Evidence – Is it a Distraction?

Wow…It’s been a while since I’ve last blogged!  I’ve been so very busy the last couple of months.  Due mostly to my recent spike in responsibilities at work and even more so because of the apologetics class I’ve been co-teaching at my church.  Add to that two children whom are age 2 and under and my spare time is virtually non-existent.

Fortunately, the apologetics class will be coming to an end in a couple of weeks, so I hope that will free up more time to get back to blogging.  At this point, I’d like to just finish writing the multiple blogs I’ve started, but haven’t had time to refine.

Until then, I wanted to repost this blog by Maryann Spikes from The Christian Apologetics Alliance website.  I found this blog interesting because I too have thought a lot about the issue of evidence and faith.  I’ve posted it below….give it a read and give me your thoughts:

Does the evidence matter, or is it mere distraction?

By Maryann Spikes 

What miraculous event would remove all doubt that God exists? I spent some time as an atheist in my early-to-mid twenties. I knew there was no convincing evidence for God’s existence. I didn’t buy the “God says it, I believe it, that settles it,” mantra, or the “Faith takes over where reason leaves off” stand-by. I still don’t, even after becoming a Christian.

Now I know the faith of the Bible is just trust. I know everybody in the Bible trusted a God who makes himself evident and keeps his promises. I know that believing without seeing is about believing before fulfillment, that God will fulfill his promise. I know, as C.S. Lewis knew (knows, really), that “Faith… is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods.” We humans too quickly forget what sort of God we are dealing with, and our faith falters, even in the midst of avalanches of evidence. Faith is not mere belief…even the demons believe.

There is a tug-of-war in the church today between those who think the evidence matters, and those who think the evidence is a distraction to faith. The evidence-matters crowd sees the church dying because it has no answers for those with doubts. The evidence-is-a-distraction crowd thinks that skeptics are like the Pharisees who used signs (evidence, answers) as a way of avoiding Jesus. That may very well be the case for some, but is it the case for all? Should we not be ready to feed the sheep who genuinely doubt there is a Shepherd?

What is behind this resistance to evidence, this embracing of unbiblically blind faith? Is it a fear that questions, doubts, and a need for evidence are automatically signs of disloyalty to God? We already saw above that faith is more than mere belief. However, does anyone trust someone if they have doubts about their existence, goodness, et cetera? Is it a fear that there is no evidence or answers? There is a wealth of evidence and answers. Is it a fear that people will be bored by learning the evidence? They are hungry for it. Granted–some are not actually hungry, but instead avoid Jesus by demanding signs. Some focus on the signs, and not what they point to. Some, but, not all. Is it a fear that people will be discouraged by their inability to grasp the evidence? God would not give them questions if they could not grasp the answers.

To the generation whose hearts were hardened, he gave no signs except his death and resurrection–just as he kept a generation of Israelites from entering the Promised Land. But did he give no signs whatsoever?–did no one enter? Jesus performed many miracles, healed many people, and ultimately rose from the dead, appearing to many after his resurrection (he let Thomas touch his wounds)–many were skeptics until the moment they saw his resurrected body. This is not a God opposed to giving answers to those who seek them. Yes, he wants our trust, but he is not a wolf that would blind seekers from the truth. He came to demonstrate his love and make it evident. He did not answer all questioners with the typical answer to “What about those who have never heard?”==>”You are without excuse.” Granted, he did not humor the Pharisees. He knew the difference between the hungry and the avoiders.

What if we pray for His discernment to know the difference between the avoiders and the hungry? What if we feed the sheep that are hungry and dying, rather than turning them away and shaming them? What if God is drawing them in through their doubts? What if they are asking, seeking, and knocking?–are we locking the door? What if the answers are the key to unlocking the door between them and Christ? Are we not commissioned to remove that distraction and unlock that door?

Source: http://www.christianapologeticsalliance.com/2013/11/12/does-the-evidence-matter-or-is-it-mere-distraction/

Did William Lane Craig Lose the Debate to Lawrence Krauss?

In one of my recent blogs, I mentioned that I would post the links to the latest dialogues between Lawrence Krauss and Dr. William Lane Craig and offer my thoughts about them…So, here you go!

This was a three part dialogue held in Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane Australia this past August.  All three dialogues can be found here:

• Part 1:  Life, the Universe and Nothing: Has science buried God?
• Part 2:   Life, the Universe and Nothing: Why is there something rather than nothing?
• Part 3:  Life, the Universe and Nothing: Is it reasonable to believe there is a God?

These debates, dialogues, or whatever you want to call them were interesting and very different from most debates I’ve seen, especially debates with William Lane Craig.  I’ve seen many of Craig’s debates before, but in these dialogues, I was able to see Dr. Craig in a setting that was completely different from any that I’ve seen before.  Unfortunately, these debates did NOT fare well for Dr. Craig.  Let me explain.

It’s not because I think Dr. Craig didn’t have good answers, or because he did a bad job.  I think given the situation, Dr. Craig did a fantastic job!  However, Krauss was extremely aggressive, especially in the first dialogue.  In fact, I’d say he was outright disrespectful and attacked Craig personally on several occasions.  Krauss even had a buzzer at one point in which he would buzz Dr. Craig when he said something Krauss disagreed with.  Can you say Childish?!  It was obvious that Krauss came to the first dialogue still holding a grudge from their formal debate back in 2011 in which, I think few will argue, Dr. Craig dominated.

In all 3 of these Australian debates, Krauss kept jumping from topic to topic, most of which were completely unrelated to the main topic of the night.  He would challenge Dr. Craig on a particular issue and before he could finish giving an answer, Krauss would interrupt him and throw up yet another challenge.  Unfortunately, I think Dr. Craig is simply too nice and Krauss used this to his advantage to control the conversation.  Click here for a compilation video of the many interruptions.

Given all the straw men and red herrings, I think Dr. Craig did an outstanding job.  However, it is obvious to anyone who is familiar with William Lane Craig’s work and prior debates that a setting like this is not Dr. Craig strong suit.  Dr. Craig is an expert on the matter and a master of the formal debate, so it makes sense that Krauss pushed to have an informal debate.

What’s shocking is that Krauss seemed to give up several points that he has been known to hold to quite aggressively.  Some of these concessions included that:

• Jesus most likely DID exist:  Krauss has been known to advocate the view that Jesus of Nazareth was likely a recreation of prior myths and probably wasn’t a real person of history.  He also conceded that Dionysus and Osiris are not good comparisons to Jesus.
• The universe probably did have a beginning:  His only objection is that no one can know with 100% certainty.
• Philosophy can be good:  Krauss has been known for his uncharitable opinions of philosophy.

In the end, I think Krauss comes out looking foolish.  His behavior played a big part of this, but I think also because now he has surrendered certain points that he is known to aggressively hold.  It makes one wonder whether Krauss truly believes the views that he advocates or if he is simply willing to promote complete nonsense, particularly the notion that Jesus is a recreation of prior myths, for the cause of atheism.

Some of the atheists who attended the debate have had similar opinions.  Here is a quote from one self-identified atheist who attended the event:

I must say, being there as an atheist has really opened my eyes to how reasonable, intelligent people can believe in god. My mind has been changed. My opinion still hasn’t but that’s not the point.

I thought that Craig took large parts of the debate away from a very feisty Krauss. This type of dialogue reaches more people than anyone would realize. Can’t tell people how grateful I was to be there.

Congratulations to WLC for accepting a debate such as this. The forum suits argumentative atheists like myself. WLC NAILED it.

Much credit to you guys for a super gutsy and even effort in a difficult forum. I am now going to endevour to read all of WLC’s books with a very open mind. Might even open the bible again!!!! I will also read Krauss’ book again for some clarity.

I feel. . . Blessed! Lol.

Quote of the Week – J. Warner Wallace

“I was a non-Christian until the age of thirty-five. I was often frustrated by the few Christians I knew on the police department because they weren’t able to respond evidentially to my skeptical (and often sarcastic) objections. I thought, “How can these folks who seem to have such high regard for evidence in their professional life, believe something about God for which they have no evidence at all?” I was similar to other atheists I knew at the time. I didn’t think there was any good evidence to support the claims of Christianity. The more I learned about the nature of evidence generally, and the more I learned about the evidence for Christianity specifically, the more convinced I became that the claims of the Gospels were true.” – J. Warner Wallace

Words for Wednesday – A PRIORI

a pri·o·ri

Adjective
Definition: relating to or derived by reasoning from self-evident propositions

In the Kalām Cosmological argument for the existence of God we find an example of an a priori proposition. The argument states:

1. What ever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

The first premise of this argument depends on the a priori knowledge that objects do not begin to exist without a cause. The self-evident element in the proposition is, “causality”.  We know a priori that causes are required elements of effects that we observe. For example, you’re not at all worried that while reading this blog, a hippopotamus will suddenly materialize on the desk in front of you and defaecate on your keyboard. The reason your not worried, is because you know a priori that an object will not begin to existence without a cause.

Quote of the Week – Alister McGrath

“Christianity is…rarely understood by those outside its bounds. In fact, this is probably one of the greatest tasks confronting the apologist–to rescue Christianity from misunderstandings.” – Alister E. McGrath

This quote resonates with me as I’ve been recently listening to the latest 3 dialogues between William Lane Craig and Lawrence Krauss. During these dialogues, Lawrence repeatedly commits the Strawman fallacy by creating a caricature of God.  One has to wonder whether this is intentional and deliberate, or if he is simply that ignorant about the idea of a theistic God. I will post links to these 3 dialogues soon.

Words for Wednesday – Apologetics

a·pol·o·get·ics

noun

Definition: reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine.

As Christians we are given the command to be prepared to have answers for those who ask. This command appears in 1 Peter 3:15. The word to focus on is the word “defense” which is the word “apologia” in the original Greek. Apologia is the root word or foundation for the word Apologetics.

1 Peter 3:15 (ESV)

15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,

Apologetics helps Christians in the following ways:

1. To better know their faith and share it more effectively.
2. To answer people’s real questions which hinder them from accepting the gospel.
3. To have influence in the public square (education, media, etc.).
4. To prevent doctrinal apostasy in the Church.
5. To answer the false claims of cults and religions.

How Would You Define God?

A friend and I were recently involved in a discussion with some atheists on an atheist’s blog comment thread, which I might add does not seem to be an optimal place for thoughtful interaction.  By that I mean comment threads, not atheist blogs necessarily.  Before you know it, there are too many people involved, each one trying to pull the conversation in a different direction.  It can become mind-boggling to keep up with very quickly.  However, one issue that was raised by the atheist was that if we Christians want to discuss God’s existence, we had to first define what we meant by “God”.

Some of the atheist objections were things like “God is a meaningless word” or “God means whatever you want it to mean”.  At first glance, the notion that we must define God seemed to me absurd.  Surely everyone knows what is meant when someone talks about God, right?  Well, this has really got me thinking the past couple of days.  Do we as Christians need to define God before we can discuss God?

I’d venture to guess that many atheists use this tactic to stop the conversation from ever progressing beyond mere drivel, and that even if a definition is given then more often than not, you will spend a vast amount of time splitting hairs about the definition than discussing any actual evidences for God.  The idea that God is a meaningless word and needs to be defined was a notion that was expressed in the 1920s and ’30s and is known as verificationism or positivism.  This ideology died out over 50 years ago due to verificationism not being able to meet it’s own standard.  Verificationism couldn’t be verified with the five senses and was therefore self-refuting.  William Lane Craig talks more about that here for those who may be interested.

Of course, I think as Christians, we must understand who God is and therefore give a proper definition when asked to do so.  It’s also a good idea when discussing God to first define the God you will be providing evidences for.  This can be especially helpful when, as Christians, we may only be aguing for the existence of a theistic God, and not the Christian God in particular.  This will keep counterarguments against the Chrisitan God, or even a pantheistic or a deistic god to a minimum.

Furthermore, there have been many concepts of a theistic god throughout history and several mischaracterizations of the Christian God in popular culture, especially today.  For example, it’s not uncommon to hear nonbelievers refer to God as an invisible old man in the sky, a bearded sky daddy, or as a magic sky fairy.  This bearded old man in the sky imagery can be seen on the TV show “The Family Guy” and you can hardly have an internet conversation with an atheist without hearing the term “Sky Daddy”.  Unfortunately, there are probably even people who call themselves Christians who hold to these silly and erroneous views of God.

So, what would be the correct way to define God in a classical Christian sense?  Richard Swinburne offers a definition of God in his book “The Existence of God”.  He defines God as “a person without a body (i.e. a spirit) who necessarily is eternal, perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient , perfectly good, and the creator of all things”.  I think this is the traditional definition of God in western philosophy and theology.

Another definition that captures the essence of God would be the one William Lane Craig offers in his book “Reasonable Faith”; “a beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful cause of the universe.”  I think another exceptional definition is the one offered by St. Anselm and used frequently by William Lane Craig.  St. Anselm defined God back in the 11th century as “the greatest conceivable being”.  If you could think of anything greater than God, then that would be God.

It’s also important to point out that, at this point, we haven’t made a case for Christianity at all.  All we’ve done was define what we mean by God.  It still remains to be asked whether such a being actually exist and only after having established that can we move on to discussing whether or not Christianity is true.

Quote of the Week – Thomas Nagel

“I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.” – Thomas Nagel

Words for Wednesday – Teleology

tel·e·ol·o·gy

noun PHILOSOPHY

Definition: any philosophical account that holds that final causes (purpose) exist in nature.

Usage: Teleology is an import philosophical concept within Christian apologetics. In the Teleological argument for the existence of God, one can use the fine tuning of cosmological constants at the initial conditions of the universe as an example of telos (final cause). The argument as framed by William Lane Craig is as follows:

1. The fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the universe is due to law, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to law or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.

Based on this framework, it is reasonable to conclude that a design requires a designer. A maximally supreme being that is timeless, spaceless, and changeless would be the appropriate being to fulfill the role of the designer of the universe.

Quote of the Week – Ravi Zacharias

“The Biblical world-view is the only one that accepts the reality of evil and suffering while giving both the cause and the purpose” – Ravi Zacharias