The Book of Abraham: The larger issue).

Lindbloom and Shafovaloff rightly note that Gee's downplaying of the Book of Abraham presents a challenge for the LDS claim that Joseph Smith, Jr. was a genuine prophet and his claim to be able to translate ancient texts. If these claims are in question, then the remainder of Smith's revelations are suspect.

Bruce R. McConkie held a much higher view of the Book of Abraham: "The scriptural account contains priceless information about the gospel, pre-existence, the nature of Deity, the creation, and priesthood, information which is not otherwise available in any other revelation now extant" (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966], 564). This does not sound unimportant. The Book of Abraham makes some important statements on doctrines which constitute some of the key distinctions between historical Christianity and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The topics listed above concern doctrines which are far from secondary.

The Institute for Religions Research provides a free online video which evaluates the historical background of the Book of Abraham.

Francis Schaeffer - Final Choices

2009-07-27T12:00:00.004-04:00

This is the final segment of Francis Schaeffer's How Should We Then Live? video series. The book version of this section and some of the preceding sections were major sources for my entry on 7/6/09.

If you have not read the book nor seen the video series, then you are missing out. They were first released over thirty years ago, and yet they speak amazingly well to the present day.

I suggest reading the book and watching the videos together. Read a chapter, and then watch the corresponding video, and then take time to think about it. They provide a very helpful perspective on the current condition of our society, the direction in which it is heading, and why the Gospel is necessary to save our society.

Debate on Calvinism - James White and George Bryson

2009-07-14T22:29:00.013-04:00

On 7/14/09 the Christian Research Institute Twitter feed linked this printed debate between James White and George Bryson:

The Divine Sovereignty / Human Responsibility Debate
Part One: HTML, PDF

Part Two: HTML, PDF

White gives further relevant material in his 7/15/09 episode of The Dividing Line (although he does not reference these articles).

The Five Solas of the Protestant Reformation:

Sola Scriptura - Scripture Alone
Solus Christus - Christ Alone
Sola Gratia - Grace Alone
Sola Fide - Faith Alone
Soli Deo Gloria - Glory of God Alone

How Can Someone Be This Confused?

2009-07-13T10:05:00.001-04:00

In his 7/7/09 episode of Radio Free Geneva (blog entry) James White discusses a Youtube video in which Troy Brooks claims that James White, R. C. Sproul, John Calvin, Luther, Augustine, and John MacArthur are not Christians and therefore not born again. Brooks claims that they are not sure that they are saved and therefore work for their salvation.

Huh?! Uh, Troy, are you sure that you are not confusing Calvinism with Pelagianism on this point? Very fundamental mistake. Working for salvation is totally contrary to Calvinism. In The God Who Justifies White strongly affirms justification by faith alone. He says that "the alone has always referred to the denial of any additions to faith, especially those that speak to merit." He then concludes, "Faith, then, abandons all claim to any merit or reward. It is a passive instrument. It is not meritorious in itself" (James R. White, The God Who Justifies [Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2001], 109-10. Emphasis original). He also very favorably quotes Robert Reymond, leaving no doubt of what he believes:

"With a gloriously monotonous regularity Paul pits faith off over against all law-keeping as its diametrical opposite as to referent. Whereas the latter relies on the human effort of the law-keeper looking to himself to render satisfaction before God, the former repudiates and looks entirely away from all human effort to the cross work of Jesus Christ, who alone by his sacrificial death rendered satisfaction before God for men" (Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 2nd rev. ed. [Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998], 732. Emphasis original. Quoted from the original source).

Loraine Boettner writes:

"It follows also from what has been said that salvation is ABSOLUTELY AND SOLELY OF GRACE,-that God is free, in consistency with the infinite perfections of His nature, to save none, few, many, or all, according to the sovereign good pleasure of His will. It also follows that salvation is not based on any merits in the creature, and that it depends on God, and not on men, who are, and who are not, to be made partakers of eternal life" (Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination [Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1932], 71. Emphasis original).

Also consider these statements from the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646):

Chapter 11, no. 1:
"Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God."
Chapter 16, no. 5:
"We can not, by our best works, merit pardon of sin, or eternal life, at the hand of God, because of the great disproportion that is between them and the glory to come, and the infinite distance that is between us and God, whom by them we can neither profit, nor satisfy for the debt of our former sins; but when we have done all we can, we have done but our duty, and are unprofitable servants: and because, as they are good, they proceed from his Spirit; and as they are wrought by us, they are defiled and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection that they can not endure the severity of God's judgment."

It certainly does not sound like any of these people are trying to work for their salvation. Calvinists affirm that there is absolutely nothing in them, nor can there be, which could ever merit salvation. Salvation instead is based completely on the grace of God.

The Renewing Your Mind podcast has released a mini-conference to commemorate 500th anniversary of the birth of John Calvin. Here are the links at Oneplace.com (free registration required). They are also available in the Renewing Your Mind podcast.

John Calvin: Preacher and Teacher (Al Mohler)

Calvin and the Christian Life (Ligon Duncan)

The Doctrines of Grace (Sinclair Ferguson)

The Legacy of John Calvin (Steve Lawson)

John Calvin - Q&A

You can subscribe to the Renewing Your Mind podcast here. You can also listen through a web browser here.

Here is a good lesson from my senior pastor and our Director of Biblical Counseling on the effectual call.

James White Debates on the Papacy and Atheism

2009-07-10T09:58:00.013-04:00

James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries debated Matthew Bellisario on the papacy during the entire 7/9/09 episode (blog entry) of The Dividing Line. White proposed this debate after Bellisario called during the 7/2/09 episode (blog entry). Leading up to this debate, White provided several blog posts containing comments, links, and embedded videos relevant to the discussion. At the end of the debate White suggested some other debates which he has had with Roman Catholics on this subject.

By the way, White's debate at University of Illinois with Dan Barker of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, entitled "The Triune God of Scripture Lives," is available from the Alpha and Omega Ministries store. I bought the downloadable mp4 version, and I have started watching it. Maybe I will write a commentary on it like I did with the D'Souza/Shermer debate. You can also buy a downloadable mp3 version or a CD version. A DVD version should be available before long.

The Foundation of the United States Is Crumbling, but It Is Not Beyond Repair

2009-07-05T00:20:00.070-04:00

"The lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience." Aldous Huxley, "Letter to George Orwell" (Oct., 21, 1949), in Aldous Huxley, A Brave New World (New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2006), P.S section, p. 14.

This is a good warning to keep in mind today when people are being taught to turn to the government to provide for all of their needs. Such government provision, however, leads to increased government control and less individual freedom.

Before I begin the central theme of this post, I must first comment on a popular misconception regarding religion and politics. It is important to remember that this country was founded on a Christian foundation. Not all of the founders were Christians, but they nonetheless embraced Christian presuppositions and lived in a society which still operated on a Christian foundation. If you question this, consult Benjamin F. Morris, The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2007); and Gary Demar, America's Christian Heritage (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2003). As shocking as this may sound, the modern concept of separation of church and state is unconstitutional. Today, "separation of church and state" has been used to banish religion from politics. The first amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Secularists like to quote the establishment clause while neglecting the free exercise clause, but these clauses must be kept in balance. Properly understood, the first amendment forbids the government from establishing a state religion and from hindering the free exercise of religion. It does not forbid religion from being involved in politics, whether that be on the local, state, or even federal level. It limits what the government can do regarding religion, but it does not limit the freedom of religious organizations or individual believers.

Now for the point of this post . . .

The above quote by Huxley reminds me of the words of Francis A. Schaeffer in How Should We Then Live?. (Except where stated otherwise, parenthetical page references in this post are taken from Francis A. Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live?, in Francis A. Schaeffer, The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer [Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1982], vol. 5).

Schaeffer explains that as people in our society abandoned the Christian consensus, they adopted the values of personal peace and affluence. By personal peace he means the desire to be left alone and untroubled regardless of the consequences for future generations. Affluence refers to "an overwhelming and ever-increasing prosperity" (211). Without a firm foundation for morality, the dignity of man, and the value of the individual, we are left with no firm basis for law (I discuss this in more detail other posts). Schaeffer notes that "with no base for the dignity of the individual, only arbitrary expediency gives whatever dignity is given. And being only arbitrary, expediency can twist and turn at will" (217). When man tries to make himself autonomous from God (the only firm foundation for objective and universal values), eventually civil law is abandoned for sociological law. Because nature is both kind and cruel (while providing no basis on which to define "kind" and "cruel"), it cannot provide an adequate basis for morality, and therefore it cannot provide an adequate basis for law (218–19).

In modern society, people teach that there are no absolutes except the absolute that there are no absolutes. This has serious implications for society and law:

"Law has only a variable content; that is, it does not necessarily hold fast to a continuity with the legal decisions of the past. Thus, within a wide range, the Constitution of the United States can be made to say what the courts of the present want it to say—based on a court's decision as to what the court feels is sociologically helpful at the moment. At times this brings forth happy results, at least temporarily; but once the door is opened, anything can become law and the arbitrary judgments of men are king. Law is now freewheeling, and the courts not only interpret the laws which legislators have made, but make law. Lex Rex [the law is king] has become Rex Lex [the king is law]. Arbitrary judgment concerning current sociological good is king" (219–20. Emphasis original).

In a society in which laws can be made arbitrarily on the basis of expediency (because that society has lost its basis for morality, the dignity of man, and the value of the individual), what ultimately protects individual rights if limits on those rights are considered to be "sociologically helpful" in the current political and economic environment? "We are left with sociological law without any certainty of limitation" (223. Emphasis original). A good example is abortion. The unborn are devalued into nonpersons and treated as less important than personal convenience.

Schaeffer explains that without absolutes we have three alternatives. First, there is hedonism in which each person does what he chooses, but a society built on that basis will dissolve into chaos. The second alternative is the 51% vote. In a society built on the Christian concepts of absolutes and the image of God in each individual person, an individual with a Bible had a basis on which to speak out regardless of what the majority said. Without this, the 51% vote produces law and morality based on averages (but remember that Hitler had popular support). The third alternative is "one man or an elite, giving authoritative arbitrary absolutes. Here is a simple but profound rule: If there are no absolutes by which to judge society, then society is absolute" (224).

Christianity, with 1) its basis for objective and universal morality found in the eternal, holy nature of God, and 2) its basis for the dignity of man and the individual, found in the image of God in each individual person, provided a freedom with form so that the freedom did not lead to chaos. Today, society is attempting to destroy this basis and expel it from society. Without this basis, Schaeffer explains that society degenerates, but to avoid chaos people turn to an elite authority who fills the void left by expelling God and who declares "arbitrary absolutes" (226). The Christian has a firm basis for morality, dignity, and law. Other people in society hold to "personal peace and affluence." However:

With such values, will men stand for their liberties? Will they not give up their liberties step by step, inch by inch, as long as their own personal peace and prosperity is sustained and not challenged, and as long as the goods are delivered? . . . I believe the majority of the silent majority, young and old, will sustain the loss of liberties without raising their voices as long as their own life-styles are not threatened. And since personal peace and affluence are so often the only values that count with the majority, politicians know that to be elected they must promise these things. Politics has largely become not a matter of ideals—increasingly men and women are not stirred by the values of liberty and truth—but of supplying a constituency with a frosting of personal peace and affluence. They know that voices will not be raised as long as people have these things, or at least the illusion of them" (227).

Schaeffer first wrote How Should We Then Live? in 1976, over thirty years ago, but these words are just as relevant today, just as piercing, . . . and just as indicting. The government is making serious strides in increasing its level of control over people's lives.

Schaeffer argues that we should not expect an authoritarian government along the models of Stalin and Hitler. Instead, we should expect a "manipulative authoritarian government" (229. Emphasis original). Today we see this in slanted media coverage (news makers rather than news reporters), class warfare used to justify increased taxes on certain segments of society (divide and conquer), scaring people into giving up freedoms, convincing people that a business is "too big to fail" and therefore requires a government takeover, "politically correct" speech codes and double standards regarding "tolerance" and "diversity," etc. "Who controls the controllers?" (239). Without a basis for distinguishing between what people can do and what they should do, what will the final result be? If people are are merely products of purposeless and mindless biological evolution, then how can the human species (much less the individual) carry any inherent value? (239–42).

As noted above, Christianity provides freedom with form. Again, Schaeffer warns that as the Christian consensus fades, "a manipulating authoritarianism" will fill the void.

"The central message of biblical Christianity is the possibility of men and women approaching God through the work of Christ. But the message also has secondary results, among them the unusual and wide freedoms which biblical Christianity gave to countries where it supplied the consensus. When these freedoms are separated from the Christian base, however, they become a force of destruction leading to chaos. When this happens, as it has today, then, to quote Eric Hoffer (1902– ), 'When freedom destroys order, the yearning for order will destroy freedom.'

"At that point the words left or right will make no difference. They are only two roads to the same end. There is no difference between an authoritarian government from the right or left: the results are the same. An elite, authoritarianism as such, will gradually force form on society so that it will not go on to chaos. And most people will accept it—from the desire for personal peace and affluence, from apathy, and from the yearning for order to assure the functioning of some political system, business, and the affairs of daily life. That is just what Rome did with Caesar Augustus" (243–44. Emphasis original).

Schaeffer sees two possible conclusions. First we could have imposed order. The second possibility is "our society once again affirming that base which gave freedom without chaos in the first place—God's revelation in the Bible and His revelation through Christ" (250). He adds, however, that Christian values must be embraced, not as a superior path for utilitarian reasons, but as truth along with the commitment which that truth requires.

"It means the acceptance of Christ as Savior and Lord, and it means living under God's revelation. Here there are morals, values, and meaning, including meaning for people, which are not just a result of statistical averages. This is neither utilitarianism, nor a leap away from reason; it is the truth that gives a unity to all of knowledge and all of life" (251).

The foundation of our society is crumbling, but it is not beyond repair. So what should Christians do? First, the church needs to wake up and be the salt of the earth and city on a hill which it is meant to be (Matt. 5:13–16). The gospel of Jesus Christ is not merely a fire insurance policy to insure a pleasant afterlife. It is God's means of reforming individual people, and through them, reforming society. In order to make a mark, Christians cannot be mere products of the society which they wish to reform, bearing all the marks of that society's thoughts and lifestyles. Instead, they must stand out as people who have been justified, forgiven of their sins, and continually being sanctified by the grace of God through Jesus Christ (Matt. 5:13; Romans 5; and Eph. 2:1–10). Second, they must live out what they profess to believe and be at work spreading the Gospel (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 4:18–20; Rom. 15:20–21), living a biblical life (Romans 6; James 2:14–26; and 1 Pet. 1:13–16). Third, Christians must be involved in the political process rather than avoiding it as "dirty." Christians are called to be witnesses to a dying world, and we would be disobedient to remain uninvolved in a country where we have the freedom to make our voice heard. We need to be making efforts to reform society through the gospel—the only force which can enact true and lasting reform with both freedom and a form which provides order in that freedom (254)

Great Quote: John Calvin on Faith and Humility

2009-06-05T22:58:00.022-04:00

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, "Prefatory Address to King Francis," p. 13. (Insert original in this edition):

"For what is more consonant with faith than to recognize that we are naked of all virtue, in order to be clothed by God? That we are empty of all good, to be filled by him? That we are slaves of sin, to be freed by him? Blind, to be illumined by him? Lame, to be made straight by him? Weak, to be sustained by him? To take away from us all occasion for glorying, that he alone may stand forth gloriously and we glory in him [cf. I Cor. 1:31; II Cor. 10:17]?"

All the praise and glory for salvation goes to God, not sinful men. There is nothing that we can do to merit salvation. Instead, we must rely wholly on the grace of God, and all of the glory belongs to Him.

Ephesians 2:8-10:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."

Galatians 6:14-15:

"But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation."

Philippians 3:3-8:

"For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh-- though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ."

Incredible performance of "Amazing Grace" (sorry, I cannot embed this video)

R. C. Sproul - "Providence: God in Control"

2009-06-04T12:00:00.023-04:00

Over the past few weeks R. C. Sproul delivered a great series entitled "Providence: God in Control" on Renewing Your Mind. You can download MP3s of the episodes at Oneplace.com (registration required):

Trusting God's Providence

The Mystery of God's Providence

Seen and Unseen

Gideon's Battle

Things Great and Small

God's Kingly Providence

Providence or Chance?

Providence and Accidents

Providence and Suffering

Providence and Evil

God's Providence and Job

Suffering and Sin

Together for Good

Evil Is Not Good

To Those Who Love God

You can subscribe to the Renewing Your Mind podcast here. You can also listen through a web browser here.

Great Quote: Gary Demar on "Open-Mindedness"

2009-06-02T16:03:00.040-04:00

Gary Demar, Thinking Straight in a Crooked World, p. 154:

"It's fashionable to have an open mind. But like an open sewer, you never know what will drain there. Our society has moved from a religious absolutism found in the Bible to an undiscerning spiritual openness. Only those who insist that there is only one way are open to criticism."

Demar is not referring to open-mindedness on matters of opinion but instead on essential matters of truth. Francis Schaeffer shows in such books as The God Who Is There, Escape from Reason, He Is There and He Is Not Silent, and How Should We Then Live? that in banishing God and trying to be autonomous, mankind became unhinged and his world fragmented with no ultimate and objective basis for logic, morals, or knowledge. (The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer: A Christian Worldview (5 Volume Set))

As D. A. Carson writes,

"The Scylla of modernity and the Charybdis of postmodernity are equally uninviting to those who want to follow another Way, who are convinced that in a universe made by and for a personal/transcendent and omniscient God who talks, the only reasonable stance is that of the apostle Paul: 'Let God be true, and every man a liar' (Rom. 3:4)." (The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism [1996 edition], 136-37)
The Gagging of God (2002 edition)

A coherent and fulfilling understanding of mankind and the world is found in the God who created both of them (Ps. 19:1-3;Acts 17:26-28; Rom 1:19-23; 1 Cor. 1:4-5; Col. 2:1-3). Schaeffer explains it well:

“Humanism invariably ends in despair. If you begin with that which is finite, no matter far you project it, you can never come to an absolute. Never. In the light of the humanist dilemma, there is only one real solution – to turn to this book as truth, turn to the Bible, not just as an abstract religious thing, but as truth. It doesn’t change. It speaks to the culture of that particular day. It’s never old fashioned. It speaks to the most current topics, and yet it is always rooted in the same thing – the existence of this infinite, personal God, and His having spoken, and then of course for man’s personal need in the death of Christ for him.” (How Should We Then Live? [DVD], episode 3, 24:53)

People find a meaningful life through Christ alone (John 3:16-21, 14:6; Acts 4:12; 1 John 5:6-12). As Demar states,

"Only in Christ does man have meaning and purpose; He is the vine, we are the branches, and apart from him we can do nothing (John 15:15)." (Thinking Straight in a Crooked World, 304)

Comments from William Lane Craig on Atheist Rhetoric

2009-06-01T10:19:00.028-04:00

Craig's clip here (MP3).

Craig's main point in this clip cannot be applied to all atheists, but he makes some good points when he notes the failure of such superstar atheists like Richard Dawkins who do not seriously deal with theistic arguments. A great example can be found in Dawkins' The God Delusion, pp. 77-79. One serious point of weakness which I quickly noticed was that Dawkins spends the majority of his time on arguments which I agree are philosophically weak, such as arguments from beauty and personal experience, but he spends only three pages on the cosmological and teleological arguments and only in the form of Aquinas' Five Ways (though he summarizes them into his own words). He is either ignorant of the centuries of further development of those arguments (see Norman Geisler's and Winfried Corduan's Philosophy of Religion: Second Edition), or he chooses to ignore them. I do not know which is the case. He also neglects (or is ignorant of) the arguments used in presuppositional apologetics (see Greg Bahnsen's Pushing the Antithesis: The Apologetic Methodology of Greg L. Bahnsen). In either case, his attempt to deal with the issue is very poor. As Alvin Plantinga stated in his review of The God Delusion, "You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class. This, combined with the arrogant, smarter-than-thou tone of the book, can be annoying" (See Alvin Plantinga, "The Dawkins Confusion," Books & Culture). It is also worth noting Dawkins' own words in The Selfish Gene: "Publishers should correct the misapprehension that a scholar's distinction in one field implies authority in another. And as long as that misapprehension exists, distinguished scholars should resist the temptation to abuse it" (Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene. 30th Anniversary Edition, p. 278).

An argument of the same quality as Dawkins' can be found in Letter to a Christian Nation, pp. 71-73, where Sam Harris attempts to refute intelligent design, not by engaging actual intelligent design arguments, but instead by attacking the cosmological argument. Aside from the fact that he does not even come close to refuting the cosmological argument, he is seemingly unaware of the very basic distinction between the cosmological argument and the teleological argument. I comment on this in more detail here.

Anthony Flew makes some helpful comments in Anthony Flew, "Documentation: A Reply to Richard Dawkins," First Things (Dec. 2008): 21-22. (online copy).

The Valley of Vision

2009-05-31T16:45:00.000-04:00

1 Corinthians 1:18:

"For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

1 Corinthians 1:27-31:

²⁷But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; ²⁸God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, ²⁹so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. ³⁰And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, ³¹so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord."

I first learned of Valley of Vision: A Collection of Puritan Prayers and Devotions over a year ago when R. C. Sproul ended some episodes of Renewing Your Mind with audio recordings of Max McLean (I think) reading these prayers. This book makes good devotional reading. The following is the first prayer:

The Valley of Vision

Lord, high and holy, meek and lowly,
Thou hast brought me to the valley of vision, 
where I live in the depths but see thee in the heights;
hemmed in by mountains of sin I behold thy glory.

Let me learn by paradox
   that the way down is the way up,
   that to be low is to be high,
   that the broken heart is the healed heart,
   that the contrite spirit is the rejoicing spirit,
   that the repenting soul is the victorious soul,
   that to have nothing is to possess all,
   that to bear the cross is to wear the crown,
   that to give is to receive,
   that the valley is the place of vision.

Lord, in the daytime stars can be seen from deepest wells,
   and the deeper the wells the brighter thy stars shine;
Let me find thy light in my darkness,
   thy life in my death,
   thy joy in my sorrow,
   thy grace in my sin,
   thy riches in my poverty,
   thy glory in my valley.

This attitude certainly goes against our natural inclinations. It demonstrates a heart of humility, trust, surrender, and complete devotion to God on the basis of the cross of Christ.

Michael Card has a great song called "God's Own Fool" which deals with a similar topic. Here is an excerpt:

So surrender the hunger to say you must know
and the courage to day "I believe."
For the power paradox opens your eyes
and blinds those who say they can see

When we in our foolishness thought we were wise
He played the fool and opened our eyes.
When we in our weakness believed we were strong
He became helpless to show we were wrong.

James White Responds to William Lane Craig on Reformed Theology

2009-05-27T17:00:00.006-04:00

James White gave two episodes of Radio Free Geneva on The Dividing Line.

May 21, 2009

Dr. White opens by commenting on a Youtube video containing some very silly arguments. Some of White's comments are quite funny. He then responds to a lecture delivered by William Lane Craig. White includes some responses to Molinism.

May 26, 2009

White continues to respond to William Lane Craig. He emphasizes Craig's use of Molinism

A remix of the Radio Free Geneva intro clip is posted here.

Addendum:

5/28/09

White continues his response to Craig and clarifies the motivation for his response (If you know of some counter-responses by Craig, please let me know). White includes discussion of the differences between evangelical and Roman Catholic theology and why theology matters. He also comments on hate speech laws, abortion, and ecumenism.

Socrates vs. Hector Dawkins

2009-05-21T11:07:00.017-04:00

James Hoskins presents an interesting and amusing dialogue between Socrates and Hector Dawkins (the intended reference to Richard Dawkins should be obvious):

"On the Definition of Science: A Debate between Socrates and Hector Dawkins" (Discussed on the ID the Future podcast)

Hoskins says that the question of intelligent design is an amoral question. One could argue that whether or not life and the universe have an intelligent cause is in itself an amoral (morally neutral) question, but it does have unavoidable moral implications, especially regarding the philosophical basis of morals. I have commented on this several times elsewhere in this blog, and so I will not repeat it here. You can find those posts by clicking "Ethics" in the labels list.

I especially enjoyed the comments on Hector Dawkins' dogmatism and philosophical commitment to methodological naturalism which do not have a scientific basis for themselves but nonetheless govern his approach to science. This reminds me of Richard Dawkins insisting that any intelligent designer would itself need to have a naturalistic origin (see Richard Dawkins' interview in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed). The possibility of an ultimate designer is presuppositionally ruled out at the beginning, prior to the actual scientific investigation. Socrates correctly observes in the above-referenced dialogue that "Philosophy comes prior to Science in history, and it comes prior to it logically. The definition of Science is not a scientific question. It is a philosophical one." I comment further on the philosophical/worldview foundations of science here.

Response to Sam Harris' attempt to engage ID theory here and here

Story about "The Tragic Tale of Memes"

2009-05-15T15:22:00.009-04:00

I found this post today at Uncommon Descent. It is a humorous story based on meme theory, a theory proposed by Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene in order to provide a Darwinian-like explanation for the spread of ideas. The author of the story adds some sci-fi elements to make the story work. Be sure to read the comments below the post at Uncommon Descent. Some of them are quite humorous.

Greg Bahnsen on the Problem of Evil

2009-05-12T09:47:00.013-04:00

Greg Bahnsen, "The Problem of Evil"

This is an excellent article. Greg Bahnsen turns the unbeliever's "problem of evil" argument completely on its head and shows how the unbeliever's moral indignation supplies the very means by which to defeat his own argument.

Recommended Bahnsen resources:

Pushing the Antithesis: The Apologetic Methodology of Greg L. Bahnsen

Basic Training for Defending the Faith (DVD)

Ravi Zacharias comments on the problem of evil here.

I comment on Sam Harris' "problem of evil" argument here.

God of the Gaps and "Materialist Poofery"

2009-05-02T23:31:00.008-04:00

Barry Arrington makes good points in his post Materialist Poofery at Uncommon Descent. As he explains it, opponents to ID object to ID appeals to irreducible complexity as amounting to no more than, "Poof! The designer did it." However, Arrington demonstrates that the materialist has "poofery" built into his model at a fundamental level, except that they use the word "emergent" instead of "poof." Arrington uses the existence of consciousness as an example. I will not bother to summarize his entire argument. You can read it for yourself here.

I think a few more items can be added. The "poof" objection is essentially an accusation of using a "God of the gaps" argument (i.e. "I cannot explain this phenomenon of nature. Therefore God did it"). I once attended a debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza (my commentary posted here). Shermer described the God of the gaps argument and responded that science continues to fill in the gaps and push God out, thereby making God increasingly unnecessary. It is interesting to note, however, that Shermer appealed to a "science of the gaps" (although he did not use that term) to explain the fine-tuning of the universe (i.e., science does not have an explanation yet but will someday), and he argued that consciousness is an "emergent" property resulting from the complexity of our brains.¹

It is important to understand that explaining how something works scientifically does nothing to put God out of a job and render him unnecessary. Science depends on an existing universe with existing scientific laws which behave in a consistent way. Knowing how these laws work does not preclude the existence of a designer who set the laws of nature in that way. Instead, scientific advancement reveals the intelligence behind such design. Examples include the complexity of DNA, the fine-tuning of the universe, etc. The Privileged Planet provides valuable material on this topic (Book
/ DVD). John Lennox of Oxford University has a good perspective. He says it is not the science which he does not understand which motivates him to believe in God. Instead, it is the science which he does understand, because he sees the amazing and brilliant design inherent in it. (Video)

Francis Schaeffer explains in How Should We Then Live? that the founders of modern science (such as Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton) operated on the assumption that a reasonable God had created the universe, and so it was natural to assume that people could make true discoveries about the universe through the use of observation and reason. They also believed that the universe was a real, objective reality and not merely an illusion. It was therefore possible to investigate the universe, and because God had created it, it was worth investigating. Not all of the scientists of this time were Christians in the biblical sense, but they nonetheless operated within the Christian framework. (See How Should We Then Live?, 155-64, in The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer: A Christian Worldview, vol. 5). Lennox also argues that the existence of God makes science possible:

"The point to grasp here is that, because God is not an alternative to science as an explanation, he is not to be understood merely as a God of the gaps. On the contrary, he is the ground of all explanation: it is his existence which gives rise to the very possibility of explanation, scientific or otherwise." (God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?, 47. Emphasis original)

Greg Bahnsen makes a helpful argument in Pushing the Antithesis: The Apologetic Methodology of Greg L. Bahnsen. He says that "Scientific investigation is only possible in an orderly, rational, coherent, unified system" (187). Scientific laws cannot exist without uniformity. If there is a rational God who designed the universe, then there is a firm basis for this uniformity. For an atheist it is more problematic due to what Bertrand Russell called the principle of induction (See Bertrand Russell, Problems of Philosophy, 41-48). We can make predictions of how the universe will behave in the future based on past observations, but as Russell explained, these observations only tell us about the past. The assumption that the future will be like the past is just that - an assumption. True, our observations continue to demonstrate uniformity, but why does this uniformity exist, and what guarantee do we have that it will continue to exist? For the theist this is not a problem. But a purely atheistic/materialist worldview ultimately provides no basis for the assumption of uniformity beyond particular, finite observations of past events. Scientific investigation, however, is impossible without assuming such uniformity. Bahnsen concludes:

"The issue boils down to this: Since man cannot know everything he must assume or presuppose uniformity and then think and act on this very basic assumption. Consequently the principle of uniformity is not a scientific law but an act of faith which undergirds scientific law. Thus, adherence to the principle of uniformity – though absolutely essential to science and the scientific method – is an intrinsically religious commitment." (Bahnsen, Pushing the Antithesis, 192)

It is quite different if God created the universe:

"The uniformity of nature is perfectly compatible, however, with the Christian worldview. The absolute, all-creating, sovereignly-governing God reveals to us in Scripture that we can count on regularities in the natural world. . . . Because of this God-governed regularity in nature, the scientific enterprise is possible and even fruitful" (Bahnsen, Pushing the Antithesis, 194-95).

"The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge." (Psalm 19:1-2)

"For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them. How precious to me are your thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them! If I would count them, they are more than the sand. I awake, and I am still with you." (Psalm 139:13-18)

"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." (Romans 1:19-20)

Scientific investigation can also be motivated by an attitude of devotion to God, because to investigate the universe is to investigate the universe which God made.

Note:
¹Anika Smith interviews Robert Deyes on the ID the Future podcast (MP3 / RSS) on the New Spontaneous Generationists. Deyes article is posted here. The modern appeal to spontaneous generation certainly has the feel of "materialist poofery."

James White Responds to Dan Barker's Presentation of John Calvin and Michael Servetus

2009-04-29T11:00:00.005-04:00

James White makes some great points. Christians (and most other people in western countries) today will object to imposing the death penalty for the charge of heresy (I would object to it myself), but when discussing Calvin and Servetus at least get the facts right. Dr. White lists some interesting historical facts.

Dr. White discusses this further here.

As I stated above, I certainly would oppose such a penalty over a theological issue. Dr. White makes clear in the mp3 that he would object to that penalty as well and considers such power in the magisterial reformation to be dangerous. My point in this post is simply to provide additional historical data on the issue.

Alpha and Omega Ministries has a great collection of resources on Christian theology and apologetics. I have been following James White's blog Pros Apologion (RSS) and his podcast The Dividing Line for several months. He also has a Youtube channel. I also used some of his books in my dissertation in which I contrasted evangelical soteriology with the soteriology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Here are a few good books:

The God Who Justifies

Is the Mormon My Brother? (I used the 1997 version.)

Letters to a Mormon Elder (I used the 1993 version)

I forgot to include this in my post on Martin Luther and sola scriptura: Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (Hendrickson Classic Biographies) by Roland H. Bainton is a good biography of Martin Luther. If you are interested in the Protestant Reformation and other periods of church history I suggest the following sources:

Theology of the Reformers by Timothy George

The Story of Christianity by Justo L. Gonzalez (Three volumes in one. Also available in three separate volumes)

Three Treatises by Martin Luther

Creeds of the Churches: A Reader in Christian Doctrine, from the Bible to the Present edited by John H. Leith

Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought by Alister E. McGrath

A History of Christian Thought: Volume 1: From the Beginnings to the Council of Chalcedon (Revised Edition) by Justo L. Gonzalez

A History of Christian Thought: Volume 2: From Augustine to the Eve of the Reformation (Revised Edition) by Justo L. Gonzalez

A History of Christian Thought: Volume 3: From the Protestant Reformation to the Twentieth Century (Revised Edition) by Justo L. Gonzalez (I think Gonzalez's History of Christian Thought is now available in one volume, but I did not see it listed.)

How Should We Then Live?: The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture by Francis A. Schaeffer

How Should We Then Live? (DVD) by Francis A. Schaeffer

Here I Stand! I Can Do No Other.

2009-04-22T20:20:00.036-04:00

Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms (1521)

This is an incredible scene in which Martin Luther defends the Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura (scripture alone). It had to take great courage to stand up for his convictions in the face of such opposition.

The reformers did not argue that church councils, theologians, and tradition held zero authority. However, their authority was subordinate to Scripture and grounded in their faithfulness to scripture. Ultimately, the Bible was regarded as the final authority in all matters of faith and practice.

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) of the Reformed tradition makes some great statements on this matter. First, the authority of the Bible is derived from God, not ecclesiastical authority:

"IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.

Second, God's revelation in the Bible is sufficient to explain God's plan of salvation for mankind:

VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

Third, Scripture is its own best interpreter and its only infallible interpreter:

IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

Fourth, Scripture is the final judge on all theological matters:

X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

The Thirty Nine Articles (1563) of the English reformation states that no doctrine which can be found or reasonably derived from Scripture can be required for anyone:

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries gives a great explanation of what sola scriptura means and why it is important. It is more than just one doctrine among many because it concerns the source for faith and practice, and it has significant and serious implications for every area of the Christian faith. He makes an especially good point when he explains that the authority of the church's proclamation comes from its fidelity to the words of Christ and that true apostolic succession does not consist of a genealogical progression but instead consists of "preaching what the apostles preached."

God has provided in the Bible his authoritative, infallible, and sufficient source of revelation on matters relating to the nature of God, mankind's fallen nature, his need for salvation and God's provision of salvation through the atonement of Christ, righteous living, and mankind's final destiny. The statements of men can be helpful in explaining and applying God's revelation, but the words of God are the final authority. The words of the Bible derive their authority from God (not mankind), and they are the standard by which doctrines of man should be judged. Instead of depending on the fallible doctrines of men, we have in the Bible God's gift of a reliable foundation for doctrine and practice

Since this post started with Martin Luther, here is a silly video just for fun.

I highly recommend the Luther movie. It gives a very enjoyable presentation of Luther's convictions and his efforts to reform the church (trailer).

Paper at BYU Refers to the "Quorum of the Twelve Apostates" instead of the "Quorum of the Twelve Apostles"

2009-04-08T17:29:00.013-04:00

Articles posted here and here

This had to be embarrassing. It is also quite interesting considering the LDS Church's teaching that it is the one true church while all others are apostate. They have eased up the rhetoric over the past couple of decades, but the doctrine is still present in their scripture, and it has been taught by LDS Church authorities.

For examples, see Joseph Smith-History 1:18-20 in the Pearl of Great Price; James E. Talmage, A Study of the Articles of Faith, 198-204; LeGrand Richards, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, 1-5, 24-32; Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:191-92, 2:265-91; and the official LDS Church publications Gospel Principles, 105-6; and Preach My Gospel, 35-37.

One Less God

2009-03-10T22:44:00.002-04:00

Ravi Zacharias on the Problem of Evil

2009-03-04T21:45:00.002-05:00

Ravi is one of my favorite speakers.

Twelve-Year Old Girl with a Better Mind than Most People in Washington

2009-02-17T18:46:00.003-05:00

This is a smart girl to be able to write such a speech at twelve years old.

You can read the story here. Also, read the last comment at the Youtube page. It explains that eventually comments had to be turned off because of the insults and threats she was receiving through the comments.

Al Mohler's "Atheism Remix"

2009-02-14T23:46:00.004-05:00

Al Mohler's Atheism Remix: A Christian Confronts the New Atheists is interesting and easy to read. It is not the best source for Christian arguments responding to the new atheist movement, but it does provide helpful background information which I have not found in other Christian responses. Mohler gives a brief overview of the publications and views of the four primary proponents of the new atheist movement: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett. Mohler explains how Western secularism developed and how the new atheist movement is different from past forms of atheism. He also reviews both conservative and liberal responses. Even though Mohler does not focus on providing his own point-by-point arguments, he does provide a helpful overview of some of the literature on the subject.

Does Religion Spoil Everything?

2009-02-11T08:41:00.005-05:00

R.C. Metcalf gives a great response to Christopher Hitchens (and Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris) in this post in his blog.

Comments on "The Lamb and the Fuhrer"

2009-02-04T11:16:00.013-05:00

The Lamb and the Fuhrer : Jesus Talks With Hitler (Great Conversations) is a fictional conversation between Jesus, Adolf Hitler, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Ravi Zacharias contrasts Hitler's political ambitions for power and disregard for other people with Bonhoeffer's dedication to God and with God's true design for people to find forgiveness and life in Christ. Ravi also comments on the practical implications of rejecting God and rejecting the image of God in each person:

"If you reduce mankind to mere matter, the offspring of natural causes, you take away the equality and dignity of each person." (75)

"While religion cannot be politicized, to evict faith in God from the laws of the land or to forbid teaching faith in God to our children is to create a society one generation from total anarchy. Demagogues and anarchists are always in the wings to seize that power." (77)

"You cannot have a law in any land that will bring peace until the heart has been redeemed. The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law." (78)

"Just lift your eyes to parts of the world where the church is growing, places where tyrants have tried to kill it and destroy My Word. But My Word abides forever and rises up to outlive its pallbearers." (84)

"Outside of Jesus Christ there is no possibility of true freedom and intrinsic worth." (90)

Ravi also reminds us that the evil which was in Hitler is also present in each one of us. He argues that the devaluing of human life under Nazism is no different from the devaluing of human life in today's free societies (such as abortion). "The atrocities we commit in our civilized societies are only dressed up with law and language. The world is reeling with the tricks being played to justify the profane. Our ways today are only better than sixty years ago at the surface level. At the core we are all in the same mess." (87-88)

Ravi explains that humans were made in the image of God and that this provides a framework for government and laws which only Christianity can provide. To castigate Hitler is to borrow from the Christian worldview which teaches that each human has essential value on the basis of the image of God in each person. "You simply cannot condemn Hitler without affirming the fundamental premise that life at its core is sacred" (89). (It would be difficult, however, to recognize the value of human life on a purely evolutionary basis in which humans are merely accidents of impersonal forces without ultimate design or intent.) Ravi also notes that the image we are intended to reflect is found only in Jesus.

D'Souza / Shermer Debate

2009-02-01T20:18:00.001-05:00

Title: "Does God Exist?"
November 8, 2008
Hosted by Southern Evangelical Seminary in Matthews, NC.
Moderated by Alex McFarland

Debaters:
Dinesh D'Souza (Author of What's So Great about Christianity)

Michael Shermer (Publisher of The Skeptical Inquirer)

The question in this debate was "Does it make sense to believe in God?" Rather than evaluating every argument, I will instead address some of the more significant arguments.

In his opening statement, D'Souza argues that the deep questions which we face as humans make sense only against the backdrop of belief in God: Why is there a universe?, Why do we have life?, and Why do we have morality?

Origin of the universe and life:
Regarding the origin of the universe, D'Souza argues that space and time had a beginning and that modern science confirms this. Space and time and the laws of physics are properties of our universe along with the specific numerical constants of the universe. He argues that if these constants were slightly different, then life would be impossible. They appear to be fine-tuned for the existence of life. He says that this argument is "completely immune to Darwinian attack" and has put modern Darwinism on the defensive. In it we see "the handiwork of the creator."

The case of the fine-tuning of the universe is a valid point. On its own, it does not necessarily prove the existence of a creator or designer, but it does strongly suggest that one exists. Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards discuss this in The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery and the DVD version, The Privileged Planet.

Shermer argues that the universe is not finely tuned for life because most of the universe is inhospitable for life. However, this does not address the point of the fine-tuning argument regarding the values of the physical constants which do appear to be finely tuned and apply throughout the universe even if some areas of the universe prohibit life for other reasons. Shermer somewhat addresses this later regarding the constants which determine the structure of the atom, but he appeals to a possible future discovery in physics which may someday explain it. This is not an answer. It is essentially an atheist/agnostic version of falling back on faith, with a science of the gaps rather than a God of the gaps.

Shermer appeals to modern theoretical physics to argue that the universe cannot not exist and that maybe something existing is the natural order and that it would be weird if nothing existed. He says that universes can "naturally pop into existence" from singularities and through bubble universes according to string theory. He also appeals to Darwinian selection of bubble universes as a possible explanation. Richard Dawkins appeals to a similar concept in The God Delusion. However, if universes pop into existence, and if there is a lineage of universes, one is still left with a process whose existence implies a beginning. Regarding the problem of an infinite regress of causes and the need for a first cause , Shermer asks, if there is a designer then who designed the designer? Why stop the causal chain at the biblical God? There could be a god behind him. Dawkins makes a similar argument in The God Delusion. They neglect to consider, however, that even if one grants that the biblical God is a sub-god, this still does not address the heart of the problem. None of these arguments eliminate the need for a first cause and instead appear to be attempts to hide the problem.

Eventually the atheist needs to accept either an infinite regress of causes (and face serious philosophical problems) or an uncaused cause (and face the possibility of a God). The appeal to science of the gaps arguments demonstrates the fallacy of arguing that religious people appeal to faith while atheists and agnostics appeal to science and reason. Everyone appeals to faith somewhere. Shermer admits that string theory and bubble universes have not been tested yet and then says he is content to say he does not know how it happened rather than take a leap of faith. However, he nonetheless appeals to them in the debate in the form of a "science of the gaps" argument, thereby falling under D'Souza's criticism.

Shermer asks that if God uses the laws of nature and evolution to create the universe and living things (as some Christians might argue), then how do you tell the difference between this God and a non-existent God and the universe just happens that way? This argument, however, addresses only one side of the question. The resulting universe might be the same in both scenarios, but the atheist's explanation does not explain how the process began. Again we have the problem of a first cause. (Shermer claims that in quantum mechanics some things do not have a cause, but he does not develop or defend this claim.)

Shermer also argues that "atheism isn't a position. It isn't a thing to be." Atheists simply do not believe in God. Sam Harris and Frank Zindler have made similar arguments. The problem is that they ignore the philosophical baggage of the atheistic position. Atheism is not merely the absence of belief in God. Instead, it denies the existence of God. It denies the existence of any supernatural reality and instead affirms a purely materialistic view of reality. It also has implications for everyday life. D'Souza also rightly notes that if you simply to not believe in something, then you go on with your life as if it does not exist, and that is all. He does not believe in unicorns, but he has not written a book entitled The Unicorn Delusion, and he does not debate believers in unicorns. Instead, the belligerence of modern atheists reveals a "deliberate and willful rejection" of God.

Morality:
D'Souza notes that we accept absolute standards of right and wrong. Relativists are relativistic about other people's values but absolute about their own values. This creates a mystery, because if we are merely products of evolution, then morality would merely be a survival technique. He references selfish altruism (I address this in my posts on Dawkins here and here) and says this only explains about 5% of morality. What about cases where we can gain nothing? D'Souza says, "It is ultimately the nature of morality to militate against self-interest. If morality was identical with self-interest, we wouldn't need it. You do not need 'thou shalt nots' ultimately to prohibit people from doing things that they already wanted not to do. It is the essence of morality to say 'No' when the rest of you wants to say 'Yes.'" He then clarifies that he is not arguing that only Christians can be moral. Instead, we all have a moral sense implanted by God.

During his closing statement, Shermer says that in a Darwinian model we need to be cooperative, altruistic, etc. with others in our group or else the group would not survive. When human population grew too large for Darwinian behavior control to be effective, and too many people could get away with cheating, government and religion arose to codify the rules. This explanation, however, is highly speculative, and Shermer does not give any support for this claim. During the post-debate panel discussion, Sean McDowell makes a good point along this line when he asks why a person cannot set up a system by which he appears to follow society's rules but in reality is cheating, lying, etc. If someone objects to that as wrong, then he points to an outside standard. As I have explained in previous posts, such an explanation only provides a possible pragmatic reason why people act in certain ways without explaining why they should act in those ways.

Reason/Logic:
One person in the audience asked Shermer how we can trust our reasoning abilities if they are merely the products of evolution. He responds that our reasoning ability has not evolved to the point of making us infallible calculators. He says that we regularly make decisions based on very little data, but science provides a check against false conclusions. D'Souza responds that this is like saying that humans are not very musical and yet we have developed orchestras. I would add that if atheism and evolution are true, then our reasoning ability is merely the result of impersonal, undesigned, undirected, chance processes. If our thoughts are ultimately the result of such a closed system, then how do we develop checks against error if those methods are products of the same system? C. S. Lewis said it very well:

“If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts—i.e. of Materialism and Astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a correct account of all the other accidents. It is like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.” (C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock, 52-53. Emphasis original)

D'Souza concludes his opening statement that if we believe in God, then 1) the universe makes sense and is meaningful, 2) our life has meaning, and 3) morality is not merely made up rules but instead consists of codes prescribed for our benefit and correspond to right and wrong. If there is no God, then the universe simply happened for no reason, and we are merely accidents of impersonal processes. As I said above and in previous posts, in such a universe, our thoughts and perceptions are merely products of the same impersonal forces, and we are left without a firm basis for reason, science, or morality. Francis Schaeffer and Greg Bahnsen address these issues in A Francis A. Schaeffer Trilogy: Three Essential Books in One Volume and Pushing the Antithesis: The Apologetic Methodology of Greg L. Bahnsen.

Academic Freedom Day, Feb. 12, 2009

2009-01-27T17:14:00.011-05:00

On February 12, 2009, Darwinists will celebrate the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin and the 150th anniversary of the publication of The Origin of Species. Some people in academia who doubt evolution are censored or blacklisted. Academic Freedom Day supports the right of people who question the theory of evolution to engage in honest debate.
(Note: This page does not work well in Firefox unless you view it with the IE Tab extension)

Atheism and Freedom of Religion

2009-01-15T08:34:00.003-05:00

Atheists sometimes argue that atheism, strictly speaking, is not a position. Instead, atheists are merely people who do not believe in God and that is all. In a 1993 debate with William Lane Craig at Willow Creek Community Church, Frank Zindler argued that atheists simply do not believe in God. They claim nothing and therefore need defend nothing.

This is a misrepresentation for a few reasons. First, atheism is not merely the absence of belief in God. It is a denial of the existence of God. Second, atheism includes a materialistic view of reality in which nothing supernatural exists. Third, if atheists simply do not believe in God, and if atheism is not a position, then why do they bother defending it? In his debate with Dinesh D’Souza’s last November, Michael Shermer (agnostic) said that atheism is not a position and not something to be. Atheists simply do not believe in God, and that is all. D’Souza responded that he does not believe in unicorns, but he has not written a book entitled The Unicorn Delusion, or Unicorns Are Not Great, or The End of Unicorns. The insistence of atheists on promoting atheism (and in some cases, forcing it on those who disagree) reveals that it is indeed a position which they feel the need to defend.

A hot topic today is the attempt by some atheists to remove phrase “so help me God” from the presidential inauguration oath. Atheists claim that it violates the prohibition against the establishment of religion in the first amendment. They conveniently forget the free exercise clause. The first amendment in the Bill of Rights says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . .” This does not forbid a new president to include “so help me God” if he freely chooses to do so. It also does not forbid him to omit that phrase if he freely chooses to do so. On the other hand, to either require or forbid that phrase would violate the first amendment. The establishment clause must be balanced with the free exercise clause. It is also important to recognize that contrary to the modern notion of the separation of church and state, which is nowhere in the Constitution, the first amendment only limits what the government can do regarding religion. It does not limit the freedom of religious organizations or individual believers. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion for both Christians and atheists.

The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States

Also available at American Vision.

Check This Article

2009-01-06T11:54:00.001-05:00

I have started my comments on the D'Souza/Shermer debate, but this is an especially busy week, and so progress is slow. In the meantime, check out this article.

Comments on the D'Souza / Shermer Debate and Francis Schaeffer's "How Should We Then Live" DVD Series

2008-12-13T16:17:00.000-05:00

I know I have not posted anything for a while. I have been busy researching and preparing a presentation on the consequences of atheism which I plan to give at the Triangle Association for the Science of Creation in a few weeks, as well as other projects.

Early this week I received my copy of the debate between Dinesh D'Souza and Michael Shermer which I attended at Southern Evangelical Seminary in Matthews, NC. After I watch it I plan to write some comments. However, first I want to finish watching How Should We Then Live? (DVD) by Francis Schaeffer. I highly recommend this series. It demonstrates how our society has progressed philosophically, the consequences this progression has had in life, and how these changing attitudes are reflected in art, music, literature, and culture. I am watching the ninth out of ten episodes today, and so it should not be too long before I watch the debate, although upcoming Christmas plans may delay me some.

Schaeffer also wrote a book by the same title (How Should We Then Live?: The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture), but I have not read it. However, I have read, and highly recommend, A Francis A. Schaeffer Trilogy: Three Essential Books in One Volume. It contains The God Who Is There, Escape from Reason, and He Is There and He Is Not Silent. They are not easy reading, but they are well worth the effort. They explain how the secular mindset developed and how it led to despair and the breakdown of reason and ethics. They have influenced my thinking regarding humanism and secularism.

Debate between Dinesh D'Souza and Michael Shermer

2008-11-09T10:42:00.002-05:00

Last night I attended a debate between Dinesh D'Souza (Christian) and Michael Shermer (Agnostic) at Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, NC

It was quite interesting. I want to go through the debate again before I give a detailed commentary. I did not bother to take notes because I planned to buy the video. I ordered a copy later that night. I hope to receive it in a week or two. Maybe I will write on it in this blog.

Shermer argued more for agnosticism than atheism. I was impressed with D'Souza. He was good at thinking on his feet and answered most of the questions well. There were a few places where he could have done a little better. In all fairness (to both debators), however, I must add that in a debate each participant has very little time to think through his responses and will always think of ways he could have said things better.
Overall, I enjoyed it.

Dawkins vs. Dawkins on Morality

2008-10-24T12:00:00.000-04:00

I reviewed Richard Dawkins' argument for an evolutionary basis for morality in The God Delusion in my 9/11/08 post. A key problem is how Dawkins argues for a purely pragmatic foundation for morality (survival value) but never explains how this translates into moral obligation (also consider Frank Turek's comments). If atheistic Darwinism is true, then why should I care who I hurt in my effort to promote myself and preserve the survival of my genes? If I am more successful, and those I hurt are less successful, then so be it. Of course, Dawkins does not support such a callous attitude in The God Delusion, and neither would a Christian. The problem is that while a Christian has a basis for opposing such callous behavior (the image of God in humans and God's commandments grounded in His eternal holy nature), Dawkins never provides an atheistic foundation.

Dawkins speaks confidently about moral values in The God Delusion. He also argues that goodness (in this context, the compassion and urge to help we feel toward victims of tragedies) is not "incompatible with the theory of the 'selfish gene'" (The God Delusion, 215). He argues that the selfish gene theory should be seen as the selfish gene theory because the gene is what passes through the filter of natural selection and survives at the expense of its rivals. "The unit of natural selection (i.e. the unit of self-interest) is not the selfish organism, nor the selfish group or selfish species, or selfish ecosystem, but the selfish gene" (Ibid., 215. Emphasis original). It is the gene which makes exact copies of itself and competes with other genes. Nevertheless, Dawkins immediately follows this with an admission that the best way for the selfish gene to preserve itself is to program organisms to be selfish (See ibid., 216). How he thinks this separates genuine goodness from selfish motives is unclear.

Dawkins then describes four forms of selfishly motivated altruism. I described these in my 9/11/08 post, and so I will not explain them again here. The important point is that morals arise from selfish motives rather than genuine goodness. Dawkins argues that such a Darwinian explanation should not be interpreted "as demeaning or reductive of the noble emotions of compassion and generosity" (The God Delusion, 221). Yet he describes such emotions in an individual person as misfirings when they do not result in the survival value of that person's genes (See ibid., 221-22). How this does not demean compassion and generosity is not explained.

Dawkins provides a different picture of morality, and in my opinion, much more honest considering his atheistic presuppositions, in chapter four of River out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life. He begins the chapter by giving the example of a digger wasp who lays eggs inside a caterpillar so that the larvae can eat it. She paralyzes the caterpillar but does not kill it so that the body remains fresh. Dawkins speculates that if the wasp venom served as an anesthetic, then the caterpillar would not suffer while being eaten. However, "nature is not cruel, only pitiously indifferent. This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous-indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose" (River out of Eden, 95-96).

Dawkins later discusses utility functions, or whatever a given system maximizes. The point of this section is to explain that the utility function of natural selection is the survival of DNA. However, he includes some discussion of morals as well. People who hold a utilitarian ethic may try to maximize the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Dawkins explains, however, that utilitarians disagree on what defines happiness. Other people may instead follow an egoist ethic and seek their own happiness at the expense of others (See River out of Eden, 103-4). How does one choose which ethic is correct? As I have explained elsewhere in this blog, the atheist is left without a basis on which to decide. In The God Delusion Dawkins promotes a consequentialist ethic which seeks the greatest good for the greatest number of people rather than an absolutist ethic (See The God Delusion, 232). However, in River out of Eden he explains that natural selection (which in his view is the basis or morality) does not promote such behavior:

"Time and again, cooperative restraint is thwarted by its own internal instability. God's Utility Function seldom turns out to be the greatest good for the greatest number. God's Utility Function betrays its origins in an uncoordinated scramble for selfish gain.

"Humans have a rather endearing tendency to assume that welfare means group welfare, that 'good' means the good of society, the future well-being of the species or even of the ecosystem. God's Utility Function, as derived from a contemplation of the nuts and bolts of natural selection, turns out to be sadly at odds with such a utopian vision. To be sure, there are occasions when genes may maximize their selfish welfare at their level, by programming unselfish cooperation, or even self-sacrifice, by the organism at its level. But group welfare is always a fortuitous consequence, not a primary drive. This is the meaning of the 'selfish gene'" (River out of Eden, 121-22).

This is quite different from his emphasis in The God Delusion that it is the gene rather than the organism which is selfish.

Dawkins provides a rather pessimistic, and yet intellectually honest, summary at the end of the chapter four in River out of Eden. He says that if Nature were kind, then it would provide anesthetic for the caterpillar being eaten by the wasp larvae, "but Nature is neither kind nor unkind. She is neither against suffering nor for it. Nature is not interested one way or the other in suffering, unless it affects survival of DNA" (River out of Eden, 131). He criticizes theologians who concern themselves with the "problem of evil" and the "problem of suffering" (See ibid., 132). He describes the crash of a school bus and quotes a writer who argues that the horror of such tragedies confirms that we live in a world of values, because if the world were just electrons, then there would be no problem of evil. Dawkins responds:

"On the contrary, if the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, meaningless tragedies like the crashing of this bus are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention. It would manifest no intentions of any kind. 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, witiless Nature
Will neither know nor care.
DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music" (Ibid., 132-33. Emphasis original).

How can natural selection be the basis of morality (The God Delusion) if it is completely unconcerned with morality, goodness, and suffering (River out of Eden)? Why is there such a difference of attitude in these two books? Dawkins shows some intellectual honesty regarding morality in River out of Eden, but he appears to abandon this and take a less callous approach in The God Delusion? Could the reason be that he is more specifically addressing religion in The God Delusion and therefore must more directly deal with the Christian argument from morality? Could it be that he is uncomfortable with the amoral consequences of a strictly atheistic/Darwinian worldview? If so, on what basis does he affirm the objective nature of morals in The God Delusion? I plan to read his books The Selfish Gene and Unweaving the Rainbow next. Maybe they will clarify his view somewhat.

Sidenote: Dawkins uses the phrase "God's Utility Function" as a tool by which to determine what a given "living body" is maximizing. He says that a useful way to discern it is to imagine that creatures were made by a "Divine Engineer" and then reverse engineer what he was trying to maximize (River out of Eden, 104-5). It is interesting that Dawkins denies that there is any design in the universe (See River out of Eden, 95-99; and The God Delusion, 113-59), but he still considers the assumption of design to be a useful tool in understanding the universe (see also River out of Eden, 99-103, especially p. 99). Presuppositions do indeed affect how a person interprets the evidence (See Bahnsen, Pushing the Antithesis, 42-49).

---
Sources Cited:

Greg L. Bahnsen, Pushing the Antithesis: The Apologetic Methodology of Greg L. Bahnsen. Edited by Gary Demar (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2007).

Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006).

Richard Dawkins, River out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, The Science Masters Series (New York: Basic Books, 1995).

Frank Turek, "Evolution Cannot Explain Morality" in CrossExamined Blog (http://www.crossexamined.org/ blog/?p=71) (Accessed on 24 October 2008).

Overall Thoughts on Sam Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation"

2008-10-15T10:00:00.000-04:00

Sam Harris’ Letter to a Christian Nation is very poorly written. Throughout the book, he confidently asserts that his view is undeniably supported by the evidence, and yet he usually offers no evidence for his view. He merely asserts it and declares contrary views to be ridiculous and based on ignorance (33, 43, 47, 57-59, 63-65, 68-73). When he does cite an alleged source, he neglects context. He gives no indication of a source citation in the main text. Sometimes he does not cite sources (11, 41, 61-66, 75-76).

He does not give one argument or one piece of evidence against the existence of God although he boldly claims that religious people have no evidence for their views (51-52, 67-68). The closest comes to arguing against the existence of God is 1) to argue for agnosticism (55-56, 67-68); and 2) His argument that the cosmological argument does not prove the biblical God (71-73), although he thinks he is refuting intelligent design here.

He repeatedly makes false comparisons which reveal his lack of understanding of the issues under discussion (7, 46, 51-52, 60-62, 70).

He claims the moral high ground over religious people, especially Christians. He argues that an act is moral or immoral depending on how it affects the happiness and suffering of other people (8, 22-25). However, he never explains how his atheistic worldview supports this definition. He says that people decide what is right and wrong (49-50), and yet he neglects to mention disagreements on morality. If people can decide what is moral, then they can change their mind and declare otherwise. Harris does not deal with this. His ethical system is suspended in midair.

There appears to be an undercurrent of anger and hatred of Christianity throughout the book (11, 22, 50, 74-75). He combines this with ad hominem attacks (56, 63, 70, 74)

I can make only three positive comments: 1) He rejects a pluralist view toward religion and argues that one side in this debate is right, and the other is wrong (4-5); 2) Harris does not sugarcoat the threat posed by Muslim terrorism (82-87); and 3) He includes a very humorous sentence on page 44: “The Muslims of Western Europe are generally not atheists.” Wow! I never would have guessed!

In summary, A Letter to a Christian Nation is nowhere even close to responsible scholarship.

James White on the Religious Nature of Atheism

2008-10-10T10:14:00.000-04:00

It is interesting that modern atheists criticize religious intolerance in light of such atheist responses described here. White also explains the problems atheism and liberalism are causing in Europe today.

James White and the Trinity

2008-10-06T21:14:00.002-04:00

This is a very interesting video defending the doctrine of the Trinity. It underlines the importance to read verses in context. Too many false criticisms of orthodox Christian doctrine are based on ignoring the context of verses.

(video posted here)

Harris' Concluding Thoughts in his "Letter to a Christian Nation"

2008-09-30T10:00:00.000-04:00

Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation, 87-91; Wilson, Letter from a Christian Citizen, 97-109.

Sam Harris opens his concluding comments with the following:

“One of the greatest challenges facing civilization in the twenty-first century is for human beings to learn to speak about their deepest personal concerns—about ethics, spiritual experience, and the inevitability of human suffering—in ways that are not flagrantly irrational. We desperately need a public discourse that encourages critical thinking and intellectual honesty. Nothing stands in the way of this project more than the respect we accord religious faith” (Harris, 87).

I have not seen honest inquiry in Harris’ Letter. Instead, it is an extended emotional tirade of straw men and ad hominem arguments. Aside from Wilson's Letter from a Christian Citizen, another great source which addresses Harris' inaccurate use of sources, is The Return of the Village Atheist by Joel McDurmon.

Harris considers the prospect of eradicating religion. He says that “the prospects for eradicating religion in our time do not seem good” (Harris, 87), but he adds that if this is accomplished then "we will look back upon this period in human history with horror and amazement" (Harris, 88). He does not specify in his Letter how this would be accomplished, but it is interesting that in The End of Faith, he proposes “benign dictatorship" as a means to deal with Islam and a world government to impose his version of a “civil society” (Harris, End of Faith, 150-52. See also Joel McDurmon, The Return of the Village Atheist, 83-85).

Harris says we need to learn “to meet our emotional needs without embracing the preposterous” and learn how to use ritual “without lying to ourselves about the nature of reality” and realize the obscenity of teaching religion to children (sounds similar to Richard Dawkins who equates religious education of children with child abuse in The God Delusion, pp. 311-44) (Harris, 88). Wilson offers a very appropriate response. Essentially, Harris wants life to have meaning while still denying God. “In short, you want to square the circle and you cannot do it. But you keep trying” (Wilson, 98-99).

Harris admits that people have positive religious experiences, but he points out that people of many religions have such experiences and that such experiences can be misinterpreted and lead to further delusion. I agree, but this does not prove atheism, because atheists can be equally deluded.

Harris argues that discussions of ethics and contemplative life should be given “the same standards of reasonableness and self-criticism that animate all intellectual discourse” (Harris, 90). Reasonable and self-critical standards are important, but they must be applied to atheism as well. Harris does not attempt to do this. As Wilson explains, if atheism is true, then people are merely lumps of firing neurons who think they understand while in truth they are not really thinking at all but instead are merely the setting for chemical reactions. If atheism is true, then these are the harsh facts. An intellectually honest inquiry must face the truth.

Harris hypothesizes that religion played a helpful role in our evolutionary path but that this does not give it validity now. He says, “there is, after all, nothing more natural than rape. But no one would argue that rape is good, or compatible with a civil society, because it may have had evolutionary advantages for our ancestors. That religion may have served some necessary function for us in the past does not preclude the possibility that it is now the greatest impediment to our building a global civilization” (Harris, 90-91). He also says that his book is written in response to the failure to attack religion and to preach the death of God. A Christian would respond, however, that God created mankind in his image. Consequently, we cannot completely eradicate the spiritual urge which is deeply rooted in our essential nature (See also Wilson, 102).

Harris on Conflicting Worldviews

2008-09-20T22:20:00.000-04:00

Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation, 79-87; Wilson, Letter from a Christian Citizen, 90-96.

Harris points out that many books aside from the Bible claim divine authorship. I have no argument with that, but as Wilson notes, that is not an argument against divine revelation. It simply points out that people disagree on what God has revealed. Harris also argues that the attitude of tolerance has hindered our willingness “to criticize ideas that are increasingly maladaptive and patently ridiculous” (Harris, 80). Again, I agree with that.

Harris reveals a double standard when he decries the practice of teaching children of one faith to demonize people of another and become involved in violence over religious beliefs. First, I do not detect any compassion for religious people of any affiliation in the writings of Harris. Just the opposite in fact. Examples can be found on just about every page of Harris’ Letter. Take your own advice before you preach it to others. Second, yes, religious violence is a problem, but any Christian who is involved is acting contrary to the Christian worldview. The problem is with that individual, not the Christian faith. Wilson offers another good comment:

“We [Christians] don’t believe that religion is the answer. We believe Christ is the answer. When you combine religion with sinners, what you get is religious sin. And when you combine serious religion with sinners, what you get is serious religious sin. All this does is confirm one of the basic tenets of the Christian faith, which is that the human race is all screwed up” (Wilson, 94)

Also, if you are going to criticize violence toward people because of their religious beliefs, do not neglect to mention the violence committed by atheistic Communism.

As Wilson points out, removing all religion will not solve the problem of sin, because we will then be left with secular sin rather than religious sin (Wilson, 94-95). The root of the problem is in the person, in his sinful nature, whatever his religious faith may be. The Christian, however, sees the solution in salvation through Christ’s atoning work. A sinner is forgiven based on the righteousness of Christ mediated through His atoning sacrifice. God then progressively transforms a person’s sinful nature to be more like Christ.

Harris expresses concern that the Muslim population in Europe is growing more quickly than the non-Muslim population. Wilson counters, however, that the secular worldview has created the low birth rate among non-Muslim Europeans. “Ideas do have consequences” (Wilson, 96). Maybe secular Europe (and secular America) should reconsider its support of abortion and de-emphasis on the value of parenthood.

A Response to Richard Dawkins on the Basis of Morality

2008-09-11T20:00:00.000-04:00

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins argues that morality does not depend on religion and that a person can be moral without God. I will argue that there are some fundamental errors in his reasoning. Before I do that, however, it is first necessary to summarize his explanation of how evolution supposedly generates morality in order to provide the proper context.

Dawkins rejects the argument that Darwinism “is inherently nihilistic, teaching that we evolved by blind chance . . . and are annihilated when we die. As a direct consequence of such alleged negativity, all manner of evils follow” (Dawkins, 214). He acknowledges that on the surface Darwinism seems inadequate to explain goodness and morality. What is the survival value of such sentiments? Dawkins explains morality, however, through his concept of the “selfish gene” by which genes insure their own survival by selfishly encouraging altruistic behavior.

Dawkins proposes four types of such selfish behavior. First, “a gene that programs individual organisms to favour their genetic kin is statistically likely to benefit copies of itself” (Dawkins, 216), thereby increasing its frequency in a species and making altruism normal. Second, he proposes reciprocal altruism – giving favors and expecting favors in return. Third, through altruism an organism can acquire a reputation of being generous and kind. Fourth, an organism can use generosity to demonstrate its superiority and thereby advertise itself (Dawkins, 214-20).

He then asks, why are we good to people we have never met and will probably never see again? How does it benefit us or our “genetic kin”? Dawkins suggests that it is a byproduct of our distant past. “In ancestral times, we had the opportunity to be altruistic only towards close kin and potential reciprocators. Nowadays, that restriction is no longer there, but the rule of thumb persists” (Dawkins, 221)

Dawkins argues that if our morality is grounded in our “Darwinian past” then we can expect to find universal morals which transcend cultural and religious boundaries (Dawkins, 222). He cites some studies using hypothetical moral decision which he says demonstrate such universals. He argues that if morality comes from religion, then religious people should differ from atheists in their “moral intuitions” (Dawkins, 225). However, according to Dawkins, such a difference does not exist. He says that “we do not need God in order to be good—or evil” (Dawkins, 226). He says, “It seems to me to require quite a low self-regard to think that, should belief in God suddenly vanish from the world, we would all become callous and selfish hedonists, with no kindness, no charity, no generosity, nothing that would deserve the name of goodness” (Dawkins, 227). He concludes that people do not need religion in order to be moral.

The problems in this argument are threefold. First, his argument in this book regarding evolution and the selfish gene deals only with which actions either promote or hinder the survival of genes by programming an organism to behave altruistically through reciprocation, protection of kin, etc. This is merely a pragmatic criterion. Moral sensibility, however, deals with concepts of right and wrong, not useful and not useful. Intellectually, a person might argue that morals are merely based on pragmatic survival value, but no one actually lives that way consistently. Why do we intuitively regard some actions as right or wrong rather than useful or not useful? Dawkins himself speaks of morals in the language of right and wrong rather than mere pragmatism:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully” (Dawkins, 31).

“This chapter is about evil, and its opposite, good; about morality: where it comes from and why we should embrace it, and whether we need religion to do so” (Dawkins, 234)

“The legend of the animals going into the ark is charming, but the moral of the story of Noah is appalling” (Dawkins, 237-38).

“These considerations fill me with despair. They seem to show the immense power of religion, and especially the religious upbringing of children, to divide people and foster historic enmities and hereditary vendettas” (Dawkins, 257).

“Joshua’s action was a deed of barbaric genocide” (Dawkins, 257).

“Outstanding reversals, deep and terrible ones, are provided by the dictators of the twentieth century” (Dawkins, 272).

Greg Bahnsen writes that “Unbelievers use good and evil language in absolutistic ways and then seek a theory to cover it” (Greg L. Bahnsen, Pushing the Antithesis, p. 179). Dawkins speaks in terms of pragmatic survival value and in terms of right and wrong, but he does not explain how the survival value of an action translates into the moral status of right or wrong.

If morals are merely opinion or pragmatic, then they are neither objective nor universal and cannot be imposed on other people. As Francis Schaeffer explains, if God does not exist, then ethics are merely a component of metaphysics. They merely explain what is rather than what should be. If this is the case, then there is no difference between kindness and cruelty because there is no standard (See Francis A. Schaeffer’s He Is There and He Is Not Silent in The Francis A. Schaeffer Trilogy, pp. 291-301). In fact, the very terms “kind” and “cruel” would be meaningless. In order to have an objective, universal moral standard which does not depend on opinion, pragmatism, or the needs of the moment, but instead applies to every person, then a standard which transcends the individual is needed. This cannot be grounded in society as a whole, because that would base morality in popular opinion which could change and be manipulated and therefore would be neither objective nor universal. Instead, a transcendent standard must be grounded in a transcendent reality beyond the individual and beyond human society. It is also necessary that this transcendent reality be personal in nature. Moral standards do not deal with what is done, nor do they deal with merely pragmatic wisdom, such as looking both ways before crossing a street. Rather than dealing with what is done or is smart to do, they deal with right and wrong, what should and should not be done. That implies a choice, which requires personality and consciousness. The conscious, personal, and transcendent reality to which Christians refer is God.

The second problem in Dawkins’ argument involves an equivocation with is not immediately obvious. In some places Dawkins argues that God does not need to exist in order for people to be moral, and in other places he argues that people do not need to believe in God in order to be moral. He appears to use these two conditions interchangeably, at least in how they affect morals. For example, consider the following statements, especially the second and third:

“As we shall see, the way people respond to these moral tests, and their inability to articulate their reasons, seems largely independent of their religious beliefs or lack of them” (Dawkins, 223).

“The main conclusion of Hauser and Singer’s study was that there is no statistically significant difference between atheists and religious believers in making these judgments. This seems compatible with the view, which I and many others hold, that we do not need God in order to be good—or evil” (Dawkins, 226).

“You have fatally undermined your claim that God is necessary for us to be good. I suspect quite a lot of religious people do think religion is what motivates them to be good” (Dawkins, 227)

“Whatever its cause, the manifest phenomenon of Zeitgeist progression is more than enough to undermine the claim that we need God in order to be good, or to decide what is good” (Dawkins, 272).

The distinction between these two conditions may appear to be immaterial, but I would argue that it is significant. Dawkins is looking at only a small (although foundational) part of a religious worldview, the existence of God, in isolation from the total worldview. This causes him to miss some important factors which have significant bearing on this issue. Essentially, in the Christian worldview, God created mankind and reveals Himself through nature and mankind’s moral conscience. If God created mankind with a moral conscience, then people would be aware of that moral conscience whether they believe in God or not. The Apostle Paul illustrates this in Romans 2:13-16 where he explains that the Gentiles, although they do not have the written law, are still inwardly conscious of God moral law. This innate sense would influence how people would respond to moral questions whether or not they believe in God. The existence or non-existence of God therefore affects the variables quite significantly, independently of human belief. If God exists and has imprinted mankind with a moral sense, then a person’s morality does have an inherent theological foundation, even if he is an atheist.

The third problem in Dawkins’ argument involves the consequences of one’s worldview. It is true that an atheist can be a moral person, but beyond evolutionary pragmatism and public pressure, what prevents him from being immoral? As Douglas Wilson argues in his response to Sam Harris, “The argument is about what the actual behavior of people would be if they were logically consistent” (Douglas Wilson, Letter from a Christian Citizen, 44. See also p. 41). As noted above, if there is no transcendent standard of morality, then there is no universal and objective basis for morality. Why not be cruel if it is beneficial for the individual person? Why shouldn’t one people group oppress another if they will benefit from it? Dawkins might argue that oppressive behavior would give a person a reputation which would work against him (Dawkins, 217-18). However, this obviously does not stop many examples of cruelty and oppression, especially when the perpetrator sees personal or societal benefit in his actions. Dawkins argues that humans have progressed morally since the times of Genghis Khan and Hitler and will continue to progress (Dawkins, 265-72). However, why should we? Dawkins gives an explanation of what might motivate such progression, but he does not explain why we should make such a progression.

Considering Dawkins’ evolutionary presuppositions, it might make sense for him to argue that morals are grounded in our evolutionary past independent of religion. However, his argument suffers from significant problems, and it does not do justice to the true nature of mankind’s moral conscience.

"The Ten Commandments of Atheism"

2008-09-09T13:25:00.001-04:00

http://americanvision.org/bwarchive/TenCommandsAtheism_09-07.pdf

This is quite interesting. Where does an atheist turn for moral standards? He has nowhere to go except himself and society. As Vallorani notes, when God is removed, the state takes His place.

The Dawkins Delusion": Does Richard Dawkins Exist?

2008-09-04T23:07:00.001-04:00

The funniest part of this parody is that they use Richard Dawkins' arguments to question the existence of Dawkins :)

(Posted at Youtube)

Harris on Evolution and Intelligent Design

2008-08-30T15:53:00.000-04:00

Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation, 68-79; Wilson, Letter from a Christian Citizen, 81-90.

Harris argues that evolution is beyond "intellectual dispute" and that anyone who doubts it "may as well doubt that the sun is a star" (Harris, 68). First, Harris does not address any arguments against evolution but simply dismisses their proponents as intellectually dishonest. This is an example of the ad hominem fallacy - attack the person rather than his position. As Wilson explains, "One of the tell-tale signs of trouble for a theory or a paradigm is when its defenders resort to name-calling in lieu of argument and obstinately defend an ossified orthodoxy instead of answering reasonable questions. And this is why science advances, as Max Planck observed, funeral by funeral" (Wilson, 83). Harris repeats this tactic throughout this section: Assert and insult, but never defend (see Wilson, 84-86). Second, Harris also makes a straw man argument based on a false analogy. The status of the sun as a star is indisputable, however, there is evidence against evolution in the intelligent design (ID) movement. Harris attempts to deal with intelligent design later in this section, but the attempt is quite minimal and very inadequate.

Harris also argues that the fact that evolution is a theory does not render it invalid. That is true. However, he then proceeds by defining science as being based on explanatory models and predictable observations. He neglects the distinction between operational and historical science. Operational science investigates repeatable events which can be observed through experimentation, as is done in physics and medicine. Historical science investigates past events attempts to form an explanation, as is done in forensics. Harris' description of science is more appropriate to operational science (and is quite different from his definition of science on p. 64), but evolution belongs to historical science. Theories of operational science can be tested in a laboratory, but this is not true with historical science which is not directly observable and does not merit the absolutely iron-clad case-closed certainty which Harris attributes to evolution.

Harris then criticizes people who receive a Ph.D. in science and then use it to defend the Bible. He argues that they do not conduct "honest inquiry into the nature of the universe" (Harris, 70). Rather than dealing with specific arguments, Harris simply dismisses them by arguing that the United States ranks far behind many other countries in quality of education. First, this does nothing to refute the arguments of intelligent design but instead is just another ad hominem argument. Second, he seems to forget that atheists (including Harris) attend US schools as well. Maybe their arguments should be questioned for the same reason.

Harris says that ID "is nothing more than a program of political and religious advocacy masquerading as science" (Harris, 72). Again, he does not even attempt to deal with specific ID arguments. Instead he attacks the cosmological argument. First, the cosmological argument, although ID proponents could affirm it, is not part of ID material. As Wilson notes, ID deals with such topics as irreducible complexity and information theory. Harris demonstrates a serious lack of understanding. Has he even read any ID material? This casts serious doubt on the credibility of his bold claims regarding the alleged certainty of evolution and stupidity of intelligent design. Second, he does a poor job critiquing the cosmological argument. He essentially argues that the cosmological argument does not prove the existence of the biblical God. He apparently does not realize that the point of the cosmological argument is not to prove the biblical God but to prove that a creator god of some form must exist. He also argues that the cosmological argument creates an infinite regress and does not explain who created God. This reveals a complete misunderstanding of the cosmological argument. There are many forms of the cosmological argument, but most of the type which Harris addresses argue that the universe had a beginning and therefore must have a cause. An infinite regress of past causes is impossible, and therefore there must be an uncaused first cause. The cosmological argument aims to settle the problem of an infinite regress, not create it. Harris, by arguing that the cosmological argument creates an infinite regress, therefore commits a serious straw man fallacy and ignores the glaring infinite regress in the atheist's appeal to purely natural causes (Richard Dawkins makes the same error). Harris (as well as Dawkins) also seems to be unaware of the important distinction made by the kalam cosmological argument, which argues that whatever begins to exist requires a cause. The uncaused cause proposed by the cosmological argument did not begin to exist. Harris' criticism therefore carries no weight. Harris could question the possibility of an uncaused cause, but then he would be left again with an infinite regress of causes and would have solved nothing.

Harris says that if there is an intelligent designer, then he has a great fondness for beetles and that this "should have closed the book on creationism for all time" (Harris, 75-76). How? How does the existence of many types of beetles argue against the existence of a designer? Harris does not say. It could in fact point to the creativity of the designer. Harris also argues that if there is a God, then he also has a fondness for viruses. He complains about the suffering caused by viruses and argues that evolution explains the existence of viruses but Genesis does not. He ignores Genesis 3 and Romans 8 which explain the fall of mankind and the suffering caused by it, and so contrary to Harris' claim, Genesis does explain the existence of viruses. The same applies to the alleged design flaws in human biology cited by Harris.

Information on intelligent design may be found at Creation Ministries International. I also suggest The Privileged Planet book and DVD.

Now for a quote for all of my readers to ponder: "The unbelieving worldview requires faith in miracles, yet without a reason for those miracles. Life arises from non-life. Intelligence from non-intelligence. Morality from that which is a-moral. These are faith claims for explaining our world and how it came to be." (Greg L. Bahnsen, Pushing the Antithesis: The Apologetic Methodology of Greg L. Bahnsen. Edited by Gary Demar. Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2007, p. 194).

Intellectual Honesty

2008-08-08T12:09:00.000-04:00

Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation, 62-68; Wilson, Letter from a Christian Citizen, 73-81.

Harris argues that it is "a moral necessity for scientists to speak honestly about the conflict between science and religion" (Harris, 62). Again, what is his basis for moral certitude? He gives a quote from the National Academy of Science which appears to take a NOMA position - religion and science as non-overlapping magisteria* (Harris, 62-63). Harris instead insists that a conflict between science and religion is unavoidable. He argues that religion makes statements on the nature of reality and that they "are intrinsically in conflict with the claims of science, because they are claims made on terrible evidence" (Harris, 64). He also argues that the success of science can cost religion, but religion religion "always comes at the expense of science," because it makes statements based on "terrible evidence" (Harris, 63-64. Emphasis original). He refuses to make a distinction between hard and soft science, or even between science and humanities, in this regard. In a broad sense of the term "science" in which he includes all of these fields, he says that the core of science is not experimentation or math but instead is "intellectual honesty." He says that when assessing a truth claim one approaches the evidence and logical arguments honestly or not, but religious people claim a different standard of "intellectual integrity" (Harris, 64-65).

Harris is right that conflicts between religion and science are inevitable, because both deal with questions on the fundamental nature of reality. He is wrong, however, to paint religion as a necessary deterrent to science. Is he unaware that the modern scientific concept of the uniformity and reasonable nature of the universe grew out of the Christian concept of a reasonable God? Does he believe that science can be purely objective and neutral regarding its methods and conclusions? The fact is that no one is truly neutral and objective. Everyone operates according to presuppositions, and to deny that is intellectually dishonest (Harris professes to reject intellectual dishonesty). Harris gives a very strange explanation of science by lumping it together with history and the humanities as long as someone uses intellectual honesty. So who determines intellectual honesty? He does not say. Is coherence with Harris' on atheistic assumptions a necessary component? (See also Wilson, 73-75) Wilson asks how Harris would deal with the resurrection of Jesus. It is a historical claim, but would Harris rule it out a priori? If so, who is being intellectually dishonest? (Wilson, 75-76) It is also important to note the vastly different criteria for validity in scientific arguments vs. historical arguments.

Harris argues that religious faith simply gives people license to believe what they do not have good reasons to believe. If we had good reason to believe that Jesus was virgin-born, then that "would necessarily form a part of our rational description of the universe" (Harris, 66-67). Faith stands diametrically opposed to evidence and good reason and allows people to be "certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about" (Harris, 67).

What is Harris' criteria for a good reason to believe something? What are his presuppositions (and yes he does have presuppositions like everyone else)? Wilson lists the resurrection of Jesus, the battle of Waterloo, the London fire, and Washington entering Delaware. He says he did not witness any of these. However, under Harris' mindset, he can believe all of them without intellectual dishonesty except the resurrection of Christ (Wilson, 79). This reveals Harris' anti-supernatural presupposition, which cannot be supported on scientific grounds, but is instead an a priori assumption (or what Wilson calls Harris' "materialistic faith" [Wilson, 79]) with no good reason to believe it. Who is being intellectually dishonest? Wilson argues that Harris' belief in a closed system universe gives him reason to continue refusing to believe when reasons indicate otherwise (Wilson, 80). The fact is that everyone has faith in some set of presuppositions which cannot be examined scientifically. Harris might as well admit it if he wants to be truly intellectually honest.

Harris & Wilson on the Reliability of the Bible

2008-08-04T07:02:00.000-04:00

Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation, 57-62; Wilson, Letter from a Christian Citizen, 66-73.

In response to claims that the New Testament contains fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, Harris claims that the New Testament writers forged the story of Jesus in accordance with Old Testament prophecy. He argues that textual supports this claim, but he does not explain the alleged evidence (Harris, 57). Wilson rightly notes that although in theory this would be possible, one must remember that the authors of the New Testament were writing under persecution, and so "any attempt to be cute with the known facts would be immediately turned against them." Many details would have also been very difficult to fake, such as Jesus' birthplace, Judas' payment, and the details of Jesus' death and resurrection. (Wilson, 67). "After-the-fact prophecy-fulfillment is not hard in a vacuum, but it would have been hard in the circumstances in which the Christian faith first took root" (Wilson, 68). Harris also claims that Isaiah 7:14 is mistranslated to refer to a virgin rather than a "young woman" and that some biblical writers never heard of the virgin birth (because they do no mention it) (Harris, 58). Wilson notes that it was translated to refer to a virgin long before the Christian era and therefore could not be a Christian forgery (Wilson, 68-69)

Harris makes the old claim that Matt. 27:9-10 mistakenly attributes to Jeremiah a quote which is actually from Zechariah (Harris, 58). He neglects to mention that when referring to two prophets, it was customary among the Jews a that time to attribute them to the more significant of the two (Matthew cites two prophesies in this text - one from Jeremiah and one from Zechariah). This practice does not fit modern standards of source citation, but Matthew did not live in the 20th century. It is very anachronistic to impose modern practices on an ancient text. (See also Wilson, 69-70) Harris also argues that John says that Jesus was crucified the day before the Passover meal while Mark says he was crucified the day after (Harris, 58-59). Harris does not bother to cite passages to support his claim, but he may be referring to what may appear to be a difference on when Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper. Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe give a good response to this in When Critics Ask, 375. I will not cover it in detail here. This issue and the quotation of Jeremiah and Zechariah are examples of a claimed errors and contradictions which have long been resolved (and shown to not be a errors or contradictions) long ago, but critics continue to use them.

Harris then addresses biblical prophecies fulfilled in history and lists Deut. 28:64 and Luke 19:43-44 as examples. He does not attempt to refute these prophesies. Instead, he argues that a prophecy from an omniscient being should be much more specific, such as a prediction of the invention of computers and the internet. He complains that the Bible contains nothing that could not have been written by someone in the first century (Harris 59-60). He also complains that the Bible says nothing about DNA, the size and age of the universe, or a cure for cancer (Harris, 61-62). As noted in the 7/30/08 post, however, why would a creator be obligated to satisfy the demands of his creation? As Wilson notes, Harris merely shows "an unwillingness to let God be God and tell us what He would like us to know and to do so in a way that reveals what He believes to be important" (Wilson, 71. Emphasis original). Harris' argument also comes nowhere close to refuting that God is not the author of what the Bible in fact does say; he merely complains that the Bible does not contain what he wants it to contain. Perhaps he was unable to devise a suitable refutation of the prophesies listed and was forced to resort to complaining about the nature of the content instead. And why is it a problem that the Bible does not contain references to future technology which a first century writer would not understand? The New Testament was written in a first century context, but the material is still relevant today.

Harris complains that the Bible does not include a section on mathematics but instead contains mathematical errors. As an example he lists 1 Kings 7:23-26 and 2 Chronicles 4:2-5 which seem to approximate the ratio of the circumference and diameter of a circle to 3:1 rather than 3.1415926535 (Harris, 60-61). First, considering the Bible's purpose of recording a history of God's nature, his dealings with mankind, and his provision of salvation, it was not important to include a chapter on mathematics. This argument, and others like them, do nothing to refute the reliability and divine inspiration of the Bible. They merely demonstrate that the Bible does not contain what Harris wants it to contain (see my comments in the 7/30/08 post). Second, 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles do not contain a mathematical error when read properly. As Wilson notes, the mathematical formula pi describes an abstract two dimensional circle with no thickness in the line. The rim of the bowl described in 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles was a three-dimensional object in the real world. The rim had a thickness, and so of course a diameter measured from the inside (rather than across the inside and edges) would come up just a bit short (Wilson, 71-73).

What about Suffering?

2008-07-30T09:30:00.000-04:00

Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation, 50-57; Wilson, Letter from a Christian Citizen, 56-66.

Harris mocks the idea that the parents of a girl who is abducted, raped, and murdered could believe that God is watching over them. He then claims that atheism is neither a philosophy nor a worldview but instead is "an admission of the obvious" and "nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious belief" (Harris, 51). He says that the murder of even one girl "casts doubt upon the idea of a benevolent God" (Harris, 52).

First, Harris' statement here reminds me of Frank Zindler in his debate with William Lane Craig at Willow Creek Community Church, in which Zindler argued that atheists are simply people who do not believe in God. They make no claims and therefore need not defend any claims. This is a denial of the obvious. One cannot reject the existence of God without also claiming that God does not exist. Atheism denies the existence of any supernatural reality and instead argues that one must base one's beliefs on logic and science. These are all elements of a worldview. There is either a god (or some form of supernatural reality) or not. To deny one is to affirm the other.

Second, what is obvious to Harris, and how is it obvious? Of course, he is claiming that the non-existence of God is obvious, but how? We are half way through his book, and yet he has not given a single proof that God does not exist, and most (if not all) of his attempts at such of an argument have borrowed from the Christian worldview (borrowed capital, as explained in previous posts). His comment regarding the tension between the murder of a young girl and the existence of a benevolent God is a further example. How does he define benevolence on a purely atheistic/evolutionary basis? (This will be covered later in this post.)

Harris then complains that God did not save the victims of Hurricane Katrina and Shiite victims in Iraq and concludes on that basis that God does not exist (Harris, 52-54). First, that is a non sequitor. It does not prove that God does not exist. It merely proves that if God exists, then he does not obey Harris' demands. And why should he? Since when did a creator need to obey the demands of his creation (Rom. 9)? Second, this section is also one long complaint with no genuine argument or analysis of evidence. Harris closes with the following: "Once you stop swaddling the reality of the world's suffering in religious fantasies, you will feel in your bones just how precious life is - and, indeed, how unfortunate it is that millions of human beings suffer the most harrowing abridgements of their happiness for no good reason at all" (Harris, 54). What is precious about life under atheism and evolution? We live; we die; that is all. The man who dies with the most toys does not win; instead, the man who dies with the most toys is dead like everyone else. The universe moves on, operating according to mechanistic laws with no reason or purpose in mind, and no mind either (Read Ecclesiastes regarding the meaningless of life without God).

Harris then gives further complaints that God does not relieve such suffering as the Holocaust and smallpox. He uses the old argument that if God does not end suffering then he is either evil or impotent (Harris, 54-55). He concludes that the God of the Bible is as fictional as Zeus (Harris, 55-56), again based on complaints rather than well-reasoned argument. He does not consider the Christian's explanations for the reality of suffering, namely sin (see Romans, chapters 1, 2, 8), and God's solution through the atoning work of Christ (see Romans, chapters 3, 5, 8). While speaking to some students, Ravi Zacharias gave an explanation which is worth repeating here. If there is evil in the world, then there must be a good with which to compare the evil. Therefore there must be a moral law by which to distinguish them, which in turn requires a moral law giver. If there is no moral law giver (which is the case if atheism is true), then there is no moral law, no good, and therefore no evil. So what is Harris complaining about? A Christian will affirm that there is indeed both good and evil in this world, but he has a basis on which to believe this.

Wilson argues that Harris neglects to follow his atheism to its logical conclusion but instead remains a sentimentalist with his “sentiments miraculously suspended in mid-air” (Wilson, 57). Atheism cannot lead one to doubt the existence of a benevolent God, because it “destroys the very concept of benevolence itself” (Wilson, 58). If atheism is true, then benevolence is no more than a chemical reaction in the brain, and morals are no more than preferences (Wilson, 58-60). Wilson says to Harris, “If there is nothing above us but sky, certain things follow. Your sentimental atheism is a hodge-podge of Christian leftovers” (Wilson, 61). Wilson also adds that God has reasons for not intervening in natural disaster which we do not now understand but someday will understand. Harris may reject this God, but by doing so he rejects the foundation of the sentiments on which he bases his arguments (Wilson, 63-65). Harris says it is terrible that people die and that people suffer needlessly (Harris, 56-57), but how is it terrible? In a world governed by natural selection with no designing mind, some will live, and some will die. That is all. There is no meaning or need or sense to it. The Christian does acknowledge the sorrow of death and suffering, and he knows that suffering will one day be set right, but he is able to say such things because he acknowledges a holy and just God (Wilson 65-66). If atheism is true, then nothing will be put right, because there is no one to put it right, and there really is no “right” either. Everything simply is as it is as the result of mindless, mechanistic processes. On the other hand, if a holy and just God does exist, then there is a reason to believe that wrongs will be set right.

What Makes "The Good" Good?

2008-07-08T08:35:00.000-04:00

Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation, 46-50; Wilson, Letter from a Christian Citizen, 47-56.

Harris argues that even if belief in God produces desirable behavior, that does not prove that God exists or that Christianity is true. He also argues that if atheism leads to moral chaos, then that does not necessarily suggest that Christianity is true. Another religion may be true, or they may all be false. Religions may be useful and yet false (Harris, 46-47). I agree with Harris' initial points. Something is not true simply because it "works." A Christian can wholeheartedly affirm that fact. The falsehood of one view also does not necessarily prove the truth of a competing view, especially when there are several other alternatives. As Wilson points out, however, Harris neglects to mention that although Christianity may lead to moral chaos as he defines it, it is also not necessarily false (Wilson, 47-48). Also note, Harris says that moral chaos resulting from atheism need not "suggest" (he does not say "prove") that Christianity is true. As Wilson notes, the moral results of atheism should motivate one to at least consider the alternatives (Wilson, 48).

A conservative Christian would also reject a morally pragmatic approach in liberalism which ignores miracles and fulfilled prophecy (Harris, 47). Once again, the fact that a religion seems to "work" does not prove its claims. Miracles and fulfilled prophecy, however, do provide objective data with which to examine a religion's claims. A sense of meaning does not prove a religion's claims either. A sense of meaning without an objective foundation is meaningless. Pragmatism and warm fuzzy feelings are not more authoritative than objective truth. As Wilson states, "the point of truth is not our own personal convenience" (Wilson, 47). (If you objects to the notion of objective truth, realize that you have already contradicted yourself).

Harris criticizes some Christians for arguing that the tsunami in 2004 was the judgment of God (Harris, 47). Yes, in the Bible God did sometimes use natural disasters to pronounce judgment on sinful civilizations, but he always announced his intentions. I also find it interesting that, although Harris rejects both liberal and conservative Christianity, he still sees more merit in the conservative view. His reason is that the conservative view follows reasonably from its assumptions, while the moderate/liberal view, as Harris sees it, takes a more hands-off approach to God's role and instead focuses on the human compassion generated by natural disasters. He considers this morally pretentious (Harris, 47-48). A conservative Christian would add that it is overly humanistic, once giving priority to pragmatics and warm fuzzies. A conservative would not necessarily argue that God caused the natural disaster to specifically target a particular people, but he would argue that the presence of suffering in this world is the result of man's rebellion against God and that a provision was made by God in the cross of Christ. He would also affirm the sovereignty of God in the situation and the fact that the disaster demonstrates our finitude and utter dependence on God. It is also worth noting that, assuming an atheistic worldview, there is nothing really wrong with the devastation of a tsunami. It is simply a result of the natural order of things with no divine cause and no moral component. It simply is the way it is. Why be angry at a non-existent god for not alleviating the suffering which he did not cause? (Wilson, 52-53)

Harris makes a semi-decent start in this section, but the second half of this section is quite weak. He complains that Christians 1) use their own moral views to authenticate the Bible, and 2) argue that people must rely on the Bible rather than their own intuitions (presumably, he means secular intuitions) as a moral guide. Instead, he argues that "we decide what is good in the Good Book. We read the Golden Rule and judge it to be a brilliant distillation of many of our ethical impulses. . . . The belief that the Bible is the word of God is of no help whatsoever" (Harris, 49-50. Emphasis original). He argues that we must use 21st century rather than 1st century conversation to make moral judgments.

First, Harris once again exposes a fundamental weakness in his argument. The Christian has a moral code which is grounded in the eternal nature of God (and so yes, the belief that the Bible is the word of God is quite helpful). What does the atheist have? Harris says that we decide what is morally right or wrong. Okay, who is "we"? Is it a majority vote, or a declaration from an elite group, or the result of sociological evolution within the confines of a particular culture? Can our decision change over time and still be considered a morally reasonable decision? After all, it is based modern 21st century (not 1st century) conversation. If so, then are these genuine moral decisions, or just the fads of the day? What do you say about people who disagree with your moral conclusions? What is to be done with them? How do you decide who is right? Atheism cannot provide a foundation on which to judge. Once again, Harris knocks the feet out from under all of his moral arguments. Does anyone get the impression that Letter to a Christian Nation is merely the same argument repeated over and over in different forms?

Who Has the Moral High Ground?

2008-06-24T12:37:00.000-04:00

Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation, p.38-46; Wilson, Letter from a Christian Citizen, pp. 41-46.

Harris argues that if religious faith provides the only genuine basis for morality, then atheist must be "utterly immoral" and less moral than believers (Harris, 38-39). He responds that the evil deeds of atheistic zealots like Hitler and Pol Pot arose not from atheism but from "life-destroying myths." Such a man is idiosyncratic rather than acting out of reason (Harris, 40-41). He argues that the Holocaust, on the other hand, arose from medieval Christianity. Harris then argues that European nations which have nearly eliminated religion are among the healthiest nations in the world, while the United States (with high religious adherence) has high rates of crime, STDs, and infant mortality (Harris, 44-45). He concludes: "These statistics prove that atheism is compatible with the basic aspirations of a civil society; they also prove, conclusively, that widespread belief in God does not ensure a society's health" (Harris, 45). He then adds an addendum arguing that "countries with high levels of atheism are also the most charitable" (Harris, 46).

Harris' first argument misrepresents the Christian case. Christian apologists do affirm that religious faith provides the only firm basis for morality, but they do not conclude that atheists are therefore "utterly immoral." The question is not whether an atheist is or is not be a moral person (he certainly can be) but whether or not his worldview provides a basis for those morals. I have discussed the problem this presents for atheism in previous posts, and so I will not bother to explain it in detail here.

Harris' claim that the Holocaust arose from medieval Christianity is an example of another fundamental flaw in his argument. While atheism provides no firm reason to oppose such acts as genocide and ethnic cleansing (instead, they logically follow from an atheistic-evolutionary worldview), Christianity does oppose such acts on the basis of the commandments of God and the image of God (and therefore, dignity of mankind) shared by all humans. These deeds are not incompatible with atheism and can be compatible with atheism. As Wilson states, "Given atheism, morality reduces to personal preferences" (Wilson, 46). However, as Ravi Zacharias explains, when Christianity has used the sword or has exploited people, "it has only steered abysmally away from the path that Christ laid before is followers" (Ravi Zacharias. Can Man Live without God? Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1994: p. 189). The problem is not religion but the heart of man. As Zacharias explains, "The use or abuse of Christianity in contradiction to the very message of the gospel reveals not the gospel for what it is, but the heart of man. That is why atheism is so bankrupt as a view of life, for it miserably fails to deal with the human condition as it really is" (Ibid.). Arguing against Christianity due to the crimes of people who wrongly claim to be serving the cause of Christ is fundamentally flawed because it responds to a false notion of what genuine Christianity is. Harris argues that dogmatism motivates people like Hitler, Pol Pot, and the religious to commit evil deeds, but as Wilson argues, all people are sinners. When a false ideology, whether it is atheistic or theistic, gains control of enough people, some unrestrained sinful tendencies are the results (Wilson, 41). The Christian faith accounts for mankind's sinful nature and provides a solution (Wilson, 42). What does the atheistic worldview offer?

Harris' argument that atheism is not incompatible with a civil society and that religious belief does not guarantee a healthy society is essentially his first argument in a different form and has already been addressed in this post. Regarding his comments on crime, STDs, and infant mortality, it is highly reductionist to explain them on the basis of religious commitment alone. Maybe he does not mean to say that the differing crime rates can be attributed merely to differing degrees of religious adherence, but that is how his argument is presented. Also, as Wilson notes, Harris neglects to mention that most of the countries which Harris praises as "advanced" became prosperous while they were Christian countries, and now that they have abandoned the Christian faith, they are declining (Wilson, 42-43).

Harris' comments on differing infant mortality rates also raise two important questions: First, does he include deaths from abortions in the infant mortality figures? Conservative Christians would consider them. Second, considering his adamant advocacy of embryonic stem cell research (and lack of concern for the human embryo), why does infant mortality concern him?

Harris' section on differing levels of charity omits a fundamental factor. Mike Adams addresses this in his "Fourth Letter to a Secular Nation." As Adam's demonstrates, the "atheist" nations Harris cites are socialist nations. Socialist nations fund welfare programs through involuntary taxes, not charitable devotion, and those who refuse to contribute are regarded as criminal rather than uncharitable. Harris therefore bases his argument on a misrepresentation. I deal with this in an earlier post in my commentary on "Who Really Cares?" by Joel McDurmon.

"Who Really Cares?"

2008-06-13T19:00:00.000-04:00

http://74.255.56.30/blog/?p=107 - "Who Really Cares?" by Joel McDurmon.

This is a great response to Sam Harris' arguments regarding the charitable giving of atheists vs. the charitable giving of the religious. McDurmon shows how Harris is forced to misrepresent the facts in order to make his case.

McDurmon's comments the alleged "charitable" contributuions of socialist governments brings to attention the direction in which the United States is headed. How much do you think our nation is headed in the socalist direction? As people, detached from Christian concepts of individual responsibility and a strong work ethic on which this nation was built, increasingly look to the government to provide for their needs (which they could provide for themselves if they put forth the effort), we can expect more government intrusion and more government confiscation of individual property, all in the interest of "fairness."

This is not merely a political issue. The politIcs are a consequence. At its root this is a moral issue (individual responsibility rather than institutionalized irresponsibility, a work ethic rather than laziness, respect for the rights and property of others rather than coveting their property). A reversal of the socialist direction in which our nation is headed will require a mass moral change in the American public, but what will we need to experience before our country wakes up? It is true that not all of the Founders of the United States were Christians, but they were nonetheless influenced by the Christian values which were an integral part of the culture. These values have given strength to this country for over 200 years. It is no coincidence that the abandonment of the Christian foundation has been followed by the abandonment of the values on which the country was based.

Reasons for "Doing Good" - Harris vs. Wilson

2008-06-13T18:00:00.000-04:00

Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation, pp. 33-38; and Wilson, Letter from a Christian Citizen, pp. 37-40.

Harris admits that Christian missionaries have done many good things for the people they visit, but he argues that those deeds are unnecessarily encumbered by religious dogma and what he alleges are the unethical consequences of that dogma. He uses Mother Theresa as an example. As noted before, he does not explain why he thinks some actions are ethical or moral and why other actions are not. As Wilson states, "Given your [Harris'] principles, why should I care?" (Wilson, 38). If we are all merely accidents of random processes, why should accident #1 care what happens to accident #2 (unless it also affects accident #1 in a significant way)? Of course, a Christian will not be so callous, but his worldview gives him a reason to be more compassionate. What reason does the atheist's worldview provide?

Harris argues that abortion should rank very low on our "list of concerns" when one considers the many other forms of suffering (Harris, 36-37). He later cites figures regarding the percentages of spontaneous abortions and miscarriages and then concludes, "If God exists, He is the most prolific abortionist of all" (Harris, 38). First, why should this matter to Harris, considering that the rate of abortions committed by humans is apparently of no real concern to him? Second, Wilson responds that God is the author of life and therefore has the authority to take it away. "We cannot take life away on our own authority precisely because we did not give it in the first place. God the Creator does not have to answer to man the creature. He does not have to fill out a police report down at the station every time someone dies of a heart attack" (Wilson, 40).

I realize that I discuss the basis of morals quite often in this blog, but that is due to the fact that it is a repeated problem throughout Harris' arguments in Letter to a Christian Nation.

"Fourth Letter to a Secular Nation"

2008-06-04T12:10:00.001-04:00

Mike Adams' critique of Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation may be found at:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MikeSAdams/2008/04/02/letter_to_a_secular_nation
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MikeSAdams/2008/04/04/second_letter_to_a_secular_nation http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MikeSAdams/2008/04/17/third_letter_to_a_secular_nation http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MikeSAdams/2008/06/03/fourth_letter_to_a_secular_nation
If he posts more commentary on Harris, I will link them in this blog.

I have been thinking that my blog has moved towards too much summary and not enough crituque. Mike Adams shows a better balance, which I plan to implement in future posts.

The Basis of Morality: "Letter to a Christian Nation" and "Letter from a Christian Citizen" Part 5

2008-06-01T23:19:00.000-04:00

Harris, "Letter to a Christian Nation, " pp. 23-32; Wilson, "Letter from a Christian Citizen, " pp. 30-36.

Harris argues that objective morality is possible without God. "For there to be objective moral truths worth knowing, there need only be better and worse ways to seek happiness in this world" (Harris, 23). He also says that psychological laws governing the human mind provide "an enduring basis for an objective morality" (Harris, 24). He argues that based on human experience, "love is more conducive to happiness than hate" (Harris, 24). (He insists that this is an objective moral statement.) On this basis he objects to rape and the deeds of Hitler. Feeling happiness for others also motivates us to help others, and therefore provides a basis for self-denial and self-sacrifice.

Harris then argues that Christians place a low priority on reducing human suffering and instead worry more about whether or not God will be offended by a particular act (he does not consider that, if God exists, then his approval or disapproval of a particular act may have some bearing on human happiness and suffering). His primary examples are sexual behavior and embryonic stem cell research. Regarding sex, he argues that Christians oppose treatment of HPV and HIV and the use of contraceptives and therefore promote human suffering. He argues that embryonic stem cell research "is one of the most promising developments in the last century of medicine" (Harris, 28-29). He is unconcerned that such research involves the destruction of embryos (despite the fact that he opposes murder), because they are not capable of suffering. Would he therefore support murder of fully grown person who is unconscious and therefore unable to suffer (assuming the death is quick enough to not awaken the victim)? He also supports harvesting the organs of a brain dead person and concludes that "if it is acceptable to treat a person whose brain has died as something less than a human being, it should be acceptable to treat a blastocyst as such" (Harris, 30). Christians do not object to using the organs of someone who has died. Harris neglects to mention, however, that this person has already died; the embryo does not die until it is aborted. Wilson reveals another problem: Harris' assertion that we should sacrifice embryos for the sake of millions of humans reveals a contradiction in his thinking. Harris argues that it is ridiculous to argue that an embryo in a petri dish has a soul, but the fact is that he does not believe that any human has a soul. So why does it matter? (See Wilson, 34)

Harris argues that the Christian opposition to embryonic stem cell research is uninformed. He is apparently unaware that embryonic stem cell research has so far yielded no evidence of providing a cure and has instead been shown to cause tumors (which cause suffering, not happiness). Adult stem cell research, on the other hand, has produced significant results. This suggests that embryonic stem cell research is unnecessary.

Wilson argues that "atheism is at its weakest when it comes to finding a decent foundation for oughts and should" (Wilson, 30). He notes that Harris contradicts his praise for the Jain ethic of "absolute non-violence" (Wilson, 31). If he praises the Jain's universal respect for life, then why not praise the evangelical's respect for life? It also does not make sense to say that evangelicals should stop worrying about abortion and instead focus on opposing real genocide, because to evangelicals, abortion is genocide. One could also oppose it based on Jain ethics.

Wilson also responds to Harris' attempt to base morality on happiness and suffering. Whose happiness and suffering? If an individual person's happiness and suffering are grounded in that individual's nervous system, then how does this apply to the nervous systems of other individuals? Harris may appeal to common opinion, but then it is merely a question of what most people prefer. It is no longer a moral issue. It is also likely that people would prefer something different in another culture. (See Wilson, 35)

Wilson also responds to Harris' allegedly "objective claim" that human experience demonstrates that "love is more conducive to happiness than hate" (Harris, 24). Wilson responds that this is more a question of preferences and that it does not explain why hate still exists. His best response, however, is that Harris accepts the "broad range of human experience" regarding love and hate but rejects the broad human rejection of atheism (Wilson, 36). Wilson asks how Harris universalizes individual experience of happiness and suffering into an overarching moral standard. An appeal to "the market of collective choices" will ultimately reduce "all questions of morality to a matter of consumer choice. And how is that morality?" (Wilson, 36)

Why is happiness and suffering an objective standard for morality? Such a standard can only tell us what people prefer that others do rather than what they should do. Harris also never explains whose preference is preferred over other preferences. Harris titles this section, "Real Morality." How is it real morality? Ultimately, his ethical system only tells what is (or, what is common preference), not what should be. This section reveals how flimsy Harris' ethical system is, which in turn renders his moral objections to religion, and Christianity in particular, pointless and without a foundation.

"Letter to a Christian Nation" and "Letter from a Christian Citizen," Part 4

2008-05-23T22:44:00.000-04:00

Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation, pp. 7-23; and Wilson, Letter from a Christian Citizen, pp. 18-30.

There will not be much analysis of Harris' style of argument in this section, because he does not provide much genuine argument. Wilson entitles this section, "Playing to the Cheap Seats," because it is really just a collection of "scary quotes" (rather than genuine argument) set against modern concepts of justice and with the expectation that the readers will not question the assumptions (Wilson, 18-19).

Harris begins by challenging claims that goodness, love, compassion, etc. are found in Christianity and the Bible. He defines morality and its relevance to the Bible as follows:

Questions of morality are questions about happiness and suffering. That is why you and I do not have moral obligations toward rocks. To the degree that our actions can affect the experience of other creatures positively or negatively, questions of morality apply. The idea that the Bible is a perfect guide to morality is simply astounding, given the contents of the book (Harris, 8).

He cites many commands in the Bible with which he objects. He acknowledges that Jesus taught the "Golden Rule," and Harris says it "really is a wonderful moral precept" (Harris, 11). However, he argues that many other religious leaders, such as Zoroaster and Buddha, taught the same standard long before Jesus and more articulately and without the violence in the Bible. However, with one exception, Harris neglects to cite any evidence to support his case.

Harris takes his only example from Jainism (a religion which he cites repeatedly as a positive example). He contrasts the Jainist doctrine of non-violence with the Inquisition, only barely acknowledging that Inquisition may not have been consistent with Christian ethics (He neglects to admit that this would defeat his argument). He argues that some church leaders supported oppression on unbelievers, but again he neglects to cite examples. He cites, Jesus' teachings of love, but he objects to Jesus' statements regarding judgment. He concludes, "Anyone who believes that the Bible offers the best guidance we have on questions of morality has some very strange ideas about either guidance or morality" (Harris, 14).

Harris then follows with an extended treatment of slavery. He cites two passages from the Old Testament on the treatment of slaves. He objects that Jesus did not teach against slavery and that Paul encouraged slaves to serve their masters. He concludes that "while the abolitionists of the nineteenth century were morally right, they were on the losing side of the theological argument. . . . Nothing in Christian theology remedies the appalling deficiencies of the Bible on what is perhaps the greatest - and the easiest - moral question our society has ever had to face" (Harris, 17-18). He acknowledges that abolitionists based their efforts on the Bible, but he responds that they were merely "cherry-picking" the text and that advocates of slavery used the Bible as well (here he is criticizing the Bible based on misuses of it). He concludes that the Bible is not the best source by which to discover that slavery is immoral and that a person need not "consult a book in order to resolve moral questions of this sort" (Harris, 18). He argues that slavery is wrong, because slaves are humans who have an equal capacity for happiness and suffering, which renders it "patently evil" to own slaves and "treat them like farm equipment" (Harris, 18-19). He closes by saying that the citizens in the Confederate South, who were "among the most pious Christians this country has ever known," had to be forced to abolish slavery. This raises the question of how he judges one's level of piety. He does not explain this. Instead, he makes the assertion and then moves on to his next topic.

Harris then gives an extended discussion of the Ten Commandments. He opens by arguing that the U.S. Constitution was an "irreligious document" (Harris, 19) and that the relevance of the Ten Commandments for U.S. history is questionable. He argues commandments 5-9 are not unique, that biological causes drive people to treat others well, and that "moral emotions" precede "exposure to scripture" and even precede humanity (Harris, 21). He complains that God does not allow people to bend the rules. He then argues that the Jainist morality surpasses biblical morality with it prohibition against abusing, oppressing, insulting, torturing, or killing any living being. He concludes:

Imagine how different our world would might be is the Bible contained this as its central moral precept. Christians have abused, oppressed, enslaved, insulted, tormented, tortured, and killed people in the name of God for centuries, on the basis of a theologically defensible reading of the Bible. It is impossible to behave this way by adhering to the principles of Jainism. How, then, can you argue that the Bible provides the clearest statement of morality the world has ever seen? (Harris, 23).

Wilson acknowledges that both severity and kindness are in both the Old Testament and the New Testament and that the OT and NT stand or fall together. He notes, however, that Harris does not actually explain why they stand or fall together. Instead he cites examples of the ancient culture which seem "outlandish" in order to shock modernists (Wilson, 20). For example, Harris argues that Ex. 21:7-11 advocates sexual slavery when in fact it placed restrictions on a pre-existing custom in order to avoid abuses. The same is true of polygamy. In both cases the practice was "not approved as such, but restricted and bounded" (Wilson, 21). Wilson then adds that sexual slavery exists today and that people who respect (rather than reject) OT law are less likely to approve of such practices than people who reject OT law.

Wilson then addresses Harris' treatment of slavery in general. He asks what is wrong with slavery given Harris' atheistic worldview. "There is nothing wrong with it on your principles, where the universe is just time and chance acting on matter. Why does it matter if the master matter acts on the slave matter?" (Wilson, 22). Ultimately, there is no final standard of morality in an atheistic universe, and so why should anyone be offended by slavery IF atheism is true? In fact, Paul was using the Christian worldview in order to oppose slavery. Instead of fighting a practice which was deeply entrenched in the surrounding pagan culture, he approached the entire pagan culture with the gospel. "Biblical subversion of pagan slavery was not violent, but rather worked the same way that yeast works through a loaf of bread. Promoting the ethic of a new world, a new heaven and a new earth, was what the apostle Paul was after, and slavery was radically inconsistent with this vision" (Wilson, 22-23). One can oppose slavery from the Christian worldview based on the belief that all people are created in the image of God. Harris' objection to slavery is based on the fact that slaves are humans with the same capacity for happiness and suffering, but Wilson points out that farm animals have the same capacity. Does Harris give them the same rights? One must also ask whose happiness and suffering is more important. What sort of connection exists between two people (or between a person and an animal) which renders one obligated to the other? Harris says that biological causes motivate people to treat others well, but Wilson notes that biological causes can also run the other way.

Wilson then addresses Harris' favorable references to Jainist ethics as opposed to biblical ethics and shows a serious contradiction in Harris' thinking. First, such extreme non-violence would work against evolution. Second, Jainist ethics of complete non-violence would forbid the use of antibiotics, which would be inconsistent with Harris' adamant support of embryonic stem cell research (which, by the way, would be forbidden by Jainist ethics) (See Harris, 28-32).

Wilson concludes that Harris raises more questions than he answers and yet presents them as answered. He says this is another example of "playing to the cheap seats" (Wilson, 30).

It is also worth asking Harris whether or not he eats meat? Such an act would be forbidden by Jainist ethics. Judging from his dismissal of Islam based on tenets which, to him, are obviously absurd, it is also doubtful that Harris would affirm some of the more extreme practices of Jainism which follow from their worldview. For example, a strict Jain would avoid digging, swimming, making sudden movements, and extinguishing fires, or else they would injure dirt bodies, water bodies, air bodies, and fire bodies respectively. Judging from Harris' argument above that we have no moral obligations to rocks, it is doubtful he would feel moral obligations to air bodies or fire bodies. He makes passing references to Jainism without considering the context of the overall worldview and the absurdities it creates.

Harris never explains why happiness and suffering must be the basis for a system of ethics. A Christian has a basis to which he can appeal - the moral nature of a God who transcends individual human opinion, and God's commands in scripture. As noted above (see Harris, 23), Harris denies that the Bible is a reliable source for morality. He therefore must have a superior source, but he does not explain what it is. As Wilson demonstrates, evolution is not a reliable guide. All that is left for the atheist is human opinion, but then how does one judge between opinions when opinions are the standard of judgement?

Harris is also incorrect in his claim that the U.S. Constitution is an irreligious document. First, Article VII dates the ratification on "the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." Harris may try to argue that "in the year of our Lord" was merely cultural idiom, but it more likely reflects religious attitudes of the framers of the Constitution. Article I section 7 also recognizes the Christian sabbath: "If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law." For further information on the influence of Christianity on the forming of the United States, consult:

1) Benjamin J. Morris, The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2007). Pages 312-15 discuss Christian elements in the Constitution.
2) Gary Demar, America's Christian Heritage (Nashville: Broadmand & Holman Publishers, 2003). Pages 31-38 discuss the U.S. Constitution. Pages 69-76 discuss the role of the Ten Commandments in U.S. law.
3) Also consult the following articles concerning the federal and state constitutions:
http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive2007/09-24-07.asp
http://americanvision.org/bwarchive/State%20Constitutions.pdf

"What Makes an Atheist Happy" by Gary Demar

2008-05-19T16:21:00.000-04:00

This is a very interesting article on the ethical implications of Christianity and atheism. This comments on an ongoing coversation between Demar and an atheist.

http://74.255.56.30/blog/?p=88

"Letter to a Christian Nation" and "Letter from a Christian Citizen"

2008-05-16T00:01:00.000-04:00

Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation, pp. 3-7; Wilson, Letter from a Christian Citizen, pp. 12-18.

Harris describes the Christian faith as including the beliefs that the Bible is the word of God, that Jesus is the Son of God, and that "salvation after death" is attained only by faith in Jesus (Harris, 3). This is a more complete description than he provides on p. viii. However, he misunderstands the doctrine of salvation if he thinks it is applied only after death. Such facets as justification, regeneration, adoption, and sanctification occur during life. I will not discuss them in detail here. Some helpful material on these subjects may be found in Christian Theology by Millard Errickson, Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem, Integrative Theology by Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce a Demarest, and The Cross and Salvation by Bruce A. Demarest.

On a positive note, Harris acknowledges that in this debate, "if one of us is right, the other is wrong" (Harris, 3). He says that if Christianity is true, then other faiths are wrong, and he faces eternal punishment for his unbelief and for persuading others to reject God. He professes to understand the stakes, but he uses the acknowledgment to make a brief stab and Christians' reasons to believe and demonstrate the alleged strength of his reasons to reject Christianity. The fact that you reject the existence of God in light of the stakes involved may illustrate how strongly you think the evidence supports atheism, but it does nothing to actually strengthen the case for atheism. However, he is correct to acknowledge that this is an either/or issue. One view is right, and the other is wrong. One cannot evade the question with a postmodern appeal to an alleged relativity of truth in which each person's view is right for him, while another person's view is right for him (which is contradictory in both its very statement and in its application).

Harris then says that liberal and moderate Christians do not believe in hell and that they believe that other faiths are valid. Here we run into the problem of the basis of Christian theology. Is it based on the Bible or mankind's ideas? Harris does not mention this, but he does make a valid point. In response to liberalism, he says that either the Bible is a book written by mere men, or it is not; and Christ was a mere man, or he was not. If the Bible is untrue, then Christian theology is pointless; but if the Bible is true, then unbelievers face a grim future. "So let us be honest with ourselves: in the fullness of time, one side is really going to win this argument, and the other side is really going to lose" (Harris, 5). He appears to present liberalism as a tenuous "middle" position when in fact one must choose one or the other. Is the Christian faith true or not? I agree. This reminds me of C. S. Lewis' argument that Jesus was the Son of God as he claimed to be, or he was a madman or something worse. One cannot go halfway and say that he was a great teacher but that his claims about himself were false (See C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 55-56)

Harris then illustrates the either/or nature of this question with the question of whether Christianity or Islam is correct. He opens by explaining that "every devout Muslim has the same reasons for being a Muslim that you have for being a Christian. And yet you do not find their reasons compelling" (Harris, 6). If Harris is thinking about people who believe in Christianity or Islam because it is what they have always been taught or because they were raised in that culture, then there is some truth in Harris' claim. However, Christians also appeal to the death and resurrection of Christ and the historical evidence supporting those events. This difference is very significant and cannot be ignored. Harris shows ignorance of the basis of Christian belief, and further examples of ignorance appear throughout his book.

Harris then argues that the burden of proof for Islam is on the Muslim, and therefore the non-Muslim need not refute any Muslim doctrines in order to reject the entire religion. "Muslims are simply not making claims about reality that can be corroborated. This is perfectly apparent to anyone who has not anesthetized himself with the dogma of Islam" (Harris, 6-7). Harris then adds that Christians know what it is like to be atheists with respect to Islam. "Understand that the way you view Islam is precisely the way devout Muslims view Christianity. And it is the way I view all religions" (Harris, 7)

First of all, Harris does not acknowledge the impact that a person's worldview affects the way he interprets the evidence. No one views evidence completely independently of his worldview.
This includes atheists. Atheism is not merely an absence of religious belief. The atheist makes just as much a claim concerning the nature of reality as the Christian or Muslim, and (to use Harris' analogy) an atheist can be just as "anesthetized" by the dogma of atheism as the follower of any religion.

Second (considering that atheism makes definitive claims concerning the nature of reality), if the burden of proof for Christianity or Islam lies with the Christian or Muslim respectively, then by the same token, the burden of proof of atheism lies with the atheist. Disproving one position, or failing to prove it, does not automatically prove an opposing position. The question of religious truth or falsehood is far more complicated than that. If the absurdity of Islam (or Christianity) is "perfectly apparent," as Harris claims, then he should have no problems illustrating it. He neglects to do this.

Third, the way Christians and Muslims view each others' religion is far from the same way that atheists view all religions. Rejecting one particular view of God is far from rejecting the very existence of God. Rejecting one book's claim to be divinely inspired scripture is far from rejecting the possibility of divinely inspired scripture. Douglas Wilson calls Harris' argument "an argument from partial atheism" and "a false analogy entirely" (Wilson, 13). He illustrates this with his "trout in the punchbowl" analogy. Three people at a party find a trout in a punchbowl. One says a practical joker put it there. Another said an artist put it there as a form of expression. A third person say it ended up in the bowl by purely natural processes. The third opinion, Wilson says, is of a totally different nature. The first and second person debate who put the trout in the punchbowl. The third person debates whether someone put it there. Disagreeing with someone's explanation is quite different from rejecting the need for an explanation. Rejecting Islam does not make a Christian into a partial atheist. The Christian says that the triune God created the universe; the Muslim says that Allah created the universe. The atheist, however, says that no one created the universe. "These statements contradict each other in different ways - not in the same way" (Wilson, 16). In fact, as Wilson explains, the trout in the punchbowl requires much less explanation that the many wonders of nature.

When criticizing a person's view on something, it is important first to understand that person's view rather than a caricature of it. Misrepresentation severely weakens an argument.

Letter to a Christian Nation - Note to the Reader

2008-05-15T23:17:00.000-04:00

Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation, pp. vii-xii

Harris writes, "Since the publication of my first book, The End of Faith, thousands of people have written to tell me that I am wrong not to believe in God. The most hostile of these communications have come from Christians. This is ironic, as Christians generally imagine that no faith imparts the virtues of love and forgiveness more effectively than their own. The truth is that many who claim to be transformed by Christ’s love are deeply, even murderously, intolerant of criticism. While we may want to ascribe this to human nature, it is clear that such hatred draws considerable support from the Bible. How do I know this? The most disturbed of my correspondents always cite chapter and verse.” (p. vii)

He says that the most hostile responses have been from Christians. It is true that Christians do sometimes act rudely in response to criticism, but I question the degree to which he presents it. How much was real and how much was he exaggerating? How many positive experiences did he neglect to mention? Also remember that atheists almost universally target Christians more than anyone. Romans 1:18-20 comes to mind. Regarding his claim that the hatred is grounded in the Bible, I wonder if he actually checked the verses (including their context) which people cited.

Harris gives the impression that he knows very little about Christianity. Among conservative Christians, he lists “Catholics, mainline Protestants, Evangelicals, Baptists, Pentecostals, Jehovah’s Witnesses” (viii). First, the fact that he lumps JWs with the others shows ignorance of their vastly different theologies. Second, he lumps specific denominations with general descriptions which could include those denominations (except for JWs). I wonder how much he understands those labels.

Harris paints an alarmist picture of the danger Christians pose through their political influence. He apparently believes that Christians should not be permitted to participate in the political process. He writes, “The primary purpose of the book is to arm secularists in our society, who believe that religion should be kept out of public policy, against their opponents on the Christian Right” (viii). What does he believe regarding the first amendment. Keep in mind that the first amendment of the US Constitution does not endorse “separation of church and state” I n the modern sense, which is used to silence Christians. Instead, it forbids the government from interfering in religious matters.

Harris defines “Christian in a narrow sense of the term” (viii) as one who “believes, at a minimum, that the Bible is the inspired word of God and that only those who accept the divinity of Jesus Christ will experience salvation after death” (viii). Did he actually do any research on Christian theology? (considering that he lumped JWs with evangelicals, it is doubtful). He left out key elements. He said nothing about grace, faith, the nature of salvation, sin, etc. Is he merely basing this book on his experiences? If so, it is poorly based.

He argues that there is immense evidence for unintelligent design (origin of the universe and life without God) and no compelling evidence for intelligent design. He is ignoring a vast amount of research.

He criticizes the contemporary evangelical attitudes toward end-time prophecy. I am critical of some evangelical attitudes on this subject as well, such as the tendency to engage in "newspaper exegesis." However, Harris’ conclusions are quite alarmist.

He also makes moral statements against Christianity. This is common among atheists, but it is a fallacious argument, because an atheist has no basis for morals and therefore no basis for moral judgments. First, if the universe and all life are the results of random processes, impersonal scientific laws, and time, then nothing is really right or wrong. It is just pragmatic or not pragmatic, popular or not popular. Second, the morals which atheists cite to criticize Christianity are actually based in the Christian worldview. This is an example of arguing from “borrowed capital,” or borrowing from the worldview you are trying to reject, because your own view cannot sustain your arguments.

Not a good start, and this just covers his opening statements. I kept seeing the same problems so much that I just developed a set of abbreviations to make my comments in the margin. I will probably get a clearer view on these issues as I read further, but his opening statements do not give a good first impression.

Wilson, Letter from a Christian Citizen, pp. 3-12

This section largely consists of Wilson requiring Harris to live consistently with his atheistic and materialistic assumptions. Wilson admits that Christians sometimes behave badly, and he adds that such behavior is inconsistent with what Jesus taught. He then turns the table on Harris and notes that not only do Christians disapprove of such behavior, but so does Harris. On what does Harris base his objection? The Christian can appeal to the Bible to object to a Christian writing a nasty letter. If atheism is true, however, then there is no ultimate judgment on a person’s behavior. “So why, on your terms, should he have written you a nice letter? I think he should have, but then again, I’m the pastor guy” (6). Wilson hammers this argument regarding Harris’s other points. He also reveals that Harris opposes Christian desires to impose their morality on others, but Harris is actually trying to impose his morality on the Christians. Again, how does Harris discern what is right and what is wrong from within an atheistic worldview. He does not explain that in his first section. Maybe he will give some of the answer later.

Review of "Letter to a Christian Nation" and "Letter from a Christian Citizen"

2008-05-15T17:45:00.000-04:00

Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006)

Douglas Wilson, Letter from a Christian Citizen (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2007)

I decided to start this blog with a series on Sam Harris’ Letter to a Christian Nation and parallel sections in Douglas Wilson’s response, Letter from a Christian Citizen. Sometimes I may interrupt this series to comment on other things.

I will begin with Gary Demar’s Forword in Letter from a Christian Citizen, because it does not have a parallel. Demar focuses on addressing the implications of Harris’ total worldview. He correctly argues that an atheist has a difficult time arguing that life has any meaning if he follows the atheistic, materialistic worldview to its ultimate conclusions: that people are merely accidents and are the results of merely mechanical processes. He applies the same approach to the question of a moral standard. Demar notes, however, that Harris does not follow his atheistic worldview consistently. He does apply meaning and a moral standard to life. The validity of his claims will be discussed throughout this series.

Demar summarizes his assessment as follows: “Douglas Wilson has taken the operating assumptions of Sam Harris seriously and has shown what life would be like if the world were consistent with atheistic assumptions. He deals a final blow to Harris by pointing out that the morality he values is borrowed moral capital. What he knows of right and wrong does not flower from atheistic roots” (xix-xx).