Christian Evidences
If I was going to argue the position of atheism, I’d argue about like Sam Harris did. I’d speak about these things:
1. A sense that something is very wrong with this world — something that is hard to mesh with a believe in a loving, all-powerful God. I’d ask why this God doesn’t protect his people better. (How hard would it be to keep an SUV full of teenagers who are returning from a youth rally from turning over on I-20? How difficult would it be to answer the prayer of thousands of believers asking for a 5-year-old with cancer to be healed?)
2. A conviction that the personal testimonies aren’t enough. The same testimonies to healing, answered prayer, and changed lives have come from Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Mormonism, etc. People who believe dramatically different things have offered witness to the amazing things they’ve seen their God do.
3. An observation that people have continued to be willing to kill each other over their holy books. Partly, this is saying that the faith doesn’t seem to “work.” While we might say that’s just talking about the inconsistencies of the people of faith rather than of the faith itself, Jesus said, “By your love they will know you’re my disciples.” Apparently, if they live with grudges, bitterness, and murderous intent, it’s fair enough to assume they’re not Jesus’ disciples.
4. A feeling that the holy books of the various religions have serious problems. Each religion finds serious flaws in the holy books of the other religions. Few are able to back off and say that they all are problematic. (E.g., just pointing out that the OT has a higher moral than, say, the Babylonians, doesn’t really answer all the questions about killing teens who talk back and about taking women as personal spoils of war.)
All right, you may be wondering. Has Mike converted?
Nope. But I’ve always had a deep appreciation for serious struggles of faith. Several people introduced me to an approach to Christian evidences of the EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT variety when I was in college. Shortly after I graduated, I started a Bible study with university students at UNC-Wilmington who were searching for faith. It quickly became clear that the EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT perspective only demands a verdict if you already believe. (There is, of course, some value to that.)
First, let me mention a couple books I read over the holidays that I think help us think through Christian apologetics in our current world context. One is Greg Boyd’s Letters From a Skeptic.
In the preface Greg Boyd writes: “Exceptionally intelligent, intensely skeptical, very strong-willed, and 70 years old — could a more unlikely candidate for conversion be found than my father? He had given me little grounds for hope.”
The letters from the dad ask the good, tough questions; the letters from the son are honest and hopeful.
The last letter in the book says:
Dear Greg:
Well, as I told you over the phone, I finally “took the leap.” Hallelujah! As I sit here and read over all of our correspondence, I still can’t believe how I’ve changed from a smart-ass-know-it-all to an actual believer! Jeanne can’t believe it either! It’s probably even confused the hell out of our dog! The angels whom you say rejoice over this sort of thing are probably giving each other high-fives! . . .
As you know, I’ve still got a number of questions, and I’m sure we’ll continue to hash these out. But my disposition has completely changed. I’m asking them no longer as a skeptic, but as a believer. You don’t need to end your letters “with hope” any longer. . . .
Lots of love, with faith (!)
Dad
The other book is Alister McGrath’s brief (123 pages) Glimpsing the Face of God: The Search for Meaning in the Universe
Here are a couple of my conclusions about Christian evidences:
1. My central arguments for faith aren’t cosmological (“nothing comes from nothing”), teleiological (“there’s an intricately designed watch, so there must be a watch-maker”), moral (“why does everyone agree that Hitler was evil?”), or ontological (“I can imagine that there is a God . . . so there must be a God”). I begin as a Christ-follower. I am a believer in the story of Jesus Christ. That’s where I begin. I believe because I have committed myself to this one who came from God “to put the world to rights” (as N. T. Wright would say it). So I’m inviting others to consider that possibility with me. My opening move is one of story. Within the consideration of that story, the other traditional Christian evidences find their value.
2. The whole EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT doesn’t ring true for many seekers. If there were evidence that DEMANDS a decision, they’d already believe. Some are dishonest, of course, but many are not. Many are genuine truth-seekers. I prefer to speak about clues. There are footprints in the sand. We’re trying to figure out the story behind those footprints.
“What if nature is studded with clues to our true meaning and destiny, and fingerprinted with the presence of God? This book is an exploration of this fascinating possibility.” (McGrath)
Someone asked in my last post how I could question Harris’s statement that atheism is “simply an admission of the obvious.” And the reason is because you can’t prove faith in atheism. There is no scientific discovery that can conclude definitively that there is no God. The man who was a primary driver in the Genome Project is himself a devoted believer!
Again, from McGrath: “There has never been any shortage of people who will tell us that the evidence is totally persuasive, and that — unless we are complete fools — we will accept that there is no meaning in life, and no God behind this world. Some argue that atheism is the only logically and scientifically respectable worldview. Yet this overlooks the inconvenient fact that the truth claims of atheism simply cannot be proved. How do we know that there is no God? The simple fact of the matter is that atheism is a faith, which draws conclusions that go beyond the available evidence.”
Finally, today, these words from Martin Luther King, Jr.: “Faith is taking the first step even when you don’t see the whole staircase.”
Another reason why this is one of the best blogs around. Thanks Mike for not feeling as if you need to defend God. That’s one thing I do not understand about fundamentalism or evangelical epistemologies–if God needs me to defend him, what kind of God is that?
Excellent discussion and observation. You are paving the way for green ministers like me for the future of how our churches “think about” and “practice” the Christian faith.
Randy Harris’s line, “faith is not the absence of doubt, but the absence of certainty” has stayed with me for a long time.
It is hard to remember when I first believed in God, or why I decided to do that. It was at a very young age. Over the years, everything I have learned has fit nicely into the framework of that belief. It all seems to fit and it all seams quite plausible. My experiences have confirmed and strengthened that initial faith. I’ve really never seen a compelling reason to doubt it.
For someone who started life with a different framework, coming to faith may require that they first reject their belief system’s framework, the foundation of everything they believe. That is a huge obstacle, and more so the older a person becomes, because everything they know and believe is built into that framework. There are just so many beliefs, judgments, and values that they hold which rely on that initial framework, and on what has been built on top of it over the years.
Once you get past those issues, I don’t think there is anything in the atheist’s belief system that refutes the foundation of the believer’s belief system in a compelling way. In the end, both try to explain things that we cannot see or prove. Both are based on faith.
Because I accept the Bible as true, I believe what it says about faith. As I understand scripture, God gives us faith. I don’t think it is possible for a person to persuade an atheist to become a believer unless God grants that faith. One way God gives faith is through the scriptures. In the scriptures, God gave us reasons to believe, in the form of ancient eyewitness accounts to miracles, as well as creation itself. But if a person rejects the basis God provides for initial faith, there is nothing I can do to overcome that. Only God can create faith.
Wow, there’s so much here.
The thing that jumps out at me is what you said about starting with Jesus and the story of being a Christ follower. The rest just falls into place.
My friend who I am in conversation with knows “God”, some kind of God, but is not a believer in Jesus as Christ, the son of God. I’ve been trying to figure out how to talk about the differences in our faiths.
Those books sound really good. Especially Greg Boyd’s, what a testimony about his father coming to faith at age 70!
I’ll “hang” it all on the cross. It is Jesus that makes or breaks the story.
I agree with this post.
You don’t convince people to invest in the message of the gospel by beating them over the head with evidence about God, his existence, etc. You do it by putting the gospel on display – tearing down social and economic barriers and living in open, accepting community with people who are different from you. I think that this is precisely the message of Romans 15, and it is certainly the example from the life of Jesus.
How and why Christians (including, often, myself) consistently miss it is beyond me.
Mike said, “And the reason is because you can’t prove faith in atheism. There is no scientific discovery that can conclude definitively that there is no God.” Of course, and most atheists would agree. I’m not sure exactly what Sam Harris would say, but I know that Richard Dawkins is careful to make the point that it is impossible to prove God doesn’t exist.
Many (if not most?) atheists use the term to describe “not believing that God exists,” as opposed to “believing God does not exist.” (In this sense, many self-described agnostics could also be classed as atheists.) This distinction is more than mere semantics, as one is epistemologically/ philosophically much more defensible than the other. While science/ evidence may not prove God does not exist (although it can do a pretty good job of showing that some descriptions of God, such as the one that created man from scratch instead of through evolution, are inaccurate) that doesn’t necessarily mean that belief in God is as reasonable as lack of belief. I can’t disprove the existence of any of the Hindu gods either, but that doesn’t bother me, or lead me to accepting their stories. And, I think because of the cultural background in which I grew up, if I espoused belief in Varuna or Kubera, my friends would not hesitate to demand evidence for my belief. Therefore simply stating that believers start with a story instead of rational arguments and/or evidence is still going to fall short of reaching many skeptics/seekers, like myself.
For me the hardest issues are not evidential (as Mike’s post dwells on) but motivational. What are the motives behind belief? In my own estimation the motive tends to be thanatocentric. If so, how will the believer ever look critically at his/her beliefs? Such scrutiny would be too unsettling. Thus, Freud’s critique remains valid for many: Religious faith acts like a narcotic. Many believers seem existentially drugged as opposed to living/believing authentically.
OK, I’m intrigued. I went to hear Josh McDowell this weekend (Mr. “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”). It was so thought provoking. I tend to be a lover of knowledge and knowing certain truths about the Bible is incredible to me. The part of your post where you said that arguing the changed life is not unlike any religion. I agree. McDowell really based his talk on the difference between belief and conviction. Knowing his story, I’d say you don’t have to agree with his tactics or even all of his material to be very inspired by his passion for Jesus. He really hammered home how Christians are very quick to say things like, “I believe Jesus is God’s son, I believe the Bible is the Word of God, I believe Jesus lived, died and rose…”, but when pressed, cannot say why. I could go on and on. Maybe the bottom line is that it is both: knowing the truth and then living it. I, for one, would love to hear more teaching on this. For my stage in life, the best material of the night from McDowell was about nurturing relationships. It was absolutely incredible. Bless!
You also mentioned Francis Collins. I was curious if you’ve read his book, The Language of God? I haven’t, other than a cursory flip-through at a bookstore, but from some of the reviews I’ve read, many readers were disappointed that it fails to live up to his subtitle: “A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief” (which was probably chosen by a publisher). It seems that Collins’ approach is similar to yours- relying on story, not argument.
And McGrath says: “Yet this overlooks the inconvenient fact that the truth claims of atheism simply cannot be proved. How do we know that there is no God?” Again, this is based on a inaccurate caricature of much atheistic thought. While those who speak as McGrath describes are stretching, most of the work by intelligent atheists I’ve read makes no attempt to prove that God does not exist. Rather, they assert that there is no evidence that God does exist (whether on a case by case basis or because of epistemological limitations), and that positing such a belief in the absence of such evidence would be intellectually indefensible in contexts other than religious belief.
Like the others, I say “Thanks!” for informing and encouraging this discussion. Knowing how we should speak the word of Christ requires us to give some attention to what our world has heard, and what it might already accept.
I especially liked what you had to say about “evidence that demands a verdict.” I think it’s easy for believers to assume that what bolsters Christian confidence will necessarily lead others to faith in the first place. But those are two very different things.
By the way, your posts here got me to blogging about Karl Barth’s complete rejection of any dependence on or evangelistic use of rational arguments for the existence of God. As I try to sort it out, feedback from others is welcome.
Matt- I really like what you said: “You do it by putting the gospel on display – tearing down social and economic barriers and living in open, accepting community with people who are different from you. I think that this is precisely the message of Romans 15, and it is certainly the example from the life of Jesus.”
You might also consider though, that many (or maybe just a small number, like me) will find your approach to love, community, and service a very appealing ethic and adopt it in part or in full because we realize it brings meaning in this life, not because it brings meaning in the next, or because the objective truth claims of Christian doctrine are true.
Christianity has been a wildly successful religion because it tells a good story, and in many ways fits well with human nature- filling needs that people have and offering them a meaningful, service-driven life for those who really embrace it. That is different from saying that its claims are true, just useful. In other words, the aspects of Christianity which you hope to exemplify are bigger than just the Christian faith- aspects of each is found in Buddhism (service) and Islam (community, especially) for example. The common description of an agnostic, atheistic, or humanistic life as meaningless is simply false for many. We draw inspiration, meaning, and ethical principles from many of the same sources (tradition, experience, culture, and daily experiences) and are constrained by the “biological leash” of genetics and physical development on human nature (a coin termed by Edward O. Wilson).
While many convert to Christianity because it paints a clearer, more user-friendly picture of the meaning of life, there are also others who demand for their worldview to be both useful and true, and for those of unconvinced of the latter, the former alone- stories and examples- will not suffice. Getting over the stereotype of nonbelievers as rebellious, selfish, ignorant, or drifting in a meaningless, unsatisfied void would help us all get along a little better (and of couse, Harris will have to moderate some of his views as well
).
While I don’t believe we’ll ever have “proof” of God (it leaves no room for faith) I do find it interesting that the further we get into the scientific realms, the closer we get into seeing God’s design. I’m in a class at church that is going through a unique study where Christians can use science instead of fighting with it all the time. Check out more info on this website – the founder was a former atheist & astronomer who put the creation account (including an old earth theory) to the test & wound up a believer. Although much of the info. is over my head, it’s still pretty powerful stuff!
http://www.reasonstobelieve.org
Nice job. I aprreciate your 4 up front obeservations. In my mind they give the rest of your arguement credibility.
Nice to know I am not a heretic (unless you are) for making the same observations.
Great conversation today. I wish I could write more, but I do want to say this:
I’m with Richard and Brett on the thanatocentric/this life-next life issues.
Beaner- While Hugh Ross examined the evidence and came to a conclusion that you agree with, how do you reconcile the fact that many more scientists examine the evidence and conclude that he is wrong?
The continued Christian insistence to prove that the evolution in general and the evolution of homo sapiens did not occur just makes you look worse as time goes by and evidence accumulates. Thankfully, many Christians recognize this and cringe at the popularity of creationism and the “intelligent design” movements. Dumping these strands of Christian thought by the wayside is a necessity in engaging in intellectually honest conversations with nonbelievers.
If I get to choose between two faiths, I choose the faith with hope. The hard part is living it with conviction. Ignorance is bliss love is compelling.
Brett said: “You might also consider though, that many (or maybe just a small number, like me) will find your approach to love, community, and service a very appealing ethic and adopt it in part or in full because we realize it brings meaning in this life, not because it brings meaning in the next, or because the objective truth claims of Christian doctrine are true.”
Brett, this is one thing that has bothered me about most of the Christians that I know. Everything is done for the purpose of heaven. We do our best to get people to say the prayer, or get dunked into the water in order to get them into heaven when they die. We even befriend people for the stated purpose of getting them into heaven. All the while we could have been about bringing the kingdom on earth as it is in heaven by really following Jesus’ teachings. Instead we spend our time trying to convince others by aruguing them into faith; a faith that God is supposed to give us anyway?
There, I’m in the frying pan
Dang it, Mike! Now I have to go buy a couple more books. You’re the master of excerpting just enough morsels of a book to whet my appetite to the point that I can’t not buy the book. You are the “Oprah” of the blogosphere!
Mark – That’s my goal: to be the Oprah of blogosphere.
Brett – I appreciate your participation here. Richard has raised the tricky issue: that so often this is driven by our conflict over death rather than by our commitments and passion for truth. (Not that there’s anything WRONG being letting a regard for death spill over into our consideration of life!) What I was trying to say wasn’t that all atheists KNOW there is no God, but that Harris is fooling no one when he plays the innocent, “Hey, I’m just calling it like it is” card. All are faith systems.
Amy – Again, I think the material is valuable for those already on the inside. (And I’d like to believe what he’s saying today — which I have no familiarity — is far advanced beyond the stuff from my college years.)
I’m with all of you: that so much of this comes down to where one is willing to lay one’s life.
Thanks, Leland (and others).
The BIG WRAP came off my leg today. I’m now able to look at those cool new scars where holes were in my knee. In the spirit of Tom Sawyer, I might be willing to show them to others . . . for a price.
Actually, Brett, the class is about being open as Christians to be able to have an intelligent conversation with those who do NOT believe the same way we do – instead of throwing science away as being AGAINST Christianity, let’s actually learn MORE about science & see what IT has to offer and see if we can reconcile the two instead of pitting them against one another.
Another source that might be helpful for some is http://www.doesgodexist.org.
Excellent post. Very thought provoking. Thank you.
My piggybank is safe.
I find both evangelistic-ish extremes of theism/atheism arguing with certainty for their claims on truth to be of the same stuff–arrogant epistemologies. there’s no mystical confession in either school of thought, and the polarization of this discussion is perpetuated by these parties. So you’ve got zealous Christians literally wielding their swords and atheists on mission to make all faith systems (except those of their own) feel stupid.
Following up on my earlier comment about the narcotic functions of faith…
How can you know if your faith is authentic or narcotic in function?
I sometimes propose this test to students as a kind of diagnostic screener for the presence of narcotics in the faith system:
“Would life be worth living if there were no God? And, secondly, could you be happy in that life?”
If you answer (sincerely) “Yes” to both questions and still believe, your faith is most likely authentic. If, however, you answer “No” to either question your faith may be a defense mechanism.
Richard B,
In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul speaks of the resurrection and says that if there is no resurrection from the dead, our faith is worthless, and that we are of all men most pitiable.
If our lives are pitiful without a risen Savior, it seems to me that Paul would answer your questions “no”, which leads me to a counter-question:
“Was Paul’s faith just a narcotic?”
I’m thinking no…
Richard B
Is your test for Lazarus or the rich man
But Luke D.: If there there were no Resurrection, then nobody would be a Christian, which means Christians couldn’t be the most pitiable, because they wouldn’t be around.
I’m only half joking. What I mean is, given the commitments of a Christian, it requires the hope of the Resurrection to pull it off and to make it worthwhile.
Richard – Not sure I buy that.
Just to clarify, the question is more to get one thinking along the motivational lines I had mentioned.
Let’s say you do answer “No.” Then you are saying, in some way, that “Life would not be worth living” and/or “I cannot be happy” if God didn’t exist.
Well, think that through, from Harris’s or Freud’s perspective. Then ask yourself if a person who admits such needs (i.e., happiness, meaning in life) for believe can ever be taken seriously as they weigh evidence? I mean, everything for them hangs in the balance; how can they be honest, critical, curious, or authentic? Further, compared to atheists who do find life meaningful and happy we look kinda loopy.
Again, the question is to get you thinking at a deep level about your faith. That is all it is intended to do. Personally, I’ve found the question helpful. Hard, but helpful.
I think the freezing temperatures have warmed your writing neurons Mike – good stuff my man!
Richard B
If I understand you right, you are saying that a person’s faith in only authentic if said person does not need God.
Richard B
When Freud spoke of religion as an illusion, he maintained that it is fantastic structure from which a man must be set free if he is to grow to maturity; and in his treatment of the unconscious he moved toward atheism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud)
Was Freud an atheist?
After contracting cancer of the mouth in 1923 at the age of 67, he underwent over 30 operations to treat the disease, and for several years wore a painful prosthesis to seal off his mouth from his nasal cavity. In the end, Freud could no longer tolerate the pain associated with his cancer. He requested that his personal physician visit him at his London home for the purpose of helping him end his own life. Freud’s death was by a physician-assisted morphine overdose. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud )
Freud answered no to both guestions. Can he be “taken seriously”?
All faiths are defense mechanisms. They help us sleep better at night and allow us not to be in control in an uncontrollable world. That way we have an “out” when we fail and our sense of urgency is no longer urgent.
I believe our practice of self depracation allows us to do this as well. “We live in a fallen world” seems to be the source of a lot of evil. We are no longer culpable for anything in a fallen world; especially if we are not in control. Therefore we can sleep right through it.
What if we were in control? And laws which described our present reality were the basis for our control? It seems the world would be a much better place. I think this is Harris’ point.
Mike,
What a great post. I decided a while back that I was an agnostic in the truest sense of the word – one who believes that the existence of God cannot be proven. God wants all of us to be agnostics and thus to come to Him in faith. “Those who come to God must BELIEVE that he is and that he is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.” If we KNOW that he exists, we wouldn’t make this wonderful, lifelong, unfolding search.
Cindy
Clint and Luke,
You may be missing my point.
When I speak of “authenticity” and “defense mechanisms” and the “narcotic functions” of faith, I am approaching the issues existentially.
What my questions speak to are the issues of existential courage, acting in bad faith (Sartre’s “mauvaise foi”), and the courage-to-be (from Tillich). My questions about life in a God-less universe are meant to be exploratory tools to confront those issues (e.g., Are Christians existentially courageous? If they are, how would we know? Can faith even be existentially courageous?). These seem like worthy questions to put on the table. Yes?
Richard B
Yes I agree some Christians have a self serving faith (Matt. 7: 21-23). I am not sure I agree with your test questions. If a life is only suffering with no joy or peace, the only thing that makes it worth living is hope. Does this make hope dope?
A person who has everything in this life does not need God and therefore can use God as a self justifier.
I do not know that your test questions are true in all circumstances, therefore cannot be used to determine someones “authenticity”.
“Are Christians existentially courageous? If they are, how would we know? Can faith even be existentially courageous?” are great questions and should be explored. If God exists anything we challenge him with will not threaten him or change him. It can only change us. These are questions I struggle with on a regular basis because I have a dog in the hunt.
Thanks for letting a lesser man spar with you.
May I add a few rather important points to the discussion? And, let’s assume that all of us who comment on this post are folks who see the Word of God as final authority for faith and practice. I don’t mention this as an excuse for excluding evidences. Here are my points.
1. The Bible dispels the myth that there are any “honest unbelievers”. Rather, we learn that unbelievers have purposefully exchanged the truth of God for a lie. (Romans 1:25) Remarkably, even when a person has not even heard the message of Jesus and only has “natural revelation”, when he responds negatively he is condemned and “without excuse”. Unbelievers are categorically purposeful rejecters of the truth about God and that is why they are “guilty”.
2. The simple message of the person and work of Jesus is quite enough to prick the heart and bring faith to the heart of any unbeliever. (Romans 1:16, I Corinthians 2:1-5)
3. The evidence that really matters is the resurrection of Jesus. Upon that historical fact Christianity stands, and without it there is no Christianity.
4. Every responsible person either comes to the light of God’s revelation or goes away from it. Those who go away from it do so because their deeds are evil. Jesus said that, I didn’t.
Thanks Mike for the post and your sensible commentary.
Grace and Peace,
Royce Ogle
Clint,
Thanks for your charity in argument. One encounters it rarely in blogland. I too have a dog in this hunt. We are all trying to find a route to authentic faith. Perhaps my questions speak only to a particular faith experience and so should be circumscribed.
Thanks for the conversation. As iron sharpens iron…
I have a change of address.
Mike, I have added you to my blogroll @gracediges.wordpress.com.
Royce
This whole exchange just absolutely mystifies me. If there was ever a “conversation” that would benefit from the second and third chapters of 2nd Timothy, this is it.
The general consensus here is that nobody thinks that they can KNOW that God exists, they can only have FAITH that he exists. This is such a misconstrued definition of faith that one hardly knows where to begin. At least in my opinion, that is.
FAITH, as defined in scripture, is always spoken of in the following context: I KNOW that God exists, and I have FAITH that he will do what he has promised (i.e. Romans ch. 3 & 4, Hebrews 11, James 1:6, etc…). Nowhere in the Bible do I see an argument that comes across “We can’t know that God exists, so we must have faith.” When it speaks of FAITH in those things we cannot see, it is referring to the things that God has done, and the things he will do (i.e. Hebrews 11:1-3). In other words, we have FAITH that the God we KNOW exists made the worlds (though we cannot categorically state HOW), and that He will provide a place for us with him in Heaven if we do what he says (a’ la “…if it were not so, I would have told you.”).
The writers of the scripture certainly didn’t sit around theorizing with statements like “If we KNOW he exists…”. They KNEW, because they had encountered him in person (i.e. Moses, Paul, etc…). Somebody will counter with the argument that we are still operating on a leap of faith because we are working “secondhand”, with the assumption that what Moses wrote was true. Jesus had some choice words for the Pharisees about their lack of belief in what Moses had written (John 5:46)
Brett’s comment: “Thankfully, many Christians recognize this and cringe at the popularity of creationism and the “intelligent design” movements. Dumping these strands of Christian thought by the wayside is a necessity in engaging in intellectually honest conversations with nonbelievers.” Where does one start with that?
1 Timothy 6:20, for one (and not just the KJV translation).
If someone will not accept the first fact we see about God in scripture, what is the point of going any further? What is the point of hiding it, recloaking it in the devil’s language to make it more palatable to an unbeliever? I find it fascinating that Genesis, John, and the great FAITH treatise of Hebrews all start with the creation of the world (or before), and that Jesus was the instrument of that creation.
I know I’m going to be slammed mercilessly about this post (based on past experience here), but nothing about this conversation fits the description that Jesus gave of faith in Mark chapter 10 (“…as a little child…”), and seems like so much “vain babblings”, and “foolish and unlearned questions” that “produce quarrels”.
I wish that someone would tell me why they can’t (or refuse to) come as a “little child”. Why is everyone so obsessed with the arguments and “viewpoints” of unbelievers, nuanced theological conundrums postulated by questionable believers, and armchair philosophy/theology that goes nowhere but in endless circles, never arriving at the bedrock truth that God IS. Please…somebody tell me why this has to be so complicated. Is there any doubt why so many people look at us and say, “Why would I want to be a part of that? They can’t even agree on the plain written word!”.
I won’t take issue specifically with Royce’s claims because they were directed toward those for whom the Bible is a “final authority” (which wouldn’t include me). I would however ask if the other Christians in this forum agree with Royce. Are all believers dishonest? (If yes, how do you define dishonest?)
Should the message of Jesus alone convict me and everyone else, regardless of culture? Are all those who disbelieve “God’s revelation” doing so because their deeds are evil? This is rather strong language of course, and in the absence of disagreement from other posters, should I fairly assume that others agree with Royce?
I think you can understand how your responses to these questions will influence how non-Christians interpret your beliefs and interact with you. Maybe holding such beliefs could possibly get in the way of (as Matt put it) “putting the gospel on display” in one’s personal life. I might go far as to say that calling everyone who disagrees with you automatically “dishonest” without knowing them might qualify for a label of “judgmental.” Would you?
Beaner- while I agree that Reason to Believe is not as anti-science as most creationist outfits, I still see it as doing a disservice to the scientific enterprise by mixing science and faith. For example, on their Myths about RTB page, they feel the need to defend science against critics from the belief camp. RTB apparently asserts that while there are lots of transitional fossils (like hominids before humans), God didn’t use those to make humans- instead he intervened at the last minute and created man from scratch. That hardly seems scientific, much less reasonable.
So I have mixed feelings. I’m extremely happy you like Ross more than, say, Kent Hovind, but I think the subtle mixing of faith into science at Reasons to Believe may be even more insidious. If science is in anyway correlated to the free airing of opposing views (which is arguably more true in online communities than in peer-reviewed journals, where there is a requirement for sufficient evidence for an opposing view) then you’d think Ross would at least give a response or include some links to the Secular Web (read this page) as they have done for him.
Fantastic discussion.
Too many approaches to apologetics treat Christianity like an objective theory that can be studied, debated, and examined under a microscope. If it holds up to this kind of intense scrutiny, then it is worthy of belief. The problem with this is that Christianity and the God it claims to reveal is not an static object that will hold still for us. It is a subject that participates in the conversation with us. One doesn’t “understand” Christianity by holding it at arms length and studying it. One comes to understand it by inhabiting it as a living Tradition (in the best sense of the word).
Newbigin writes about this in “Proper Confidence” and his argument is built on Polanyi’s stuff (I think). It’s been a while since I’ve read it, but if I’m remembering correctly, I think Newbigin would invite a skeptic to join him in living out the way of Christ as a way of studying its validity. There’s power in the telling of the story, but its even more powerful to actually inhabit the story.
Newbigin also said that the most powerful hermeneutic of the gospel was a community of people living as if they really believed it was true.
18 “He who believes in Him (Christ) is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed” (John 3:18-20)
Who shall I believe, this or the unbveliever?
“The fool has said in his heart,
“There is no God.” (Psalm 14:1b)
Only a fool can observe the design, order, continuim, and beauty of creation and not recognize a Creator. Expressly for that fool, Christ suffered death by crucifixion, spilled His blood, so that fool could be cleansed of all sins and be made a partaker of the divine nature, which is eternal life. He offers as a free gift, forgiveness, the removal of guilt, and love without measure. He will raise from the dead those former fools who have received the forgiveness and love given to those who trust in Jesus to do what He has promised.
Jesus is the most loving being who ever lived and yet the most intolerant. “I am the way, the truth, and the life and no man comes to the father (God) but by me” are His words to mankind.
One does not have to believe the law of gravity for it to work every time. In the same way, what one believes about the Bible, Christ, and God’s redemptive plan does not change the truth. Each of us has an appointment with death, and after death the judgement. Those who have embraced Christ live forever, those who have refused His love die forever.
Crisp, clear, easy to grasp, truth.
Grace and Peace,
Royce Ogle
Royce,
“And, let’s assume that all of us who comment on this post are folks who see the Word of God as final authority for faith and practice.”
I do not accept the Bible as final authority either. By the way, final authority of what? I do like gravity however.
I don’t believe the world was created in 7 days, Christ arose from the dead (if he did and ascended, he must have frozen and asphyxiated at about 35,000 ft), he was more than a man, etc… yet I am still a Christian. Maybe a foolish one, but not because I don’t hold to the above beliefs.
Mike…you are truly a gifted opener of worm cans
A few random comments….
- There is nothing new under the sun. Read G.K. Chesterton’s “The Everlasting Man” written in 1925. Though it is written in a style that would be considered abrasive by today’s standards, it covers a great deal of the topics discussed in this thread. This book was written at a time when science was on the march and the relatively new theory of evolution had dealt a severe blow to belief in God by any thinking Englishman. This book (written by a former atheist) was instrumental in the conversion of C.S. Lewis (another former atheist). Why is it that the most powerful defenders of Christianity seem to be those who have abandoned the atheistic faith? Read The Everlasting Man….two or three times.
Having said that, I think that it is very important that we remind ourselves of exactly what it is that makes us “foolish” in the eyes of the world. It is very easy (especially here in Abilene) to forget that our belief system is viewed as foolishness by many in this world and heretical by many others. I was raised in the coC by parents who made sure we were there every Sunday (a.m. & p.m.) and Wednesday. To this day, I am at a loss to explain the complete lack of training at home or in the church to prepare me for the attacks I would encounter on my faith upon entering the world. Why do we not prepare our young people for the arguments they will encounter against the faith?…either by an atheist, or a follower of Budhism, Islam…etc. etc.? I encountered all of these completely unprepared. I watched many of my friends (even my own brother who is now a Budhist) abandon the faith because they were not prepared. Ironically, it was an elderly atheists (my employer in college) whom I credit for saving my faith….not the church. Needless to say, this was not his intention. We have to be willing to address this in church…not just in blogs.
Now having said that….let me contradict myself a little, and agree with Kerry’s comment above. Having spent a GREAT deal of time reading the opposition literature and in loving debate with friends/family members who are either atheist or pantheistic, there does come a time that one must “shake the dust” off one’s feet. Not in a judgmental or hateful way…but in a humble resignation. Otherwise, you begin to dilute your own faith in attempting to make it easier to swallow for those you love. At this point, the only evidence of any value is the fruits of the Christian life.
Furthermore, and this also speaks to Kerry’s comment….what exactly is the point of the continuing debate with Brent Keller on this subject? Brent has stated that “dumping these strands of Christian thought by the wayside is a necessity in engaging in intellectually honest conversations with nonbelievers. ” This statement is nonsense. Brent is saying that if I will first renounce every foolish belief that I hold, then we can have an honest conversation?…a conversation about what? The foolishness is exactly what I believe. I think an intellectual conversation is that last thing Brent is looking for.
In the end, much of this conversation/debate probably would continue even if we were all standing on frontier of heaven in the presence of saints. There is just such a scene in the “The Great Divorce” by C.S. Lewis involving an apostate priest’s debate with a fellow clergyman which chillingly illustrates the end result of many of these “conversations”.
Finally, I find it very enlightening that the atheist movement directs the great majority of its wrath at the Christian religion. Why is this? Surely the facts and the evidence that are available to any rational atheist today would convince them that the greatest threat to civilized society and the rights of women, children, etc. exists in the radical elements of another great eastern religion. Where are the atheistic attacks on this religion? Could it be that they are afraid to do so? If so, point made. Christianity is an easy target…but the other great religions are full of hypocrites, liars, miracles, genocides, and all of the other foolishness that is continually pointed out the history of Christendom. But it seems that Christianity is the only religion taken serious enough to be continually attacked by the atheist. I wonder why.
Thanks again Mike
What is so great about the book “Letters From Skeptic” and why it is better than “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” is that it takes the whole span of apologetics and places it within the context of a loving relationship.
The loving relationship is a given in this book. Whether or not dad converts, love is there. Openess, honesty, bluntness, compassion. There was nothing one could say to the other that would make their love any less.
So in a sense, there are two apologetics going on in this book, as opposed to just one. There was the content apologetics – logical arguments, textual criticism, etc, but then there was the process apologetics. Love waas what compelled the son to risk the conversation and then have it in a very respectful way. He was not impatient and quick to give up. He was not defiant or angry when dad didn’t convert right away.
Great way to apologetics. Get the book.