I’m excited about a new book that was delivered to my door two days ago, God Is Great, God Is Good, co-edited by William Lane Craig and Chad Meister (InterVarsity Press).  Of course, I’m pleased to have contributed an essay for the volume, “Are Old Testament Laws Evil?” 

The book contains a wide-ranging response to the arguments of the New Atheists (Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and so on). The list of contributors includes fine thinkers across a range of disciplines such as Alister McGrath (theology), Charles Taliaferro and Paul Moser (philosophy), John Polkinghorne (physics), Gary Habermas (history), Michael Behe (biology), Scot McKnight (New Testament), among others.

Here’s the blurb from InterVarsity Press’s website: Continue Reading »

John MacArthur on the “lie” of Evolution:

“The evolutionary lie is so pointedly antithetical to Christian truth that it would seem unthinkable for evangelical Christians to compromise with evolutionary science in any degree. But during the past century and a half of evolutionary propaganda, evolutionists have had remarkable success in getting evangelicals to meet them halfway. Remarkably, many modern evangelicals . . . have already been convinced that the Genesis account of creation is not a true historical record. Thus they have not only capitulated to evolutionary doctrine at its starting point, but they have also embraced a view that undermines the authority of Scripture at its starting point.” (from “The Battle for the Beginning“).

There was a time, ten or twenty years ago, when I would have taken the bait and swallowed this hook, line, and sinker. Today I won’t. Not because I am now convinced about a God-guided theory of evolution, but because I just don’t know. I am not confused or disturbed about the issue, nor does it put any of my faith in jeopardy in any way. I just don’t know whether or not God used evolution as a means to create humanity. Neither do I know how long it took to create the earth. I don’t know if Genesis 1 is meant to be taken literally, metaphorically, symbolically, ideologically, mythologically, or accommodatingly. I simply believe that when it is interpreted rightly, it is true.

But I don’t think that it is here we find the central battle for our faith. I believe that there are more important issues. Much more important issues.

What I do find is that if Christians get sidetracked on these type of things, believing that if this city goes undefended then the Christian empire crumbles, we are in trouble. The “Battle for the Beginning” is not the battle, at least in my book.

But John MacArthur is a man I respect very much. While he is not a scientist, he does seem to be a very wise leader in many respects and he knows the Bible well. This is why I have to pause at what would otherwise seem to me to be an over-the-top statement. He is right that the last two decades have seen many (if not most) evangelical leaders concede to the real possibility of a God-guided use of evolution. It would seem that there is quite a bit of pressure out there to do so. Evolution is quickly becoming the if-you-don’t-accept-it-then-you-are-committing-the-same-mistake-that-the-church-did-in-the-Galileo-incident type of issue. You remember: back when we insisted that the Bible said the earth was the center of the universe and then ended up with egg on our face.

I don’t really see evolution in the same light. There is quite a bit of observable data that shows us the earth is not the center; it is not quite as cut-and-dry with evolution (I think).

Either way, the gauntlet is going to continue to fall and Christians who believe in evolution are going to continually be accused of compromise. Maybe they have compromised; I don’t know. But to me, it only makes a difference when people push for it to make a difference.

What do you think? Has Christianity been compromised?

Thomas Nagel, an atheist philosopher at New York University said something very revealing in his book The Last Word:

In speaking of the fear of religion, I don’t mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper–namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: 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 (Oxford Univ. Press, 1997), 130-131.

Nagel seems to be speaking for many when he reveals what the root problem is—an unwillingness to acknowledge God’s lordship in his life. Note too how Nagel admits that a lot of smart people he knows are believers, which makes him very uncomfortable.

Let me mention another book that addresses the will in relationship to God and the available evidence. Christian philosopher Paul Moser’s book The Elusive God (Cambridge University Press) directs us to the need to consider the role of the will and “perfectly authoritative purposively available evidence” from God. Moser, with whom I have had the pleasure of co-editing The Rationality of Theism (Routledge) has been writing for some time on the dangers of cognitive idolatry and mere “spectator evidence” for God that fails to engage the will. We can easily treat discussions about God with non-believers as mere armchair theorizing rather than a topic of potentially life-altering significance. Notice the priority of the will in Jesus’ words in John 7:17: “Whoever chooses to do his will shall know whether my teaching is from God or whether I speak on my own.”

I just recently spoke at an open forum at the University of South Carolina on “God’s Existence and Why It Matters.” Below is a list of questions I raised at the beginning of my talk. I spoke of evidence, but I also addressed the topic of human need for outside assistance (“grace”) and that God has taken initiative in the person of Jesus to identify with us in our broken human condition and to bring us into a filial relationship with God. In my talk, I pointed out the deep interconnection of God, the will, and evidence. Here are some of the questions I raised to start the conversation:

• Could it be that I am looking at the evidence for God in the wrong way—like the duck-rabbit scenario? Perhaps God seems hidden from humans because we aren’t paying attention or because we don’t want God’s authority “interfering” with our lives or because we’ve determined the height of the bar over which God must “jump”?
• If a good God exists, what would God’s goals be? If God exists, what does God have to do with me?
• If a good, perfectly authoritative God exists, am I willing to acknowledge my unworthiness to receive this God’s grace? Do I make demands of God (“if God exists, then he ought to put on a display of divine pyrotechnics”) rather than ask, “What demands does God have on me?
• Do I have a right to demand evidence of God if I am unwilling to go undergo personal transformation?
• Am I open to evidence for God in whatever form it comes—or do I insist that evidence must be a certain way?
• Does my will have anything to do with my actually benefiting from evidence?
• If God exists, how would this impact my life? Is it possible to intellectually believe God exists but my life to remain unchanged by knowing this intellectual fact? What’s the point if my life remains unchanged and self-centered rather than God-centered? What’s the point of evidence if I’m not willing to be transformed by the reality of God?
• Does God want more than just an acknowledgment of his existence? What if God wants an I-you relationship with individual humans?
• What kind of an attitude does truth-seeking require? Does the fact that people want to disprove evidence for God actually reveal an attitude of non-truth-seeking?
• Is it possible that some people might hate God all the more as one piece of evidence for God is stacked on another? Is it possible for me to believe God exists and still hate God (James 2:19)?
• Can my will interfere with God’s goals for me—to relate to me and to change me from being self-centered to being God-centered and other-person-centered? Are we willing to do what a loving God wants for me so that I might find out what life really is?
• Must God leave us unavoidable evidence before I believe—or might he leave me avoidable evidence that reveals whether I am genuinely truth-seeking?
• Wouldn’t it be a strange God who made no demands on us or who didn’t care if we had our way over against God’s?
• What if accessing relationship-producing evidence is like that of tuning a radio dial to seek out universally—but not necessarily immediately available dismissible armchair evidence?

God isn’t interested in just changing our beliefs. He’s interested in changing *us*! A loving, authoritative God made us to relate to us. Are we willing to receive evidence on God’s terms?

These are some of the themes in Moser’s thought-provoking book. Whatever one thinks of Moser’s views on, say, natural theology, he is surely right to direct us to the centrality of the will and to the very goal of God’s self-revelation—namely, to reveal God personally to human beings so that we might experience intimate, personal knowledge of God through his Spirit, by whom we cry out, “Abba! Father!”

I spend a lot of my time reading books that are very difficult to read. In my library I have dozens of books from atheistic authors, most of them former Christians who left the faith. Their leaving is tagged with a variety of reasons, but they primarily have to do with some sort of “awakening” from the “intellectual slumber” as they describe it.

I also spend much time going through atheistic websites and blogs, reading people’s thoughts. I rarely interact. I simply go there to learn.

What I see is a lot of bitterness and anger. This evidences itself in much ridicule. I find the ridicule very interesting and typical of the way people think when they get into this box. (Yes, for the most part, it is a box.) They are upset because, according to them, they spent much of their life believing a lie parallel to that of Santa Clause. Now they have been set free from irrationality and now have the freedom to think (that is why they refer to themselves as “free thinkers”). They seek to help others to become free thinkers.

The other day I read a thread on one of these atheistic/Christian recovery websites which had about sixty or seventy posts which simply poked fun at Christian beliefs. Topping the list was the creation of Eve from the rib of Adam, a snake talking, Jonah’s adventure in the belly of a whale, Balaam’s donkey speaking, and the whole story of special creation.

After continuing this mockery for quite some time one atheist made an astonishingly wise and unexpected observation which turned the conversation in a very interesting way. It is this turn that caused me to write this short blog. Continue Reading »

Mark Juergensmeyer’s book Terror in the Mind of God claims that religion is violent by nature. It tends to “absolutize and to project images of cosmic war”—even if the ultimate goal is peace and order. To prevent violence and bloodshed to get to this point, religion needs the tempering influence of “rationality and fair play that Enlightenment values give to civil society” (U Cal Press, 2000 [242, 159, 243]).

Three years earlier, Regina Schwartz wrote about the “violent legacy of monotheism” (which includes Judaism, Islam, and Christianity) in the book The Curse of Cain (University of Chicago Press, 1997). Belief in one God and exclusive truth claims will mean that those embracing the “one true God” will reject, hate, and remove all who do not embrace their God or worldview (63). It creates an “us-them” mentality. To preserve our identity and religious purity, they must be removed.

The “New Atheists” make the same sorts of claims. Indeed, they have been emboldened by the September 11 terrorist attacks to launch an all-out rhetorical assault on religious belief—an effort that has a religious zeal all its own!

Have these 9/11 attacks vindicated the claims of Juergensmeyer and Schwartz? Yale theologian Mirsoslav Volf’s 2008 essay “Christianity and Violence” offers a superb response to such criticisms. (It was published in War in the Bible and Violence in the Twenty-First Century, eds. Richard S. Hess and Elmer A. Martens [Eisenbrauns]). I’ll follow his discussion as well as offer some of my own comments.

For starters, we’re not denying that the Crusades, Inquisition, and Europe’s religious wars are a tragedy in the history of Christendom. But do these events reflect the essence of Christianity? Why pick these anti-Christian events as the focal point of one’s criticism? Why not look at the example of Jesus—not to mention Francis of Assisi, Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa, and other Christian peacemakers? Indeed, violence carried out in Jesus’ name flies in the face of Jesus’ own teaching and example. Continue Reading »

[Doug Powell is a guest author and apologist.  His website can be found at www.dougpowell.com]

Just in time for the 2008 Christmas season, the American Humanist Association launched a new ad campaign with the message “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake.” The ads feature a Christmas motif with their snowflakes and green and red lettering, and some even picture a guy in a Santa suit. But the campaign slogan reveals a confusion about the nature of morality.

According to Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association, “Humanists have always understood that you don’t need a god to be good. Morality doesn’t come from religion. It’s a set of values embraced by individuals and society based on empathy, fairness, and experience.” The interesting thing about this statement is that Speckhardt characterizes empathy and fairness as good, but he doesn’t say why these things are good. And that is the real question: What makes good things good? What grounds morality?

There are only two possible sources for morality: God or human beings. If, as the American Humanist Association claims, morality is grounded in human beings and their experience, then some very serious problems arise. The first problem is that it justifies societies that are clearly morally wrong, such as Nazi Germany. If morality is “a set of values embraced by society based on empathy, fairness, and experience,” then Nazi Germany did nothing wrong. Being empathetic does not mean doing good to someone, only understanding their feelings. And the Nazis were fair – all Jews were sent to concentration camps. The morality of their society cannot be condemned by our society since their society simply embraced values that differ from ours. Continue Reading »

(HT: Bring the Noiz)

1. Cosmological Argument: Also called the argument from universal causation or the argument from contingency, the cosmological argument is probably the most well know and well loved among theistic apologists. The basic argument is that all effects have an efficient cause. The universe and all that is in it, due to its contingent (dependent) nature, is an effect. Therefore, the universe has an cause. But that  cause cannot be an effect or one would have to explain its cause. Therefore, there must be an ultimate cause, an unmoved mover, an uncaused cause that began the process. This cause must transcend time and space in order to transcend the law of cause and effect. This transcendent entity must be personal in order to willfully cause the effect. This ultimate cause is God.

2. Teleological Argument: (Gr. telos, “end” or “purpose”) This is also know as the argument from design. This argument moves from complexity to a necessary explanatory cause for such complexity. The universe has definite design, order, and arrangement which cannot be sufficiently explained outside a theistic worldview. From the complexities of the human eye to the order and arrangement of the cosmology, the voice of God is heard. Therefore, God’s existence is the best explanation for such design. God is the undesigned designer.

3. Moral Argument: This argument argues from the reality of moral laws to the existence of a necessary moral law giver. The idea here is that if there are moral laws (murder is wrong, selfishness is wrong, self-sacrifice is noble, torturing innocent babies for fun is evil), then there must be a transcendent explanation and justification for such laws. Otherwise, they are merely conventions that are not morally binding on anyone. Since there are moral laws, then there must be a moral law giver who transcends space and time. This moral law giver is God. Continue Reading »

The above title is taken from a chapter in the eminent sociologist Rodney Stark’s recent book What Americans Really Believe (Baylor University Press, 2008). Anti-Christian prophets such Thomas Woolston (1670-1731) and Voltaire (1694-1778) foretold the disappearance of religion. In the 1960s, anthropologist Anthony Wallace claimed, “The evolutionary future of religion is extinction.” Belief in supernatural forces affecting nature without obeying its “laws” will “erode and become only an interesting memory.” Around that time sociologist Peter Berger was quoted in the New York Times as saying that religious believers “are likely to be found only in small sects, huddled together to resist a worldwide secular culture.” However, in 1997 Berger took it all back, as the world had gotten more religious since that assertion. Atheists are ever the minority in our global village.

The rise of the New Atheism, led by what Stark calls “angry and remarkably nasty atheists,” is attested to by several bestsellers, which have presumably signaled a breakthrough for atheism—“that large numbers of Americans were now ready to stand up and admit they didn’t believe in God.” Despite recent claims that the number of atheists has risen sharply in recent years, the evidence reveals something else: “what most people who say they have no religion mean is not that they are irreligious, but that they have no church.”

The percentage of atheists in America revealed by, say, Gallup polls and the Baylor Survey, shows a tenacious consistency over the years: 1944: 4%; 1947: 6%; 1964: 3%; 1994: 3%; 2005: 4%; 2007: 4%. I found it interesting that “the majority of children born into an irreligious home end up joining a religious group—most often a conservative denomination.” Continue Reading »

contra “The Argument from Finite Knowledge”

I have heard many people use an illustration when talking about atheism and its viability. Many will say that they can convert an atheist to an agnostic with this simple illustration. Here is how it goes.

If someone claims to be an atheist, you can easily convert them to agnosticism thereby moving them one step closer to theism. How? By asking them a series of questions.

First you ask them how certain they are that there is not a God. If they say that they are not certain, that is just what they believe, then you inform them that they are not really an atheist–one who is certain that there is no God–but an agnostic–one who is uncertain about God’s existence.

If they say that they are certain that there is no God, then you move to step two. Here you draw a large circle that represents all knowledge in the universe. You ask them to draw a circle within that circle that represents their relative knowledge in relation to all knowledge. Of course, they will draw a much smaller circle within the large circle knowing that they do not possess all knowledge, only a small portion of the whole. Once they have created this smaller circle, you ask them if God could exist somewhere in this vast area that you have no knowledge about. They should always answer yes since that area is their area of ignorance. At that point, it is said, you have converted them from atheism to agnosticism. Voila! The Argument from Finite Knowledge. Continue Reading »