Castle Church Discussion on apologetics

The Myth of Neutrality - Greg Bahnsen

Fri, 09 Nov 2007 07:05:47 GMT

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

In Pursuit of Truth

Fri, 24 Aug 2007 02:05:31 GMT

The C.S. Lewis Foundation (owners of the Kilns and the folks who run the program “Oxbridge”) have started a new online, peer-reviewed journal: In Pursuit of Truth. The online articles look very helpful.

Here's an outline of an article by Leland Ryken on bad ways--and good ways--to read Lewis's The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.

Bad practice #1 is using The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe instead of receiving it.

Bad practice #2 is to value The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe primarily as a collection of ideas.

Misconception #3 is to assume that when Lewis composed The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, he started with a set of ideas and then created fictional details to embody them.

Good practice #1 is to read The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe first as an escape from the real world to an imagined world.

Good practice#2 is to enter into the particulars of the imagined world that a writer creates.

Good practice #3 is to view the far-flung fantasies of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe as a window to reality and truth.

Good practice #4 is to value the artistry and technique of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe as a self-rewarding aesthetic experience.

Good practice #5 is to recognize and value the religious and moral viewpoints embodied in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.

Read the whole thing--and check out the rest of the journal.

(HT: Mere Orthodoxy)

Interview with Carson on Worship

Fri, 24 Aug 2007 02:05:25 GMT

In the year 2000 Tony Payne (Mathias Media) interviewed Don Carson about worship. They had a subsequent email exchange about it. Both are online.

(HT: Andy Naselli again!)

Traditional Islam Radio Show (Part 2)

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:05:15 GMT

The second segment of the Islam Radio show is now available for mp3 download for anyone who listened to part 1 and wanted to continue. You can find both downloads if you scroll down on the link below, or at apple itunes podcasts.

Apologetics Radio Show - Traditional Islam Part 2

God Bless,

Doug

Maintaining Your Faith While Attending a Secular University - Greg L. Bahnsen

Tue, 10 Jul 2007 22:58:40 GMT

A busy academic and social schedule in college can easily pull the Christian away from God’s Word. But remember: you cannot defend God and His Word if you are not sanctified (set apart) for Him by means of contact with His Word. Too many Christian Students drift away from the faith in college because they have not been prepared for the spiritual and apologetic battles they will face. Dr. Gary North once wrote an article advertising a Christian college. The article showed a dejected father who had sent his son off to a secular college. It stated: “I spent $40,000 to send my son to hell.”

Seven Practices Christians Must Do in College.

1. Frequently remind yourself of the nature of spiritual warfare. In order to prepare yourself for your college classes, at the beginning of each semester you should re-read the biblical passages that demonstrate the active antagonism of the unbelieving world against your Christian faith. You must not forget the nature of the unbeliever’s challenge to your holistic (all encompassing) faith.

2. Diligently seek to evaluate everything you are being taught from a principled Christian perspective. After classes each day, jot down comments on the contradictions to the Christian faith which you encountered. Keep them in a notebook. Writing things down is the best secret to a good memory. Reflect on biblical answers to these supposed contradictions.

3. Develop small Bible study and accountability groups with other Christian students on campus. A part of defending the faith involves promoting its defense even among believers. As a Christian in fellowship with other Christians, you should urge fellow believers to realize their spiritual obligation to defend the faith before and unbelieving world.

4. Seek out any Christian campus ministries that are strongly committed to the Bible and are developing the Christian life. Attend their meetings and involve yourself in their ministries.

5. Find a good church in the area of your college. Commit yourself to attend church regularly. As Christians, we must not be “forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encourage one another” (Heb. 10:25).

6. Where possible use class assignments to present the Christian perspective on issues. We would recommend that you avoid narrow testimonial types of papers. You should rather discretely develop worldview oriented themes that work basic Christian principles into the picture. In-your-face testimonials might be an affront to your professor and may appear to be a challenge to him. But working out your biblical principles might alert him to the philosophical implications of Christianity and will certainly help you flesh out your own understanding. You must be about “making the most of your time” while in college . . . You will certainly not find your professors assigning papers that encourage your Christian faith. But you must seek the opportunities—when they are allowed.

7. As a well-rounded Christian seeking to glorify Christ, you must approach your academic studies in a mature and diligent fashion. Your are both paying hard-earned money for a college education and spending your God-given time in college; make the most of your investment. Do not cut corners in your studies or simply try to “get by.” Christ calls you to excellence. Some students are naturally lazy, others suffer from voluntary inertia. Do not allow your educational experience to inadvertently teach you to be intellectually lazy. Such laziness is disloyalty to Christ.

-Greg L. Bahnsen; Pushing the Antithesis-

An Honest Atheist

Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:30:24 GMT

By “an honest atheist,” I do not mean that atheists are always being deceptive, but when it comes to the idea of worldviews, the materialist will many times claim that they have reached their conclusion through an unbiased look at the evidence, but this is clearly not the case. All of our interpretation of evidence will be formed by our presuppositions. This is why it was refreshing to read evolutionist, Richard Lewontin’s comment regarding materialism and science. He said…

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Richard Lewontin “Billions and billions of demons,” The New York Review (Jan. 9, 1997).

Presuppositions must be addressed when doing apologetics. If you are looking for a good book in how this is done, I recommend “Pushing the Antithesis; The Apologetic Methodology of Greg L. Bahnsen.” I am currently reading through it and will hopefully be offering a few quotes dealing with this topic.

God Bless,

Doug

On Miracles and David Hume (part 1)

Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:54:44 GMT

David Hume in his article “Of Miracles” has made what appears to be a strong case against miracles. His article is continually read on college campuses and is still held as one of the strongest arguments against miracles. Almost all the arguments against miracles that were to follow are merely restated versions of Hume’s arguments. In fact, David Hume touted his own argument as the definitive argument that will be used by all wise and learned men as long as the world endures. This argument can be broken down into two parts, the “in principle” argument and the “in fact” argument.

Part I, the “in principle” argument, is the argument that is philosophical in nature. It deals with the repeatability of and event and the laws of nature. The argument can be broken down as follows.

1). A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature.
2). Firm and unalterable experience has established these laws.
3). A wise man proportions his beliefs to the evidence.
4). Therefore, the proof against a miracle is as complete as any argument from experience can be.

Part II, the “in fact” argument deals with the historical and evidential nature of a miraculous claim. Hume does this through 1) questioning the reliability of any witness of a miracle by looking at his lack of education and/or his uncivilized environment, 2) appealing to the nature of humans to gossip and/or exaggerate, and 3) having claims of miracles from competing religion cancel out each other.

The “in fact” argument will be explained in greater detail and critiqued in a second post on this topic. The main focus of this post will be to critique the “in principle” argument set for by Hume.

When looking at the four part “in principle” argument as cited earlier. Norman Geisler sites two possible interpretations, the hard and the soft. The hard interpretation could be broken down as follows. 1) Miracles by definition are violations of natural law. 2) Natural laws are unalterably uniform. 3) Therefore, miracles cannot occur.

Looking at it in this way Hume simply begs the question. The question to which we are seeking an answer is can a violation in a law of nature occur? Hume says no because they cannot be violated. Hence he is begging the question. It is doubtful that this is the argument that Hume was trying to make so the softer view is probably more realistic. The softer view can be broken down as follows. 1) Miracles are rare. 2) Natural laws are regular occurrences. 3) There is always more evidence for the regular than the rare. 4) A wise person will always go with the greater evidence. 5) Therefore a wise person would never believe in a miracle.

When looking at Hume’s argument in this light, miracles are not ruled as impossible, instead, they simply cannot be believed in even if they do occur. This argument is based on what is know as the “repeatability principle” which says that evidence for something that occurs repeatedly will always outweigh the evidence for those events that do not repeat regularly. To refute this argument, I will summarize four refutations given by Norman Geisler.

1) The assumption of uniform experience- Hume uses uniform experience against miracles claiming that natural laws have not been broken in the past, but he would need to have a form of omniscience in order to understand all the laws of nature and know that they have not been broken. Since he does not have this knowledge, he cannot say they’ve never been broken. Maybe he was only speaking of the uniform knowledge of a person who has never seen a miracle, but this rules out the experience of someone who has seen a miracle. Either way Hume gives no reason why we should believe the experience of uniformity over those who claim to have experienced a miracle.

2) Adding evidence verses weighing evidence- Really what Hume is doing here is stating that people should base their belief on probability rather than evidence. For instance, he says that it is more probable for a man who died, to stay dead, than it is for him to be resurrected, so we should believe the higher probability even if a resurrection did take place. But if we use this kind of logic we could never believe a rare event if it was within the laws of nature. For example, suppose we have a shopping center with a staircase, and it is said to be the safest staircase ever made. Thousands of people walk up and down it everyday, and no one has ever fallen down it. If we extend Hume’s reasoning to this scenario, and one day we heard the testimony of many eyewitnesses say someone fell down the staircase, we would not be wise in believing it because more people have walked up and down the staircase without falling then those who have fallen. We should not believe the story of someone falling, because it goes against the probability of regardless of the evidence.

3) Evidence for the past cannot determine the present- Hume is telling us that a wise person will believe that miracles will never happen. If there is someone who is trying to show evidence for an alleged miracle, the wise person should come with the presupposition that the claim is false, based on the evidence of the past which is infallible. This type of reasoning is fallacious because even in science things that are repeatable could alter in the future. We are not guaranteed that the sun will rise tomorrow simply because it always has. Sure the probabilities are high that it will, but it is not a guarantee, and if we were to notice a 48 hour period without seeing the sun rise. We would not be unwise to think that something had altered the normal rising of the sun, simply because every other day of our lives it rose. There are also anomalies in nature, which have no supernatural connotation, so to state that a person should never believe and exception to a repeated event hurts Hume’s case.

4) Confusing the basis of knowledge and the object of knowledge- Hume also confuses the basis of knowledge with the object of knowledge when he says that the evidence for what is repeatable is always greater than the evidence of what is rare. For example, we will use a great piece of art to show this type of confusion. We realize that a piece of art is great because we have seen many great pieces of art by many great artists. This is the basis of knowledge. We also know that the production of great art is a repeatable event, but this is not the object of knowledge. The object of knowledge is a single piece of work (e.g. the Mona Lisa). This single piece of work will never be repeated, it is a one-time event. When we have evidence of something being miraculous, we must not confuse the basis of knowledge with the object of knowledge. The basis of knowledge for a miraculous event is when we see something take place outside the laws of nature, and we realize that some higher or more intelligent force cause it. This is the repeatable, but the object of knowledge is the single miracle, which will never be repeated.

After careful review of Hume’s “in principle” argument, we see that he did not prove that miracles cannot take place, but he actually helps us define what a miracle is.

-Doug Eaton-

On the Resurrection of Jesus

Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:06:18 GMT

When refuting arguments against the resurrection, it is important to know the core facts that most scholars believe about the events surrounding Jesus’ death. There are usually at least four core facts that are held by Christian and non-Christian scholars.

1. Jesus was crucified and died
2. Jesus’ tomb was found empty
3. The Apostles believed they had experiences with the risen Christ.
4. Christ’s disciples were radically transformed after these experiences.

1) Jesus was crucified and died- Virtually every scholar holds to this proposition. They believe that Jesus was actually crucified and that He did in fact die. Rarely is this fact contested. The idea of the actual crucifixion being a conspiracy is not one generally held. He was nailed to the cross and died.

2) Jesus tomb was found empty- The first point that this core fact insinuates is that Jesus was actually buried. William Lane Craig, in his article The Empty Tomb of Jesus, goes into great detail and gives us five points why scholars believe this. 1) There are many early sources that attest to the burial of Jesus. 2) Even skeptical scholars agree that it is unlikely that Joseph of Arimathea was a Christian invention due to the fact that he was a Jewish Sanhedrist. Christian’s were at odds with the Sanhedrin, so why would they create a story of a Sanhedrist doing what was right in burying Jesus. 3) The story of the burial is simple and is not trying to conjure theological reflection and it is non-apologetic. 4) It is also believed because this type of burial was the custom in dealing with the death of a Holy man. 5) Finally, this is the only burial tradition that existed, which means it would have been completely out of character to do something different. The belief in the burial is important because it is needed to believe in an empty tomb. He had to be buried and they had to know which tomb he was buried in to find it empty. Why it was found empty is where scholars differ.

3) The apostles believed they had experiences with the risen Jesus- Again most scholars will agree that the apostles has some type of experience which they believed was the risen Jesus, but they do not agree on what the actual experience was. Some say it was a hallucination; some say it was the ghost of Jesus, and others believe it was the physical resurrected body of Jesus. These issues will be covered in the arguments against the naturalistic theories about Jesus’ death and resurrection.

4) Jesus’ disciples were radically transformed after these experiences- We can look at the example of Peter who denied Jesus three times in fear of his life during the events that lead up to the crucifixion. After these experiences with the risen Christ, he went on to be the leading spokesperson for the resurrection of Jesus. He was later crucified and would not back down even if it meant death. In fact, all of Jesus’ disciples were killed for their belief, except for John who was dipped in boiling oil and survived.

Virtually every scholar holds the four core facts listed above. In light of these four facts there have been three naturalistic arguments, which try to explain that Jesus did not rise from the dead. They are 1) the swoon theory 2) the hallucination theory, and 3) the stolen body or conspiracy theory.

1) Arguments against the swoon theory- The swoon theory is the argument that Jesus never really died on the cross, he merely went into a swoon, a kind of coma or unconsciousness, and later he was revived by the cool of the tomb. The first thing we notice is that this theory violates core fact #1 that Jesus was crucified and died. It also violates core fact #4, Jesus disciples were radically changed after the experiences of seeing Jesus. This raises the question, would the disciples have been radically transformed at the sight of a half dead Jesus? The swoon theory is not a highly regarded argument because of these violations, but in order to not commit the bandwagon fallacy, let us look at a few other reasons why this is not possible. A) Kreeft and Tacelli in the book Handbook of Christian Apologetics, point out that Jesus’ body was totally encased in a winding sheet (we know this from the burial tradition mentioned earlier). How could a half dead man escape a virtual straight jacket? B) We know that a swooning corpse could not have overpowered the Roman guards. C) Who moved the stone? D) Kreeft and Tacelli also make a great point that he swoon theory actually turns into the conspiracy theory, because the disciples attest to a resurrected Jesus who did not swoon. The conspiracy theory will be addressed later. E) Finally, a swooning Jesus would have had to eventually die, so where is His body?

2) Arguments against the hallucination theory- the hallucination theory is the theory that the disciples did not really see a resurrected Jesus, but merely hallucinated. This would explain why the disciples were radically transformed, because they actually thought they saw a resurrected Jesus, but this violates core fact #2, Jesus’ tomb was found empty. If the disciples were hallucinating whey didn’t the Romans take them to the tomb and show them the body when the disciples began preaching. This would have stopped them in their tracks. Kreeft and Tacelli bring up some other arguments also. A) There were too many witnesses. At one point Jesus appeared to 500 people at on time. Did they all have the same hallucination? B) One of the criteria that doctors say is needed hallucinations of this type is that the people expect to see what they see. The disciples didn’t expect to see Jesus. In fact, when they did see him they still didn’t believe, which lead to Thomas touching His wounds, and hallucinations do not have material properties. C) Jesus ate. Hallucinations do not eat. At one point the disciples sat down and ate with Jesus. If this was a hallucination, then either a hallucination (Jesus) ate actual food, or the disciples ate hallucinated food. It is clear from all the details of the appearances of Jesus that they could not have been hallucinations.

3) Arguments against the stolen body or conspiracy theory- This is the idea that the disciples stole the body in order to make people believe Jesus had actually resurrected, but this violates core fact #4 the disciples were radically transformed. How could a group of men go from being men who feared for their lives to men who would die for their beliefs if they knew that their beliefs were a lie? Another argument is that this goes against the character of the disciples. These were honest upright men who would have had to violate their core beliefs to pull this off.

Some might say that it was not the disciples who took the body but the Romans, but we have already shown earlier that if it were the Romans, all they would have to do in order to put a stop to the disciples preaching would be to produce the body. This also violates core fact #3 that the disciples believed they saw a resurrected Jesus. If the Romans had taken the body then they disciples would have had hallucinations, and we have already shown that this does not work.

Up to this point there has not been a plausible naturalistic explanation for the resurrection of Jesus, which leaves us with the alternative that he did raise physically from the dead.

-Doug Eaton-

Science, Philosophy, and the Word of God

Wed, 06 Jun 2007 04:30:12 GMT

"In the year 1861 the French Academy of Science published a list of fifty-one so-called scientific facts, each of which, it was alleged, disproved some statement in the Bible. Today the Bible remains as it was then, but not one of these fifty-one so called Facts is held by men of science.. . .. Does anyone really believe that science and Philosophy have yet reached, even approximately, their final form? May it not rather be contended that they are so far removed from their ultimate [true] form that if the teachings of the Bible were in complete harmony with present-day science and philosophy they would be out of harmony with the science and philosophy of the future."

Loraine Boettner, Studies in Theology

How firm is your foundation? The wise man will build his house upon the rock, which is the Word of God. (Matt. 7:24)

Doug

Do Religious Experiences Prove That God Exists?

Fri, 01 Jun 2007 03:40:04 GMT

Here is an interesting article by my good friend Chris Neiswonger from the apologetics.com radio show.

Religious experience is, I think, the basis for a very powerful argument, but only powerful upon people that have had such an experience. (This is a complicated claim that I will expand upon a little later.) With my theological background flowing from the Reformed tradition I would say that all people have such an experience whether they admit one or not. Read more

God Bless,

Doug

The Metaphysics of Science - Carl F. H. Henry

Wed, 30 May 2007 05:12:12 GMT

Scientific study is not nearly as disengaged from metaphysical commitments as it is often represented to be. The fact of causality, for example, was for a long time as dogmatically affirmed in the study of physics, and with far less justification, as is the reality of God by theologians. More recently, due to the evident limitations of empirical method, many physicists concede that causality is a non-experimental idea, and they speak more guardedly of observed sequences of events. Yet contemporary science is nonetheless replete with metaphysical postulations. Who has ever seen an atom or an electron? It will be replied, of course, that vast differences separate the celestial beings with which the ancient religions filled the invisible world and natural selection, gravitational fields, electrons and other postulates of modern science. For one thing science is a method of knowing that accepts nothing as final (let it be said with finality!) and stands always ready to revise its finding (the word findings may itself be less than accurate). But if we remember that mathematical formulas reflect statistical averaging, the question arises whether the reported mathematical connection have in all or in some cases ever been observed and whether nature per se corresponds to them. Surely it will be pointed out that the empirical scientist does not simply assume metaphysical realities (a biblical theologian can only welcome reassurance at this point), but instead postulates them for purposes of explanation and then seeks to disprove his hypothesis, whether one speaks of a gravitational field or of electrons. If this is intended to imply that metaphysical affirmations become rationally significant only when both evidence and criteria of verification of disproof are introduced, the emphasis is no less welcome in theology than in empirical science. But if it implies that the empirical scientist additionally has a special way of testing the truth of metaphysical assertions, it is wholly of being correlated with sense verification is giving rise to new doubts. Operational science does not assume but denies the reality of an electromagnetic field. The scientist has on the basis of empirical methodology no legitimate metaphysics at all. Electrons in distinction from centaurs permit deductions which seem at present to sustain rather than to refute them, but whether natural selection and electrons are less imaginative than centaurs may well depend upon which generation of scientists one asks.

Carl F. H. Henry; God, Revelation and Authority, Vol. 1 p. 172

The New Atheism's Leap of Faith

Thu, 24 May 2007 05:20:10 GMT

There is on the rise something called the new atheism. It has come on the scene thanks to books like Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation and of course our friends the rational responders. Though there really is nothing new in the atheistic belief system itself since most of them are naturalists nor in the arguments they are presenting, what seems to be new is that these preachers of atheism have become much more dogmatic in their stance. Some of them are even preaching doom and gloom if religion or belief in God is not eradicated. Most of them though center in on one thing, and that is that they simply want to know the truth, instead of buying into some myth, and this is what everyone ought to be doing.

This idea that everyone ought to be doing this raises a problem though. Putting aside the question for a moment of whether or not there is a God; let us look at this claim of “oughtness” from within their naturalistic worldview. As Ravi Zacharias has so aptly pointed out, “wherever one finds “oughtness,” it is always linked together with a believed purpose in life. Purpose and oughtness are inextricably bound.”

What he is getting at is that the only way we can ever say that something is not as it ought to be is if we know what its purpose and function is. For example, the only way anyone can say that a watch is not working correctly, is if they know how it is supposed to work in the first place, or in other words how it was designed to work. If the watch has no purpose or proper function assigned to it, than there is no way to say that it is functioning incorrectly.

But this is exactly the problem that the naturalist runs into. Since naturalism cannot account for mankind’s purpose or proper function, it has no way of saying how it ought to be. Within the naturalistic worldview, mankind was not designed for any specific purpose; we are the product of a “blind watchmaker” which has no purpose in what it is doing. This lack of purpose makes any real statement of what ought to be, absolutely groundless.

These new atheist with their strong focus on reason and being logical seem to be making blind leap of faith from a purposeless creation, to what they think ought to be. It seems like the responders are not being as rational as they had hoped.

-Doug Eaton-

Atheistic Naturalism's False Hope

Wed, 23 May 2007 15:55:09 GMT

Many Atheists who hold to Naturalism argue that religion, especially Christianity, is the curse of mankind, since it causes men to be held in bondage to myth and oppressive meta-narrative. What mankind needs is to see that this human invention called god is not real, then and only then can they be free to think in light of the way things really are. This newly found “free” thought will enable men to live true lives of purpose and meaning, by doing what really matters, not lives of false purpose built upon myth.

The problem is that this newfound freedom and hope is refuted by their own philosophical belief. The reason for this is that the freedom they promise is snuffed out by the materialistic determinism that their worldview logically demands. If naturalism is true, then we are captive within this closed system of cause and effect, and every thought, action, belief, and hope is merely determined by materialistic cause and effect. This is because our choices and freedoms are merely the phenomena produced by the functions of our brain. And our brains are determined by nothing more than chemical reactions and other physical causes.

The result of this is that the naturalist tears down one thing they think is a myth and false hope, namely God, and holds up another false hope, namely free minds. This then is portrayed as progress toward freedom, when in fact it enslaves us to a new myth; the religion of meaning and hope found in thought without God.

And as German sociologist Max Weber argues, “Man embraces religion at the point of meaning.” And since meaning and purpose cannot be accounted for by the naturalistic worldview, so then any appeal to it tends to digress back to the very thing they are arguing against, and becomes their new god.

Aldous Huxley said it best when speaking about purpose and meaning from within the naturalistic worldview. He said, “Science has “explained” nothing; the more we know the more fantastic the world becomes, and the profounder the surrounding darkness.”

Though this in no way proves the existence of God it shows one of the many self-defeating claims of the naturalist, and exposes a major leap of faith taken by many who hold to this worldview. The leap from a naturalistic world to a world with meaning and purpose: a leap that cannot be made through reason.

-Doug Eaton-

A Friendly Critique of the Cameron and Comfort vs. Rational Responders Debate Part I

Mon, 14 May 2007 00:05:05 GMT

INTRODUCTION

Both pop-evangelical culture and the skeptical internet community are discussing the recent debate held between participants Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron versus “Kelly” and “Brian Sapient” of the Rational Response Squad. As of today (5-12-07), no comments have been offered regarding the debate from the ministry of Comfort and Cameron, but the Rational Responders have proclaimed that they believe themselves have been victorious over Christian Theism. We will get to the issue of their supposed “victory” in light of Comfort and Cameron’s performance later in this series, but it is more imperative that we first begin by turning our attention to something that Cameron and Comfort said before the debate,

"Perhaps you think that anyone who says he can prove the existence of God is a dreamer . . . we can prove that God exists, scientifically, absolutely, without mentioning faith or even the Bible,” said Comfort and Cameron. “Do you find that hard to believe? Then watch the debate.”

I already commented on this statement two weeks before the debate occurred and so what is said here will be somewhat re-worked material with the necessary post-debate commentary and observations. It is important at the outset of this critique to provide a disclaimer stating that I have no personal angst against Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, and The Way of the Master ministries. Instead, I and others in our church body have benefited from their respective ministries in the past and truly appreciate their efforts at building the Kingdom of God through the use and application of law in evangelism. However, although I truly appreciate their ministries, it is imperative that we provide an examination of (I) their proposed apologetic methodology and then (II) provide a helpful criticism regarding their use of classical apologetic argumentation in light of various challenges presented to them by the Rational Responders.

I. Examining a Proposed and Flawed Apologetic Methodology

Problem # 1: We do not prove the existence of the God of Christianity by first giving up Christianity.

Again, let me review what Comfort and Cameron have said,

"Perhaps you think that anyone who says he can prove the existence of God is a dreamer . . . we can prove that God exists, scientifically, absolutely, without mentioning faith or even the Bible,” said Comfort and Cameron . . . .” [1] [Bolded emphasis mine]

For Comfort and Cameron to declare that they intended to employ this type of apologetic method is irreverent, dishonoring to Christ and is downright sinful. Greg Bahnsen rightly said,

“Neutrality in scholarship, apologetics, or schooling is both impossible and immoral. No man can serve two masters, and thus one must choose to ground his intellectual efforts in Christ or in his own autonomous reason; there is no middle ground between these two authorities. Neutrality would erase the distinctiveness of the Christian position and muffle the antithesis between godly and ungodly thinking. A Christian who strives to be neutral not only denies the Lordship of Christ in knowledge and loses his solid ground in reasoning, he also unwittingly endorses assumptions which are hostile to his faith.”[2]

As mentioned with Dr. Bahnsen’s comment above, the apologetic methodology Comfort and Cameron employed is sinful because (1) it assumes that unbelievers have the ability to correctly examine, interpret, and come to the proper conclusions about hard evidence apart from special revelation, thus giving heed to their sinful autonomy versus calling them to repentance for it. (2) They verbally announced that they would defend the existence of “God” without any mention of “faith or even the Bible”,[3] and as a result, one of the traditional arguments that they sought to use (i.e., the teleological argument per the “Portrait assumes a painter” argument by Comfort) actually backfired on them somewhat as seen in Sapient’s rebuttal period. The classical arguments for the existence of God, in their traditional form, do not defend the existence of the Christian God but only an extremely nebulous concept of a “god” that could just as well be Zoroaster, Zeus, Allah, or one of the infinite numbers of supposed gods presupposed by the theosis doctrine of Mormonism. Worse yet, this “god” wouldn’t have to necessarily be theistic, especially since Comfort and Cameron would not have been able to make any reference to their “faith”, had they adhered to their original debate challenge. Such a god(s) could merely be super-intelligent extraterrestrials that created advanced life and seeded the planet earth in the distant past. As a result, had they adhered to a purely evidential-scientific apologetic approach in this debate (which they did not) they would have willingly avoided (per their own words) doing the very thing that they as Christians are commanded to do, namely, to “earnestly contend for the faith (versus giving it up) once for all handed down to the saints” (Jude 3), and “sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts”. However, as Cornelius Van Til has noted, the defense of the Christian worldview must necessarily have as its foundation the self-attesting Christ of Scripture. There is simply no other way of appropriately and biblically providing a rationale for the hope that abides in you (Col. 2:3; 1 Peter 3:15).

There was much ado in this debate about appealing to general revelation to prove the existence of God, (i.e., where there is a painting there must be a painter), but such a generic and non-specific approach fails both biblically and philosophically.

Biblically: General revelation (as per Romans 1) does not prove the existence of some nebulous concept of a god, but proves that the ton theon (“the God” cf. Rom. 1:21 in Greek) of Scripture exists and that the unbeliever already intuitively knows that He exists and thus needs no “proving” as it were:

Romans 1:19-21 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. ²⁰ For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. ²¹ For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened..

Paul says that the creation reveals God’s existence, eternal power, and divine nature, and wrath against suppressors of said truth (Romans 1:18-20). His primary point in Romans 1 is not that unbelievers are ignorant of God’s existence and simply need to be educated via the traditional proofs and historical evidences, but that unbelievers do already in fact know about God and will intuitively recognize His creative power in nature. However, as God-haters, they will sinfully suppress the truth and knowledge that they already have about Him and as a result, they will be judged for it, regardless of their lack of special revelation. Of course, general revelation does not show man the way of salvation, the Trinitarian nature of God, and other necessary doctrinal truths, but it does show the Christian that every unbeliever has enough knowledge to damn him, but not always enough to save him, hence the need for missionaries (Rom. 10:14-17).

And so, Paul’s commentary in Romans 1:18-22 shows that all unbelievers know intuitively that God exists and that this knowledge is sufficient in and of itself to condemn them to hell. The knowledge that they possess intuitively consists in His wondrous power in creation and their moral responsibility to Him (Rom. 1:19-21). The strange theories that they concoct about the origin of the universe and man serves as further corroborating evidence that they are truth suppressors hell-bent on escaping their own moral culpability (Rom. 1:22-23). Comfort and Cameron already know this and have spoken and written about it. However, for them to proposition for a debate by giving the atheist the very thing that the word of God denies him (namely, autonomous neutrality) is to deny what Paul clearly teaches about unbelievers as outlined in Romans chapter 1.

In part II, I will provide some helpful, constructive criticism regarding the debate proper, so that we can learn how not to do apologetics.

[1] http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/152669.aspx

[2] Greg Bahnsen, Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith, (Nagadoches, TX, 1996), 51.

[3] http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/152669.aspx

Greg Bahnsen quotes on apologetics

Sun, 13 May 2007 10:10:03 GMT

In light of some of the Ray Comfort chatter these quotes by the Greg Bahnsen are helpful::

The unbeliever opposes the Christian faith with a whole, antithetical system of thought-not simply with piecemeal criticisms. His attack is aimed not merely at certain random points of Christian teaching, but at its foundation. The particular criticisms utilized by the unbeliever rest upon basic key assumptions which unify and inform his thinking. It is this presuppositional root which the apologist must aim to eradicate if his defense of the faith is to be effective.

Because the unbeliever has such an implicit system of thought directing his attack on the faith the Christian can never be satisfied to defend the hope that is in him by merely stringing together isolated evidences which offer a slight probability of the Bible’s veracity. Each particular item of evidence will be evaluated (as to both its truthfulness and degree of probability) by the unbeliever’s tacit assumptions; his general worldview will provide the context in which the evidential claim is understood and weighed. What one presupposes as to possibility will even determine how he rates ‘probability’”

An unbeliever is not simply an unbeliever at separate points; his antagonism is rooted in an overall philosophy (Col. 2.8) which is according to the world’s tradition; thus is an enemy of God in his mind (Col. 1.21; Jam. 4.4) and uses his mind to nullify or obviate God’s word (Mk. 7.8-13).

The Christian can then teach the unbeliever that all wisdom and knowledge must take Jesus Christ as its reference point (Col. 2.3). The believer’s thinking, just as the unbeliever’s is grounded in a self-validating starting-point. This ultimate truth must be an expression of God’s mind; He alone speaks with unquestionable authority and self-attesting veracity. Thus Jesus categorically claimed to be the truth (John 14.6) (Bahnsen, Always Ready), pp. 67-69.

The Way of the Disaster...when debating atheists, first know what you are talking about

Sat, 12 May 2007 16:05:18 GMT

Clint Eastwood, in his famous “Dirty Harry” detective series, makes this profound statement: ”a man’s got to know his limitations.” Such wisdom would also apply in the field of apologetics when actor Kirk Cameron and evangelist Ray Comfort said they could prove the existence of God (100% scientifically guaranteed) as fact, without using the Bible or appealing to faith. It sadly and unfortunately went downhill from there.

I really do like Kirk and Ray (though I have never met them in person) and what they are trying to accomplish through their Way of the Master program. They have brought back a right emphasis on the Law of God in presenting the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Their approach and methods are a bit prepackaged, stock, and pedestrian and I have never heard them explain justification by faith alone after going through their "have you ever told a lie? what does that make you.. a liar" rap. It is obvious they are dear brothers in the Lord with a burden for lost people. But feelings aside - you must know the Word of God and the subject you are addressing if you are going to step out on national TV and try and debate two atheists "the existence of God."

(BTW, these two atheists were not intellectual elites or gifted apologists for their views. They were two uptight, ticked off academic lightweights with an obvious agenda who came off as if they took a trip to the National Museum of Science and Industry to "study" fossils in order to bone-up on their views before that evening's debate using very stunted, sophmoric, and handicaped logic. Any prepared Christian apologist should have swept the floor with them... [Both of them claimed to be Christians before becoming atheists] ).

In case you didn’t see this debate on "ABCNews Face Off" this past Thursday evening—the premise was this: Ray comfort contacted ABC and said that he wanted to debate two atheists on the existence of God that he had seen on an ABC Nightline show some months before that featured a “Blasphemy Challenge.” He went on to say that he could 100% scientifically prove God’s existence without appealing to faith or Scripture - that is was a matter of fact and didn't require faith to be convinced of its truthfulness.

This was a recipe for disaster from the get go.

First of all, no biblical text ever asserts or affirms this kind of tactic. It might play well on ABC for a bit of evening controversy, but little if anything profitable for the kingdom came of this disappointing display of inept, unprepared, and unbiblical apologetics. To add insult to injury, neither Kirk nor Ray proved "100% scientifically the existence of God" by using science. Secondly, they never presented one shred of scientific evidence to support their dogmatic claim. Thirdly, I didn’t think it was possible a Christian to lose a debate on the existence of God to two atheists—but that is exactly what happened.

This debate proved a few things though, "religious talking points" in the real world of unbridled ideas and seasoned news professionals is an effort in futility and doesn’t serve well the cause of the gospel. And this should be a point of learning for us all: the gospel, beloved, IS the power of God unto salvation--not some foolish, silly around the barn approach to proving God's existence. Also, that the gospel of teh Lord Jesus Christ is not an offer of salvation, but a call and command to follow Jesus and be reconciled unto God (2 Cor. 5:16-21; Acts 17:19-31).

My brothers Kirk and Ray: please, I beg you, stay out of mainstream media; stop running your Way Of The Master infomercials on TBN; get trained biblically in the essentials of the faith and apologetics; don’t do any more debates until you are fully ready; learn how to communicate the gospel of sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus to nonbelievers when real questions are being asked; listen to what people are actually asking you so you don't needless frustrate another audience by not honoring their words (1 Peter 3:15); and finally, if you ever have the courage to enter an exchange of ideas like this again on national TV representing the gospel, the Lord, and His people, please be prepared and really know what you are talking about. It seems your motives were well intentioned, but your lack of knowledge (biblical and scientific) on this issue and your failure to communicate clearly to those you were debating , has lost you real credibility not only among nonbelievers, but also among believers in the Lord Jesus Christ.

You can watch the entire debate here.

Logic: An Atheist's Nightmare

Fri, 11 May 2007 17:35:04 GMT

I've been having a discussion with a naturalistic atheist over how they account for logic and the meaninglessness of the discussion if their worldview is true. Here is the lastest video on the topic. It exposes some of the major problems with the naturalistic worldview and then it argues that if logic does exist and is eternal, then God must exist.

You can see his video at the link below. It is the video I am responding to.

Logic is not an Atheist's Nightmare

God bless,

Doug

Intelligent Design is NOT Science???

Thu, 10 May 2007 05:40:03 GMT

So I went ahead and posted the intelligent design argument to youtube. We'll see what kind of response it gets. That is if anyone even views it.

God Bless,

Doug

Intelligent Design is not Science

Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:20:07 GMT

I recently heard an argument against the intelligent design theory that states that intelligent design is not science. The reasoning for this claim is as follows. Intelligent design cannot not be science because when a scientist finds something that is irreducibly complex, such as the flagellum motor, they simply state that a natural cause cannot account for it and point to something supernatural. A true scientist would continue looking for the natural explanation, and to stop doing so is to stop doing science, because when we move to the realm of the supernatural we are now arguing for something that cannot be empirically proven and is unfalsifiable.

But does this really put it outside the realm of science? If it does, then I am going to argue that the naturalist, including the person making this argument is operating outside the realm of science also. This is because they are operating from a presupposition that cannot be empirically proven and is unfalsifiable. The presupposition that they are holding to is that everything does have a natural cause and a true scientist should seek to find it.

The problem is the presupposition that everything has a natural explanation has not been empirically proven. In fact, it would be impossible to prove because in order to do so, the scientist would have to explain everything in the universe. And this would be impossible to prove because every effect in which they explain its naturalistic cause, the cause they found would end up being an effect of a previous cause they would have to explain and so on. This would then turn into an infinite regress which could never be proven because it would take an infinite amount of time. The only way they could finish the job would be to come to some natural thing that would be the first cause that would have no naturalistic cause, which would then defeat their position. So until that is done, a true scientist would have to say that they don’t know if everything has a natural explanation.

This presupposition is also unfalsifiable because it cannot be proven false. Every time a scientist finds something that does not seem to have a naturalistic cause, the naturalist will argue that it must, and you should keep looking. And if it actually does not have a naturalistic cause then we will be looking forever for something that cannot be found, therefore it would be impossible to falsify the naturalist presupposition.

The bottom line is this, if appealing to something that cannot be empirically proven and is unfalsifiable cannot be included in the realm of science, then so be it, but that would mean that the naturalist is also working outside the realm of science.

-Doug Eaton-